Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 10 January 12 >

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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Ranjan Giri[edit]

Rajeev Ranjan Giri (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)

Nominated by IP user. Their rationale: Subject of the article is not notable. Full source analysis available at Talk:Rajeev Ranjan Giri#More analysis which includes all the sources that have been present in the article. BLPN thread failed to turn up any additional sourcing and it was suggested that the page be nominated for deletion so I have done so. Unfortunately significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources does not exist. initiated on behalf of IP by UtherSRG (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of former East Coast Wrestling Association personnel[edit]

List of former East Coast Wrestling Association personnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY; While East Coast Wrestling Association itself is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, a dedicated alumni list is overkill. ECWA would be amongst the lowest-ranking professional wrestling promotions in the United States and becoming an alumnus is not notable in of itself. For comparison, I don't believe any NBA team has a list of former personnel, even though being a member of an NBA team would make that person a much, much more prominent athlete.
WP:LISTCRITERIA outlines that notability should be a factor in considering the value of a list, and in the case of List of former East Coast Wrestling Association personnel, a very high percentage of the list do not have articles. Therefore, that makes this largely a list of non-notable people. CeltBrowne (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Walling[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rob Walling (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)

Most of the sources are either low-quality or not independent, I don't think this meets GNG or NAUTHOR. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. AllyD (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Minnesota. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi BuySomeApples - I would like to improve the article. Based on WP:100W his footprint is in the several hundred words from multiple sources and WP:GNG indicates that 2 or more resources is enough to establish notability. Do you have suggestions for what should be removed or needs clean up? I believe it meets GNG but maybe I need to remove which sources and information are low quality? I researched the authors of the major articles, such as Forbes, Entrepreneur, Foundr, are not affiliated with the topic. Also, Walling has been mentioned and referenced in multiple books by independent sources within his industry. I realize Foundr may not have the weight of the others (which for journalism is becoming more and more dubious every day), but as a source they seem to actually have credibility within that industry and the authors do not appear to be pay-for. Walling has a lot of information on Google News and Books that are secondary/independent which I have referenced, so I am asking so I can remove what I might have missed that seems not independent enough. I tried to limit use of information from primary interviews to WP:BLP qualifying facts only.

Open to suggestions. Thank you! Autoshotdc (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Autoshotdc: WP:FORBESCON is not considered reliable unfortunately. They look like Forbes articles but they don't have any editorial oversight. Sources like Entrepreneur and Foundr, which include short quotes or soundbytes from Walling but are not about him, don't count towards WP:GNG. (Also, WP:100W is just an essay, it's an opinion not a guideline.) BuySomeApples (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Thank you for your reply! I see what you are saying, and I have a different interpretation. I realize that WP:100 is an opinion essay, and is therefore referenced the guidelines for GNG, as GNG is somewhat subjective, grey and less black and white, hence the existence of the essay and word counting as a loose framework to apply when situations are not black and white. The SAAS industry is rife with bad SMEs. He is a heavily referenced subject matter expert in his field, and I find him to be a rare credible source, most of his content not being paid-for and the ones that are, such as press releases, I did not reference in this article because they are not credible sources. However, I did take the time to review the Forbes contributors which is what is called for when it is a contributor, to generally distrust it and vet the writers yourself. For someone to be a reference in books, news mentioned so heavily by heavyweight individuals within a field establishes credibility, and to have published books in the field as well, so I'm going with keep on this one. Autoshotdc (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Autoshotdc: It's always disappointing to have one of your articles nominated for deletion. At the same time, it doesn't look like the Forbescon writers are subject matter experts, and the other sources in the article (the ones not written by Walling) aren't reliable, they're mostly podcasts, low quality websites or pay to publish. It doesn't even seem like WP:100 is really met if you don't count quotes/soundbytes and non-reliable sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 20:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (strike duplicate !vote Daniel (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)) reiterating that the author is an SME in the field, and one of the few worthwhile ones. I am an SME in the field and I listen to his podcasts. He is heavily referenced in books and magazines throughout the field. It's very niche but between the big names Forbes, Inc.com, Entrepreneur, and the niche mags, SaaS Mag, Foundr, breadth of info meets GNG.[reply]
Autoshotdc (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now, we just have two editors' opinions and we really need to hear from others. A reminder that another version of this article was deleted a few months ago.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete sources are mostly interviews, podcast and mentions. There are 2 book reviews, but they seem to be from bloggers and not any place reputable.Perfectstrangerz (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – A lot of sources come from people's blogs, interviews, non-staff sources. We also have a bunch of passing mentions that don't meet WP:SIGCOV. Not a lot of sources added since last discussion as User:Liz pointed out. TLA (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. As others above have stated the found sources seem to be interviews, blog type articles, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. If I've missed anything, post the best WP:THREE sources meeting WP:SIGCOV and I'll be happy to look at them.  // Timothy :: talk  02:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. signed, Rosguill talk 14:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristie Puckett-Williams[edit]

Kristie Puckett-Williams (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 don't do enough to establish her as a notable person. The subject has also edited the article themselves. LynxesDesmond 🐈 (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and North Carolina. LynxesDesmond 🐈 (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Haven't decided on keep or delete yet. But for reference, if you google her, a lot of the sources will be from the 16 Feb firing, e.g. [1][2][3]. There are however also coverages of her previous activities for example from Charlotte Post, Raleigh, etc. None of these are really good RS. They do, however, probably count as RS. I think that the biography as it stands is hghly inappropiate and laudatory/undue, and does require a careful rewrite by someone very familiar with BLP. However, that isn't relevant to notability. Disclaimer: I was made aware of the discussion off-wiki. Fermiboson (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I noticed a mass-removal of content and sources, along with the addition of a questionable source [4] to the article, ten minutes before this article was nominated for deletion, because of the WP:BLP issues that seem to be presented by the low-quality source added and the sensationalized content; a higher-quality source is available about her firing, i.e. [5] North State Journal, but this contentious event does not seem to be covered extensively in high-quality reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have gone through the sources and added others (including some mentioned above). There are features on her conversion from crime to advocate, as well as several stories about her firing. There is enough consistent and significant coverage for notability.
  • Delete - WP:BLP policy considerations influence my view on this article at this time, because in addition to low-quality, sensationalized sources about her apparent firing from the ACLU, her WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability appears to be borderline according to other available sources. The two independent and reliable sources supporting substantial content in the article are similar: "Without bail money, she pleaded guilty so she wouldn't give birth in jail" (News & Observer, 2019), and Pulitzer Center-funded reporting "Turning trauma behind bars into advocacy for formerly incarcerated" (Charlotte Post, 2021). These sources feature her surviving abuse and addiction, are based on interviews with her, and conclude with a focus on her ACLU advocacy work. Other sources in the article about her advocacy and activism are news reports with her providing quotes, often in her role as an ACLU employee, which help generally track her career development, although it is not clear based on the sources when she started work at the ACLU nor when she was promoted into various roles. In February 2023, there was an incident that seems to have been sensationalized, particularly by low-quality sources such as the John Locke Foundation's Carolina Journal linked above, which does not appear to have editorial standards published on its website, and its reporting on the incident seems particularly poor; the local alternative newspaper linked above does not seem to do much better in supporting contentious content in a BLP. I have added an NPR source that provides some context and seems to offer more neutral reporting on the incident, without using the term "fired," to support one line about her no longer working for the ACLU, which from my view, seems due according to available sources, the size of the article, and BLP policy. Overall, the notability guideline asks us to consider whether we can write a fair and balanced article; with the available sources - primarily based on interviews and quotes in various news reports, as well as a short-term flurry of sensationalized reporting about her departure from the ACLU - it does not appear possible to do so at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: SInce this can't be Soft Deleted, I'd like to see more support before closing this discussion as a Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Incarceration_of_women_in_the_United_States#Advocacy_organizations: in that section, the ACLU and Puckett-Williams' advocacy work more than qualify for a mention based on our existing sources. Once she receives more coverage that establishes independent notability (and I certainly hope she does!), we can easily revive the standalone article. Owen× ☎ 23:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think the available sources will help develop much content at the suggested merge target. One of the two in-depth sources about Puckett-Williams, The News Observer, only mentions she is a "Regional Field Organizer for the ACLU of NC’s Campaign for Smart Justice, advocating for bail reform" and relies on her statement for the description of the "biggest part of her work" as "changing perceptions about people who commit felonies" - this source is about her biography, not the ACLU program.
    The other in-depth source, The Charlotte Post, is also about her biography, and mentions she is the "statewide campaign for smart justice manager at the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina" and states she "advocates for legislation like the North Carolina House Bill 608, Dignity for Women Who are Incarcerated. HB 608 was introduced in April and passed 113-0 in May," and mentions several specifics of the legislation, but the ACLU program is not the focus of the source or discussed in depth.
    I think the suggested merge target may benefit from retitling (the programs listed in the Advocacy organizations section appear to be treatment programs, sourced to a 2003 book) and/or further development, but the biographically-focused sources in this article do not seem specifically helpful for developing content in an article focused on programs generally. Beccaynr (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, which is why I said she and the ACLU deserve "a mention" in the target article based on our existing sources. The difference between us now is whether or not to leave a redirect to the target from the current page. I see no reason to prevent someone searching for her name from being redirected to our page about the incarceration of women, where her name would receive a brief mention along with the work of the ACLU. Owen× ☎ 11:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify my view, the suggested merge target describes direct services for individuals, while the ACLU of NC engages in what could be described as systems advocacy (changing policies, laws, etc). While the suggested merge target uses the term "System organizations" it then quickly clarifies by describing individual-focused programs. My sense, based on the content in the article, is that the 2003 book may be referring to a common concept of working with a client as a whole person - there is a holistic form of practice, where addressing multiple issues (i.e. "the system"), including housing, public benefits, transportation, mental health treatment, etc, are seen as necessary components of supporting someone in their reentry, or whatever their presenting issue may be.
    This is very different than advocacy for bail reform or legislation. So the unfortunate reason a merge/mention does not seem suitable is because this suggested target is not describing systems advocacy, a new section would need to be developed, and we do not have sources available from this article to do that. Also, the NC ACLU Campaign for Smart Justice is not specifically focused on women, so it would not necessarily be a program that would be expanded into a new section at the suggested merge target. Beccaynr (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are free to add new sections or expand existing ones in the target article as we see fit and as reliable sources allow us. We already have more than enough to verify the work of Puckett-Williams, and—I believe—to add a brief mention of her work, either in the existing Advocacy organizations section or under a new section in the target. I understand the distinction you make between system- and individual- advocacy programs. I do not, however, think our best approach for those searching Wikipedia for "Puckett-Williams" is to leave them with a "No results found" message. I'm sure we can come up with a sentence or two that are supported by RS about her work, allowing us to turn Kristie Puckett-Williams into a redirect to Incarceration of women in the United States. Owen× ☎ 17:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are some examples of systems advocacy organizations that could be reviewed to determine whether their work includes a focus on issues specifically related to incarceration of women in the United States:
    These organizations, and coverage of their work, may help develop a section broadly discussing systems advocacy in the suggested merge target. A brief mention of Puckett-Williams participating in advocacy may not be due, assuming a new section is created. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be a suitable merge target available at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, let's get more participation here!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for information about Kristie Puckett-Williams as I am a minister writing about the power of people with lived experience acting as advocates. It is important that articles about people like her remain on Wikipedia. She has changed many lives in North Carolina and beyond as an independent advocate, which makes her notable! 2600:1700:8434:280:944F:E0B5:80A3:5BB0 (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed important that the work of such people get publicized, and as I mentioned above, I truly hope she gains more publicity. However, Wikipedia is strictly a neutral-point-of-view encyclopedia. This means that no matter how important and dear to our heart the cause is, we must stick to our objective standards of notability. Otherwise, the encyclopedia will quickly lose its reputation as an unbiased resource. Owen× ☎ 18:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Beccaynr's analysis of the sources. She can be mentioned in other articles, but I agree the content covered by the sources isn't direct enough to warrant merging. It also suffers from promo-speak; if we are going to add material about her anywhere it should be in the words of an independent secondary commenter.
JoelleJay (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Beccaynr's excellent analysis of the sources above, which I believe is the most persuasive view in this discussion per our P&G's. Happy to support the views of JoelleJay etc. that merging isn't appropriate given current state of the content, and therefore deletion is preferred. Daniel (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Beccaynr. Rusty4321 talk contribs 00:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete largely per Beccaynr. I agree with their analysis of the sourcing, and I share the same GNG and perhaps more importantly BLP concerns. I also agree with JoelleJay that a blanket merge isn't appropriate in the circumstances. Mentioning Puckett-Williams and her activities whenever such content passes WP:DUE is of course fine, I just can't think of anywhere offhand where that would be the case. Maybe in the future there will be sufficient sourcing to make a fair and balanced article about her, but not at this time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Beccaynr - somewhat reluctantly; women of colour face intrinsic barriers to getting Wikipedia coverage and we should ask ourselves if we would treat the article in the same way if it were about a white man. (But I think the answer is yes, we would!) Nwhyte (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Kalonoros[edit]

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

One of several articles created by User:Gokturklerrr or User:Soldier of Seljuk 1071 that show no sign of meeting WP:GNG, have unverifiable references (ex. "İbn Bîbî, I, 345-355"), and little to no significant coverage in reliable sources. What little coverage these events do have in reliable sources is minor, usually just a sentence, and contradicts what is written in the articles. For example, Cilician campaign of Kayqubad I claims that "Armenians came under the Seljuk rule again" but the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia existed until 1375. @AirshipJungleman29: had previously nominated many similar articles created by these two users for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Anamur and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cilician campaign of Kaykaus I for the same reasons. Here are some remaining articles that should be removed.

Here are the other articles with the same issues:

Cilician campaign of Kayqubad I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cilicia Campaign of Baybars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Siege of Alanya (1221) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Seljuk civil war of 1211–1213 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Battle of Keban (1218) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thank you KhndzorUtogh for nominating these poorly researched, POV-ridden articles for deletion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per nom. Archives908 (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my rationale at previous nominations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (partially). I believe the siege of Kalonoros/Alanya is notable and probably the Cilician campaign of Kayqubad I also. No opinion on the rest. For the siege see this, the Medieval Fortifications in Cilicia and any number of other sources (e.g., Claude Cahen). Enough to write a short article for an important event. Srnec (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: When the Seljuq Sultan Alaeddin Keykubad set out to conquer Alanya, then named Kalonoros, in 1221, he was unable to do so. The lord of the castle, an Armenian named Kir Fard, was bought off. This is very different from the "successfully mounted victory" the article speaks of. The source says nothing more of the siege, not enough to base an article on. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A fuller quotation, with emphasis added:

The walls of Alanya and an account of the city's taking by the Seljuqs provide clues relating to the issues of talismany and apotropaism raised above. They also return to that quality of ancient constructions—their fineness and solidity of construction—most admired by Theodore Lascaris. Alanya, on the south coast of Anatolia, had once been a great Hellenistic fortress. When the Seljuq Sultan Alaeddin Keykubad set out to conquer Alanya, then named Kalonoros, in 1221, he was unable to do so. The lord of the castle, an Armenian named Kir Fard, was bought off. Extensive rebuilding of the Hellenistic fortifications in and around the main entrance to the fourth sector of the castle and the Ehmedek, or landward citadel, point to the presence, even in the preSeljuq medieval period, of defenses that would have made a siege of the fortress difficult. The account of the siege given by the Seljuq chronicler Ibn Bibi contains one passage associating a talismanic quality with one particular kind of stone: marble. The sultan ordered that the mangonels of the besieging army be furnished only with projectiles of marble because, as he maintained, no other stone could fly as far. This order seems to have caused a considerable delay in the siege since, as Ibn Bibi rightfully reports, no marble occurred naturally on that castle rock.

Remember that this is just one easily accessible source in English. And problems with the article are reasons to fix it, not delete it. Srnec (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: per nom, fails GNG and NEVENT. Nothing found that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth/detail. If in the unlikely event sources are found it would still be much better to start over with a fresh article, I am not seeing anything properly sourced which is worth saddling an (improbable) future article.  // Timothy :: talk  22:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Srnec's objection to two of the articles proposed for deletion. This might require more digging than a simple "per nom" statement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz I can understand the argument to keep Kalonoros, although it would need to be almost entirely rewritten. But no sources have been provided for the campaign article, which is similar to this article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cilician campaign of Kaykaus I that was created by the same user. The article presently does not even have a real citation. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I do not oppose keeping some of the articles with a sound rationale (notability) as pointed out by Srnec. In any case, those we could keep would have to be rewritten in one way or another, because they largely rely on primary sources (Ibn Bibi, Muneccimbasi, Ayni, and so on). As they appear to be a part of a wave of problematic article creations, deleting all could save us time, and an experienced editor can recreate some of the notable ones. Aintabli (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, full agreement with Aintabli and TimothyBlue; unless someone steps forward to pull a WP:HEY save on the Siege of Alanya, it's better to delete it. (I'm not convinced the siege itself is worth a standalone article in any case.) -- asilvering (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Knoppix#Unmaintained projects. Redirecting was the obvious consensus in this debate, if there is further objection to said redirect, this can be discussed at RfD. Daniel (talk) 23:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feather Linux[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Feather Linux (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 in-depth coverage in reliable sources beside reviews and passing mentions. Existing sources seem rather specialized and non-reliable. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:01, 20 December 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 23:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect tp Light-weight Linux distribution this version of Linux hasn't been updated in a long time but you never know when something might get resurrected. Dr vulpes (Talk) 14:11, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if it's worth listing there because every distribution mentioned in that article has an article of its own. Needlessly populating it with random distributions would result in unnecessary listcruft. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as a redirect not needing a relist to determine target consensus. or admin action to enable it. However , Champion thinks a relist would be better for more eyeballs here v. Talk so I have happily relisted for that discussion to happen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Knoppix: that, I believe, is the closest living relative. Owen× ☎ 22:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another derivative also listed at that table was closed as delete recently, I don't see how this one should be any different. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Knoppix#Unmaintained projects. The other proposed redirect targets are to lists that require each entry to have a standalone article, which this would then fail and so would be removed from those lists making them non-viable targets for redirection. The article's subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT, but that looks like a viable AtD. I think deletion is also reasonable, however. - Aoidh (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wilhelm Friedrich, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein. Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Marie Alexandra of Schleswig-Holstein[edit]

Princess Marie Alexandra of Schleswig-Holstein (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 genealogical entry about an obscure German "princess". Wkipedia is not a genealogical website. I have no idea what those external links even mean. Surtsicna (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no sources, and the external links appear to be regarding another person. The content of the article has not improved within the last 8 years. EmilySarah99 (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wilhelm Friedrich, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Marie Melita of Hohenlohe-Langenburg[edit]

Princess Marie Melita of Hohenlohe-Langenburg (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 apparent genealogical entry about a minor German princeling. I can find nothing about her other than whom she married and gave birth to. Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. Surtsicna (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indie soul[edit]

The result was moved to WP:DRAFT space. A draft which editors are now expected to bring to WP:AFC standards. El_C 02:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]


Indie soul (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)

Speedy declined. Not a musical genre, a WP:BEFORE doesn't bring up any sources that speak of it as an established, standalone musical genre. Assuming good faith, it was started by a new editor (see original discussion). I'm not sure if there's an ATD, perhaps, Indie music (disambiguation)? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify. Looks like the term is used some, but I dont see what of all of this is supposed to be having it meet the GNG, the article is in awful shape and not ready for the main space, and the article creator isn't taking advice from experienced editors to fix any of this, so I don't see a path to a "keep" stance at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 14:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Im sorry you feel that way. I have been taking advice from those that thoughtfully gave it on the actual mechanical improvements. It doesn't mean I am incorrect that the original editor was wrong in the manor in which he tried to delete it (according to the wiki guide) and didn't properly go about it(according to the wiki guide). Nor, that an issue of unintentional or intentional bias is involved when someone questions a pervasive and popular african-american genre term. When something like Nederpop has zero sources and no one is over in the Netherlands speedy deleting it. The correct course of action as stated by wiki would have been to let me know how to improve it/help me improve it.
    It is clearly referenced regularly by BET, Rolling stone, Reuters, BBC, Fader, Baltimore Times, NY Times, Forbes, Elle, Billboard, The Post, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, Vogue, Complex, CNN, PBS, etc. and has books and movies, and tv shows about the subject. In relation to artists/albums/songs being in that genre. As was easy to verify.
    So instead of continuing to improve on the thing I was working on I've had to defend the existence of reality caused by someone who didnt go about things by the rules.
    What I will refrain to obey is being told to be a good boy, and be quiet, while someone condescendingly quotes soapbox, righterofwrongs, and other coded language. He is saying the quiet part out loud, and will not stand by or ignore equity ignorance. Im sorry that makes people uncomfortable.
    I was just trying to create a worthwhile page on a worthwhile topic. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You don't have to bring up an article that lacks a reference (of which there are thousands). For a second time I am asking you to stop bringing race into it. This is a musical genre. I did a quick WP:BEFORE check to see if I could find some reliable sources, I couldn't find any. You are not assuming good faith towards me and are using improper WP:ADHOMINEM arguments. I am not using "coded language". Stop making it about race. Stick to the discussion. You've been asked several times to bring up WP:THREE reliable sources. Go do that. Stop barraging the article with references that are just passing mentions. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 23:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the Speedy nomination was made in bad faith and without proper due diligence. I believe the proposed deletion was made in bad faith and with our proper due diligence. Per wikipedia standards. I propose Wikipedia:Speedy keep unless you can provide citations otherwise. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely invalid speedy keep stance. You created an article with zero sources in it. That is naturally is going to raise notability concerns. Sergecross73 msg me 01:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, no one asked you to be a "good boy". I asked you to concisely provide your WP:THREE that prove the WP:GNG is met. If you've done that, you certainly did an awful job of portraying it across these long wall-of-texts response that go on all sorts of irrelevant tangents. Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sergecross73, I've been looking at indie soul. Since Atmospherpolyphonic last message here, they made 20+ edits to the article. The WP:REFBOMBing continues, they haven't assumed good faith and made ad hominem attacks, haven't responded to a fairly simple WP:THREE request (or WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT) and they propose a speedy keep "unless you can provide citations otherwise". Can we still call all these issues beginners inexperience? Is this becoming a WP:COMPETENCE issue? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted AfroCrowd and am refraining from further participation in a Show trial and fraudulent discussion that shouldn't have been occurred in the first place. I am not reference bombing, as the respondent said above you erred in trying to Speedy delete and then AFD in the first 20 minutes the article was up and I informed you I was writing and adding citations based off my research as I was completing the article. A much better use of time than proving existence of an entire culture to someone. I am quite competent as I am a PHD candidate at NYU. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's my answer. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/30/why-im-no-longer-talking-to-white-people-about-race
2. https://scholarscompass.vcu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1055&context=auctus
3. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/music-industry-racism-1010001/ Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The great thing about the internet is everything people do on it is there forever, in the light of day. And that I am not by myself or solely responsible for black music cultures. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMPETENCE "Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack." Coded language of "this guy doesn't belong in our club" right? Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And my references are for every single piece line by line since you also added the banner of original research. And now not a single line of text is derived from original research. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And in order to assist in your zealous concern of a proliferation of music genres I found a very alarming grouping of Dutch music misdeeds you may be more familiar with and in need of your mighty Afd wand. They seem to have had more than 20 minutes to exist and be improved and I thought I would alert you to the nefarious presence to alleviate what I know will be anguish.
Whereas this subject...that you twice stated that I made up...has copious media coverage, writings, films decades of traditions, 10'000's of artists, and is currently in the top 20 genres listened to on Spotify. But we both know it "doesn't exist" has already entered a review process. We have to keep an eye on black people and their "music."
Nederpop
Jumpstyle
Tumba (music)
Mainstream hardcore
Dutch jazz
Indorock
Dutch hip hop
Rock music in the Netherlands
I will check in on them to see how your AFD's are going...we can't have too much dutchness running rampant on our spaces, you know? Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is all extremely misguided. Soetermans, at no point, has cited, race/country/location/anything like this ans a reason for their stances. All I see is someone weaponizing the fact that that someone voluntarily listed their own country on their user page. This is truly a shameful display. Sergecross73 msg me 00:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have no issue with the Netherlands, love it, been there many times. The issue is someone from the Netherlands, tried to speedy delete(got insta-rejected) then immediately AFD something that was less than an hour old. Accused me of "making up something" twice, didn't do his own research, didn't follow wiki guidelines, quoted "Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX or the place for your to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS." and WP:COMPETENCE (all in contrivance of the stated wiki policies including. Do not use in a dispute with a writer" and not one person has acknowledged so, issued a warning, questioned it. It was
I provided a list of Netherlands music genres that arent AFD and have been on for years to point out a Satire(which by its nature is directed at people with more power), and witty I might add casting light on the double standard. It would be hilarious if it wasn't true. Then has the audacity to try and come up with different sets of other rules to put something down.
To be taking place on a topic about a genre that was a catalyst and that is heavily tied in to the social justice and the African American experience. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem not once has there been the reflection of "maybe I was mistaken because of my lack of awareness of another culture". Even the statement of "there have been 20+ edits" as if me editing the article is somehow wrong, when that is what I was suppose to be doing. And calling my competence in question. When the wiki says "please feel free to continue to improve" and he was made aware that I had JUST put it up and was in the process of adding them as he was trying to remove it and mark it with any means available. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's focus on sources, not what the issue was/wasn't with the CSD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See below> Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. There's an article here, but it still needs work; it has blank sections, is still being heavily worked on by its creator, and I'm not convinced every source is relevant. Needs some time in userspace to incubate I think. CoconutOctopus talk 22:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sourcing is extra as the Original AFD after having been proved wrong in me creating the term said I was writing original content. So I made clear every line was non original. Also the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force has taken this under their wing. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources should be reliable and offer more than just a passing mention of the topic; with over 50 sources on one relatively short article you're hitting WP:BOMBARDMENT levels, way more than is practical for anyone to read. You want sources that discuss the genre and provide a proper background on it, not just anything that mentions it by name. CoconutOctopus talk 23:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There may be country restrictions on you viewing content. These were provided already.
  • Undeniable-Feature film - Story of Independent Soul https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s1JNLTso6QQ
  • Book - Over 100 mentions of indie-soul/soul pop

All Music Guide to Soul( The definitive guide to Randb and soul) [ALL MUSIC GT SOUL] [Paperback]: VladimirBogdanov

Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've backed off from the article and this discussion for a couple of days. A personal message by Sergecross73 and several requests of just WP:THREE valid, reliable sources that discuss the subject were ignored. Instead, the WP:REFBOMBing continued unabated with 125 edits since nominating the article for deletion (work on an article nominated for deletion, but maybe bring up the WP:THREE sources requested? Just a thought). There have been racial assumptions, WP:CANVASSING at not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, not six but seven times. Walls of text were repeated again. There were several WP:WHATABOUTX arguments,on the term indie and again on music from the Netherlands, which was followed by a a final warning on aspersions. I'm curious what to see what Atmospherpolyphonic's next reply will be. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To bring up WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED once more, a link to a YouTube trailer to a film called Undeniable - The Story Of The Independent Soul Music Movement is not a reliable source and doesn't help establish notability. Looking up the title, I found this article, which points to a closed an Indiegogo campaign (indiegogo (dot) com/projects/abc--35#/). 10 years ago, it raised US$960 out of its goal of $50.000 and hasn't been made. Being a competent editor also means being able to make a distinction what is and what isn't a reliable source. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've told them that the podcast is very likely unreliable per WP:SPS here, but they continued linking to it as if it is a sign of notability without saying why it can be considered reliable. Sorry, Atmospherpolyphonic, I have some IRL work to do and I can't really keep trying to help you save the article. This has left me quite streesed, and I think I'm going to take a short wikibreak. ObserveOwl (chit-chat • my doings) 14:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ObserveOwl - I've repeatedly tried to guide Atmospherpolyphonic on how AFD works and how they should approach things differently, and they've refused or ignored me every time, so I've simply stopped. They seem determined to learn things the hard way. Don't let it stress you out, you've already done more than enough. The rest is on them, not you. Sergecross73 msg me 16:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I havent ignored you. I have tried. I am still waiting for other editors to also correct soetermans for the actual clear infraction of very clear wiki policies. While he continues to play two sets of rules. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again. You nominated the article(twice) after 20 minutes of being up. I informed you I was in the middle of adding my research and completing the article. Of course there have been edits as I am working on it. And you are incorrect the movie was made as was the PBS series. The fact that the failed to raise investment funding via indigogo has nothing to do with it. Being a competent editor means realizing when you are wrong time and time again because of a lack of awareness. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And "Can you please review the happenings, thank you" is not canvasing. As well as you telling me dont write walls while writing walls. There was no reference bombing. You said I made things up I provided books, research papers, and pieces published in major media for every single line of text. I have systematically undermined every argument you made starting from "the author made up this work" There were no WP:WHATABOUTX. There was a direction to a clear bias. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Atmospherpolyphonic I am very close to blocking you from participation in this discussion. PLease stop with the personal attacks. Star Mississippi 22:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My dear fellow editor, I did a quick WP:BEFORE check and nominated the article for deletion. Get over it. I copy-pasted two diffs of you saying something that is considered WP:WHATABOUTX, one of which is on this very page. You have said some very strange things about me and Dutch music and have received a final warning for your behaviour. You seem to be WP:NOTGETTINGIT. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 22:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My dear fellow editor. I have received a warning of that you are correct, where as you have not, strangely. Which is odd given the number of infractions I have pointed out in your process and in your behavior. Which I will do again. You twice nominated for deletion an article 20 minutes in to being up after being informed I had just got it up and was correcting being unfamiliar with the mechanics of the visual editor, Without providing proper proof of your work to research or following thoughtful SOPS and interactions with an early editor as to you concerns. My interaction with you were polite and friendly until you made them otherwise with YOUR behavior. You quoted Wikipedia:Competence is required about me. "Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack."
You quoted Soapbox and Righterofwrongs at a minority writing about a minority sensitive topic (after having been informed that was the perception of what was happening). In opposition of stated policy on each of those pages as well as clearly defined guidance in treatment of other editors. That is what started the situation. I am new and just learned the rules. What is your excuse? Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And those are not WP:WHATABOUTX arguments. They were hints as to similar topic with ZERO citation and much inferior pages that have not been attempted deletes twice after years of being up. They were things you might be familiar with since they are from your culture. (I am not and had never heard of them so I leave them to people more informed in the subject area) and after having pointed them out to you, you didn't feel the need to speedy or AFD. I was not using them as a reason FOR my article (my article is entirely mainstream) I was using them to illustrate a starkly different treatment. I was using storyfication. What those "reasons" are can be inferred by individuals on their own. Atmospherpolyphonic (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin Note, I have p-blocked Atmospherpolyphonic from this page as well as the article so a consensus can develop independent of their bludgeoning. Longer note TK on their Talk Star Mississippi 23:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. Sad to see a passionate person lacking competence and not willing to listen. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 23:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 linguistic example sentences#Lexical ambiguity. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That that is is that that is not is not is that it it is[edit]

AfDs for this article:
That that is is that that is not is not is that it it is (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, most coverage seems to not be WP:SIGCOV i.e. just mentioning the sentence without any sort of discernable analysis. It's like how even though She sells sea shells by the sea shore is a common tongue twister, yet it doesn't have it's own article. I am aware of the previous AfD, but that was 15 years ago, there wasn't as much emphasis on SIGCOV, and half of the !votes seem nonsensical. I propose redirecting to List of linguistic example sentences. — MATRIX! (a good person!)[citation unneeded] 21:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 20:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WLEK-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. Article was part of a bulk AfD last year that closed as no consensus, but there is nothing to show this station individually meets the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Midwest Premier League#Current teams. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steel City FC (Illinois)[edit]

Steel City FC (Illinois) (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:NORG / WP:GNG. The only coverage I could find was [6], which is both local and borderline coverage of the team itself. Midwest Premier League is a viable redirect target. ~ A412 talk! 20:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WKNX-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Michigan. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If there is literally no known programming information even from databases… I don't think any significant coverage exists for this one. Articles/stubs like this are what probably contributed to the tightening of notability standards in this topic area around 2021 (for a while, we seemed to be creating stubs on pretty much any licensed facility, regardless of whether there was anything else we could even verifiably say — but even then, this one has been tagged as probably non-notable since 2019), and certainly would not be allowed to remain in mainspace for long if it were created today (rather than even as late as 2015). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we don't even have a database entry for this station's programming much less the license, then I can't even be sure it ever actually broadcasted. Nate • (chatter) 21:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse CMS[edit]

Pulse CMS (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:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 U.S. Senate sex tape scandal[edit]

2023 U.S. Senate sex tape scandal (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 is a good test of notability principles like WP:BREAKING and WP:LASTING. Enduring notability is unlikely (WP:NOTNEWS). This story is quite salacious, and so naturally it was picked up by major media outlets and produced enough copy to create a Wiki article. But, the actual impact of this is minimal, presumably leading to nothing but the staffer's unemployment. All sources in the article are dated December 15-20 and there is no further coverage of this, so I question how "in-depth" the coverage really is, beyond noting what was filmed and that the staffer lost his job. The article's status as an orphan also shows the lack of notability, as there aren't articles that link here, though I suppose it could be added to the see also link. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Sexuality and gender, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would suggest a merge, but I can't think of anything more than a line that would be relevant in the relevant politician's page; in addition, it's so slight that folding it into List of federal political sex scandals in the United States seems improper too. I think this is a case of SUSTAINED not being met; I raised the question of later sourcing than the immediate timeframe on the talk page, and that along with my own searching turned up only stray mentions such as [7] or even more slight than that; in short, nothing that demonstrates this had any significant fallout versus the sex scandals we do cover, which sway races, prompt resignations of elected officials (versus just an aide or staffer.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Only marginal notability and obvious BLP concerns. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the points raised in the nomination and the preceding comment by @Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs. I also want to note the multiple and varied BLP concerns raised by myself and several other editors on the talk page. I think its a testament to the lack of notability of the article topic that the staffer concerned arguably qualifies as a low-profile individual by every single criterion. While I hadn't considered the idea of folding it into the List of federal political sex scandals, I agree that its probably much slighter than other incidents mentioned. In any case, that article is supposedly about scandals involving elected and/or senatorially confirmed individuals; this incident does not qualify. Going through the list, I see only once such list item from 2005, involving a regular participant in the White House press pool, which seems to me distinguishable. Arcendeight (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was a little surprised at the lack of continuing coverage, but as it is this is a pretty clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. I'd merge/redirect if there was a good target, but I don't think there is (it's not significant enough for List of federal political sex scandals in the United States). Elli (talk | contribs) 21:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and possibly Salt. It's not news anymore, people involved are low profile (as far as anyone can be sure, no one has admitted being in the video or been definitively identified, I believe), if anything it's just a salacious news story. Paris1127 (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the existing section Hart Senate Office Building#Sex tape scandal. (This also disproves the assertion that the article is an orphan.) The level of material could be vastly reduced, perhaps to only a sentence or two. Einsof (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scratched the orphan remark. I neglected to notice the page moves that meant no articles were directly linked to the current title, but rather to the redirects. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It was always clickbait but never substantial news. 1101 (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested above. Bduke (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Perhaps we can get the WP:SNOW moving? NM 07:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested above. I think using the title "2023 U.S. Senate sex tape scandal" would be good to redirect to the Hart Senate building article and its appropriate section. Also, can someone please tell me how this was clickbait and not substantial news? Not to get political, but if this were a staffer for a Republican senator, the media would never stop talking about it. Unknown0124 (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the actions of a 24 year old kid with bad judgement who should not have a wikipedia article about his poor judgement. He is not notable apart from this incident and shouldn't have a wikipedia article since he standing alone is not notable. There are no significant sources with sustained coverage on the matter, and people are only drawn to it because of its salacious nature. It fails notability and is just salacious tabloid clickbait. There are also no good sources which identify him by name. Merging makes no sense because of the lack of reliable sources, and it would just be edited out of the other article since his identity cannot be confirmed with reputable sources. All of the sources currently discussing this are borderline for inclusion anyway. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not Merge It appears that someone has (rightfully IMO) removed the section at the Hart building article, so atm there is nothing to merge to. People caught having sex in a building has nothing to do with the history of the building itself, it doesn't warrant its own section. This isn't the the The Dakota and the Murder of John Lennon, and even there, the latter only gets a few mentions in the history, not its own dedicated section. Zaathras (talk) 21:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without merge or at least don't merge to the Hart building. Having a section header for this was certainly undue weight there, though a sentence could be appropriate if there were a general history section. Reywas92Talk 14:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete: This is a culturally significant event, probably one of America's biggest news stories since the Uvalde shooting. SpiralSource (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    /s? Reywas92Talk 20:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elti Fits[edit]

Elti Fits (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 borderline, but I couldn't find evidence it meets WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD is merge or merge/redirect to Karl Burns, though it could unbalance that article and I am not convinced he is that notable. Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being on a national BBC broadcast like the Peel Sessions ("The band did a session for John Peel on 4 September 1979 followed by a roadshow in 1980.") is an argument for notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I couldn't find anything in RS or any news, please ping me if sources are presented. dxneo (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG. Source eval:
Comments Source
database 1. "discogs - Elti Fits". Discogs. 3 September 1980. Retrieved 12 July 2010.
database 2. ^ "Rare Punk Music to Share". 21 June 2007. Retrieved 12 July 2010.
404 3. ^ "Notice Board". Retrieved 12 July 2010.
Tour annoucement 4. ^ "U2 gigs". 9 October 1980. Retrieved 12 July 2010.
Poster 5. ^ "Poster of gig 28 July 1979". 9 April 2009. Retrieved 12 July 2010.
Nothing found found in BEFORE or mentioned above meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  08:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

H M Khoja Complex Nawabshah[edit]

H M Khoja Complex Nawabshah (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 is non-notable, all listed sources are extremely passing mentions of the subject or do not support the article at all.

AriTheHorsetalk to me!

18:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie Zanga[edit]

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

Article about amateur footballer who once played for the reserves of a professional club, but which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. The only non-database coverage available online is the very brief transfer notice included as the article's only source. This is not even remotely close to significant coverage. PROD was contested after adding that source - even though it is not plausible SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R. Michael Givens[edit]

R. Michael Givens (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)

Bringing this here for discussion as I anticipate any action being controversial. Givens is a former Sons of Confederate Veterans commander who was frequently quoted and who commissioned articles for SCV's magazine. The role does not confer notability, and commissioning the articles renders them not independent. He's in the news for his role, but I'm not sure that's enough for biographical notability nor does he necessarily merit a mention in SCV or the magazine, so not sure a redirect is helpful to the reader. The subject (self disclosed) would prefer it says less, but then there's no notability as the film work doesn't rise to the level. Thoughts? Suggestions? Star Mississippi 18:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Marvel Comics characters: A. Liz Read! Talk! 20:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asbestos Man[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Asbestos Man (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 minor character who, while admittedly a very interesting character, has not even made ten appearances in the entire history of Marvel's comics run. There's a couple of sources discussing his relation to asbestos, but there is so little beyond those sources that I don't see why this can't be covered more effectively in the characters list. I'd suggest a merge there as an AtD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Marvel Comics teams and organizations. Daniel (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death-Throws[edit]

Death-Throws (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)

Totally non-notable villain group that fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sumgayit Technologies Park[edit]

Sumgayit Technologies Park (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 is a state-run manufacturing facility in Azerbaijan. There is nothing that indicates that this facility is notable. One of many articles imported into English Wikipedia by a ring of editors from Azerbaijani Wikipedia who are singularly focused on promoting the government. Thenightaway (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterini Xagorari[edit]

Ekaterini Xagorari (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Lacking indepth coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom; no evidence of notability can be found. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MadgeTech[edit]

MadgeTech (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 criteria, no independent reliable sources found. Broc (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paulie Stewart[edit]

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

None of the sources are independent of the subject, so this fails the general and music bio-specific notability policies. Draftification was denied, though that is my preferred outcome. Barring that, deletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. UtherSRG (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets GNG. The 3 of the 4 sources appear to be independent of the subject as they are book reviews published by reliable sources. (SMH, The Age, & The Guardian). Further, there are other sources not included in the article that establish notability. (The ABC, Herald Sun, The Guardian, Google Search). I also think the article is ready enough for mainspace, yes there is work to be done, but that can be done in mainspace. GMH Melbourne (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the currently used sources are WP:IS per WP:MUSICBIO. This should not have been moved out of draft without adequate sources in the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Irregardless of what WP:MUSICBIO says, the sources still establish notability through WP:GNG. The context of the sources are a bit out of the scope of WP:MUSICBIO considering they are a reviews of a book. Nevertheless, I cannot see where it says in WP:MUSICBIO that none of the currently used sources are WP:IS. Not to mention, there are other sources that establish notability. GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:MUSICBIO: (emphasis mine)
    1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.
      • This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for the following:
        • Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.
    UtherSRG (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a independent review of a book written by a journalist, not a publication where the musician ... talks about themselves. The subject isn't the author of these article. GMH Melbourne (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Under his full name, he was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia in January 2020 (ref now in article). I agree with GMH Melbourne he is notable enough to have an article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per GMH Melbourne, article cites over five reliable sources with SIGCOV and all, she has been a subject of multiple independent sources. To be honest, I don't know how this article made it here. dxneo (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to above keep comments the subject, contrary to noms claim, verifiably satisfies the music bio-specific notability policy number 6 as a prominent member of two notable bands. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, satisfies the requirements of WP:MUSICBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per GMH Melbourne.satisfies WP:GNG. Fudyrelu (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WXON-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. New citations helped show a keep consensus. (non-admin closure). TLA (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 Musketiers[edit]

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

This article lacks references. The citations are to the cast album and a website not independent of the musical's production team. Not clear that the topic meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a couple of references. It was a challenge to select the most relevant references; there are too many. The musical was staged almost continuously since 2003 in the Netherlands and Germany. It was listed as one of the top ten favorite original Dutch musicals of all times.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 16:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Kilimanjaro climbing routes[edit]

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

The article was created in 2008 yet only relies on one source. The article only gives 1 of the climbing routes its own section. The majority of the attempted edits recently have been reverted due to copyright violations. Shadow311 (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Army Medical Materiel Center – Korea[edit]

U.S. Army Medical Materiel Center – Korea (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 WP:42 sources in the article. I can find a few references in TWL but generally written by Army-affiliated people, destroying their independence. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and South Korea. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 15:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Appears to have been copied from a US Gov. source, as public domain text. But all I find are various Army sites that talk about the place, put out by the "PR department" of the Army. It doesn't have non-primary sourcing, but it's still reliable, I'm not sure how we handle this. We've always allowed PD text for the US Gov't to be copied... Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources found are always on dvids, [12], which the military uses to publish their media, photos etc. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I've pulled up various US Army wiki articles at random, to see how often they are only sourced to US Army or gov't websites. Most aren't and have RS in things not related to the army. I suppose in this case it should be deleted for a lack of non-primary sourcing. I can't find any news articles not published by dvids. Even in Gbooks or Scholar, it's all sourced to military publications. We'd require sourcing not from the US Gov't or Army/military, that I can't find... Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Djabrail Chahkiev[edit]

Djabrail Chahkiev (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)

Cannot see anything here that suggests notability.- TheLongTone (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Djabrail Chahkiev was a prominent Ingush historian and archeologist, had a lot of great works on Ingush towers like the monographs Drevnosti Gornoy Ingushetii. He contributed a lot to the formation and development of archival affairs in Ingushetia being the Deputy Head of the State Archive Service of Ingushetia from 2015. Had articles in journal Sovetskaya etnografia and in encyclopedias Narody Rossii, Narody i religii mira [ru], Entsiklopediya narodov Yuga Rossii. WikiEditor123… 17:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. FWIW he is the subject of several articles in major newspapers such as Moskovsky Komsomolets [13] and AiF [14] in which his contributions to the republican archives (he was the deputy director), restoration of Ingush defence towers and a number of books are mentioned. Alaexis¿question? 20:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the sources posted by Alaexis and those already in the article are enough to demonstrate a likely WP:GNG pass. The current article is primarily sourced to what appears to be (if I'm interpreting machine translations correctly) a 17-page biography in a journal published by наследие кубани "Heritage of Kuban", a Russian state-owned archeological services company. I don't know if Chahkiev was in some way associated with this organization or if this source is fully independent. Maybe a native speaker can shed some light. Jfire (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Djabrail Chakhkiev, as pointed out by Jfire, was associated with research projects from Russian state-owned archeological services company "Heritage of Kuban". Another famous work in association with famous scholars Vitaly and Yevgeny Narozhny, is "Military Archeology: Ancient and Medieval Weapons of Eurasia // Burials of spearmen of the Keliya burial ground in highland Ingushetia" (2017) [15]. Dzhabrail Chakhkiev was an employee of the State Archive Service of the Republic of Ingushetia. Muqale (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ the content, which does not preclude the alluded to potential split, etc. Star Mississippi 15:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Rugby League World Cup[edit]

2025 Rugby League World Cup (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 is an odd one. This is an article about an event/tournament that will not now take place; it has been cancelled/postponed to the following year, where it will take place in a different country. While there are references, many of them are effectively obsolete - "the event will take place", "France is bidding to become host", etc. I do not believe the article will pass the 10-year-test. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadav Shoval[edit]

Nadav Shoval (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 entrepreneur, fails WP:NBIO. Sources are either about OneWeb with a quote from or mention of the CEO, interview based, staff/contributor bios, mentions in lists of other entrepreneurs, or written directly by the subject. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Israel. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Advertising, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I noted N12 TV segment about him (2017), Globes article about him (2021), and being featured in Forbes 30 under 30 (2024). Combined this seems enough to demonstrate deep coverage by major national-scope reliable sources over a significant duration. Marokwitz (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Marokwitz. For a variety of reasons, substantially covered. gidonb (talk) 09:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The person meets WP:BASIC criteria, as there are sufficient independent, reliable, and trustworthy sources (not routine strange fake news agencies but big media outlets), several of which I have added, such as Globes and ICE. Additionally, I support the arguments presented in the comments above --Moem-Meom (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Shoval's company, OpenWeb, is huge. Notability isn't inherited, but the sheer number of perennial sources covering him, along with the recent Forbes recognition, meets WP:GNG in my books. TLA (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nadav Shoval is notable as the founder and CEO of OpenWeb. His notability per WP:BASIC is gained via recognition in many reliable sources both Israel-based and international.. --Mind-blowing blow (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Except for Bajsikus, all agree that the topic is notable and that there are no grounds for deleting the article.

Additionally, I am indefinitely blocking Bajsikus. Their contributions show that they are a single-purpose account who has substantially only edited this article and its AfD. They created the article with non-neutral and promotional (likely self-promotional) content, and then, once others began editing the article, attempted to blank and delete it. Moreover, they have WP:BLUDGEONed this AfD half to death. This is disruptive conduct, and it is apparent that they are WP:NOTHERE to write a neutral encyclopedia. Sandstein 13:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stefano Černetić[edit]

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

This article was prodded, and unsuccessfully nominated for speedy deletion. The rationale for the prod was that it portrays the subject in a negative light as they were acquitted of the charges against them. The original article did include the information that they were acquitted, and in my view gave the bigger picture. This is clearly a deletion with two sides to the argument, and I think needs proper discussion. Therefore I'm bringing it here. Note that the editor who prodded also subsequently blanked the article, so you'll (currently) have to go back in the history to find the text we should be deleting. Elemimele (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... original material has been restored. Elemimele (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Interesting case, and that's just the provenance of this article, never mind the chap himself! The sources are certainly strong enough to establish notability per WP:GNG. The citations also support the contents well enough; I don't even see anything that would need removing for BLP reasons. And given that this person has gone out of their way to ensure they are not a low-profile individual (!), per WP:BLPPUBLIC we can publish well-referenced allegations even if the charges didn't stick o/a/o some legal technicalities. (PS: I foresee an RFPP being needed erelong, though...) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They wrote all that to manipulate the public. No one ever accused him or proved that he did anything wrong. Bajsikus (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Italy. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove DELETE the written article was heavily edited many times with data from various newspapers and tabloids that were used as references. The person was acquitted or it was not covered in the news. He was also never arrested or detained by the police. Furthermore, he has a good personal relationship with the Prince of Monaco. He never presented himself as the monarch of a country, but that his ancestors were rulers in that territory, the borders changed. He is not an Italian fraudster as proven in Court and this is a text that shows things in a bad light. It's against the law. A person who has been PROVEN innocent, and the Court has established that, is chosen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajsikus (talk • contribs) 15:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove DELETEhe is not an Italian fraudster as proven in court and this is a text that shows things in a bad light. It's against the law. A person who has been PROVEN innocent, and the Court has established that. Bajsikus (talk) Bajsikus — Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"his claims were misleading but not legally fraudulent." perhaps mincing words, but he's not telling the truth about who he is, he might not be legally guilty, but he's still been found to be dishonest. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be at GNG, it's an interesting story. So long as we keen neutral language, we should be ok. He's not told the truth but perhaps not tried to use his mistruths to get money from people, which is required for fraud. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They wrote all that to manipulate the public. No one ever accused him or proved that he did anything wrong. Bajsikus (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you've made your views known. What you haven't done is present any coherent argument as to whether this article should be deleted or kept, and why. See the box on top of this page titled 'New to Articles for deletion (AfD)?' for advice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He's an interesting story as an eccentric person, he did nothing wrong but he's still worthy of note for his actions. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's a lot of coverage in reliable publications, more than enough to meet GNG in my opinion. I rewrote the lede to be more neutral. RSes and the trial seem to have determined that this individual is not a criminal but is an impostor, and that's an easy enough distinction to make. It seems like an interesting hook for DYK if this nomination closes in the next week. BuySomeApples (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE The whole article shows the person in a bad light and at the end of the article it is said that he was not convicted in court, so the whole article condemns the person from the beginning and presents him in a way that has been proven not to be so and that he was badly presented and described. Even the artical is passionate and bad at wanting to harm a person. Bajsikus (talk)Bajsikus — Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (unrelated user comment) it doesn't matter if the person is painted in a bad light. If what they did is bad, and the reliable sources say their bad, then the page should follow what the ref's say. Babysharkboss2 was here!! X♡O 20:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are only allowed one !vote, please don't keep repeating it. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason why this should be deleted. It's no featured article, but it is well-researched, and a reasonable topic for Wikipedia. I originally found the article from the Teahouse, where I saw the creator begigging for it's deletion? I'm assuming the author is just a big fan of his (or possibly him, but I'm assuming good faith here) but that doesn't justify any sort of deletion. TransButterflyQueen Ɛï3 20:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to thank you. You're right about missing the bigger picture. In a lot of editing, the truth was lost and it went in the wrong direction. A lot of introductory facts and information were deleted and edited and thus totally changed the article, which now does not have those essential and key facts, and thus the article is damaged, at the same time the reputation of a person and casts a shadow on the credibility of Wikipedia. Bajsikus (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - As said before, this article is well-researched, notable, and somewhat neutral. ''Flux55'' (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE before someone got involved, the article read differently. It was full of facts describing the person, his historical background, his ancestors, the sequence of events as they really were without bad news and tabloids, bad news fabricated to tarnish someone's reputation. Unfortunately, it is everyday. Whoever deals with editing and revision of such a specific nature as heraldic heritage, nobility and history, must do his homework well and learn in both cases the history of the Balkans, the countries that existed and how the dynasties changed over the centuries. It is very complex in the territory of the Balkans, like everything in that territory even today. Stefano Černetić is a descendant of an old Crnojević ruling family, after which Montenegro got its name, and their ancestors were ruling families in the Roman Empire, these are all the facts. The original article which may have been clumsily written but true, which has been totally edited and which contains the facts, read as follows Stefano Černetić, Crown Prince of Montenegro, Serbia, Albania and Macedonia, of Orthodox religion and dual Serbian and Italian nationality, was born in Trieste, Italy, on 29 April 1960, married to Charoula Dontsiou, of Greek nationality, and the father of two sons, Crown Prince Konstantin, and Prince Ivan-Nenad.

Stefano, baptized Stefan, is also the father of a daughter, Natalija, by Barbara Donat Cattin, granddaughter of the Italian minister Carlo Donat Cattin, historic deputy secretary of the Christian Democrats.

Professional journalist and humanitarian diplomat for some Austrian, Swiss and Hungarian NGOs, Stefan Černetić comes from the family, also known by the variants Crnojević, Čarnojević, Cernovic, Csernovics and Cernovichio/Zarnovicchio, who reigned over Montenegro and gave the small Balkan state its current name; in fact before it was called Zeta; as well as on Albania, having a Stephen Černetić Duke of Zeta married Maria (or Mara), sister of the Albanian hero Giorgio Castriota Scanderbeg, and on Serbia and Vojvodina with Tsar Jovan-Nenad Černetić in 1526, the last sovereign before the Ottoman conquest .

Also famous is the patriarch of Peć and head of the Serbian Orthodox Church Arsenius III Černetić (Čarnojević, Cernovic, Csernovics, Csernovits), who in the years around 1690 led the famous exodus of the Serbian and Montenegrin people (perhaps 40-80,000 people) in Hungary, through agreements with the Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary Leopold I, who repopulated and rebuilt that nation after the Turkish devastation. In Transylvania, now Romania, the Černetić princes received the castles of Mácsa, today Macea, and Zam, enfeoffed with the titles of counts of Mácsa and Kis-Orosz, a town in Vojvodina also known as Čarnoevićevo, today Rusko Selo.

Two statues of Ivan Černetić are in Montenegro in Cettigne and Podgorica, and one of Tsar Jovan-Nenad Černetić in Subotica, Vojvodina, Serbia.

The Tchernetich princes, direct descendants of the Byzantine emperors Angelus Flavius Komnenos Palaeologus, as widely documented, adopted various surnames and nicknames in Montenegro, as with other ruling houses, as in the Balkans surnames changed with each generation until the early twentieth century.

Also known to the world press for having given the noble title of "Countess of Lilies" to the American actress Pamela Anderson, during an evening at Villa Durazzo, in Santa Margherita Ligure, he is known for his various and continuous participations in Rai television programs and Mediaset.

In 2017 he was served with a notice of investigation, undergoing a trial that had great media coverage. The case involved the government of Montenegro, the Montenegrin embassy in Rome, the Italian ministries of Foreign Affairs and the Interior. It was also the subject of a parliamentary question on the initiative of MEP Carlo Fidanza, of Fratelli d'Italia. The trial ended in 2023 with an acquittal sentence "because the fact does not exist".

The criminal court of Turin therefore also recognized his royal princely titles and the dynastic claims of Stefan Černetić, recognizing the existence and veracity of his imperial and royal lineage.

The family of the Chernetic princes lives in four states: Italy, Greece, Serbia and Germany: Turin, Athens, Belgrade and Esslingen Am Neckar (Stuttgart)." These were facts, but now Wikipedia is giving false information, THAT'S WHY I'M BEGGING FOR THE ARTICLE TO BE REMOVED — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bajsikus (talk • contribs) 21:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bajsikus, you can only cast ONE "vote" so please stop bolding your comments. I have struck your second, third and fourth votes. Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that reliable sources have enough to say about this fellow (and more than they do about such socialites as Karl Friedrich von Hohenzollern or the current "Prince Napoléon"); thus keep. -- Hoary (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am amused by the fact that the creator of the original article that was promoting this individual's claims is now begging for its deletion because an alternative view of their claims has since been given greater emphasis in the article. I suspect a strong, undeclared WP:COI here. A salutary lesson in how not to use Wikipedia to promote one's favourite topic! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (un-involved user comment) I was also thinking COI, but I wanted to Assume good faith about the user. Babysharkboss2 was here!! X♡O 13:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seem to be plenty of reliable sources to establish notability. AndyJones (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets GNG, sourcing is sufficient. Seawolf35 T--C 17:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article that was edited was badly edited, because it is necessary to distinguish the former titles and borders and that the branches changed a lot over time in the Balkans and also the dynasties, which often went against each other. This is how this person finally proved his belonging to an important historical family. The problem starts because the person who edited the article immediately spoke in a ostentatious tone and in the end still says that he belongs to a noble family. It does not make sense. The whole story is poorly presented without knowing the entire history of Crnojević, Čarnojević, Skanderbeg and all other noble families that were totally deleted from the original article. This is exactly why confusion and conflict arise.Bajsikus (talk)Bajsikus — Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You only get one vote. Babysharkboss2 was here!! X♡O 13:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chong Tze Kiun[edit]

Chong Tze Kiun (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 notability, fails WP:NPOL. Fram (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete does not pass NPOL and does not appear to be otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Jacob Jimbangan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Stephen Jacob Jimbangan (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)

Deleted last month after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Jacob Jimbangan, still fails WP:NPOL. Fram (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this was just deleted via AFD a month ago, how can it have been recreated so soon? DId it not qualify for CSD G4? We need to hear from more editors than the nominator and the article creator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article is different enough in form from the first version that I wouldn't have invoked G4 if I had come across this before the nominator did, but it admittedly isn't markedly different in substance. He still has not held any role that would confer an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, and the article still isn't sourced anywhere close to well enough to claim that he would satisfy WP:GNG instead of having to pass NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete perhaps I'm mistaken, but he simply appears to be an unelected candidate, which colours the media coverage of him. SportingFlyer T·C 13:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make.org[edit]

Make.org (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 forum has received no coverage from independent sources, failing WP:GNG. NotAGenious (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm also unable to find any coverage of this organization at all other than their own webpage. Rehsarb (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did find a page from MIT, but it was a simple listing. Nothing I could find to disprove WP:GNG failure. RetroCosmos talk 13:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Check Axel Dauchez [fr] but doesn't look like there is enough related to it IgelRM (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given that there is disagreement about even his first name, we have serious unresolved WP:V issues here. The "keep" opinions argue that relevant sources exist, but do not cite them, which makes their arguments unconvincing and unhelpful. The "delete" arguments are therefore stronger. Sandstein 13:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf Steiger[edit]

Rolf Steiger (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)
  • Comment The Italian wiki page is for Jean Steiger. There is confusion over whether Rolf Steiger is the same person as Jean Steiger or someone entirely different. Dougal18 (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dougal18: I spent about half an hours trying to find stuff online for an either "Jean Rolf Steiger" and "Rolf Jean Steiger". I believe there is a bit of investigation work to be done here about this person, and it would most likely have to be an off line sources search in Bern, Switzerland and Italy. I don't believe this should be deleted, that's what my gut tells me. :/ Regards. Govvy (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. No reason to have an article in mainspace potentially on the wrong dude!!
JoelleJay (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's more an issue for WP:BLP. I don't see the great harm in assuming one of two options for the first name and nationality of someone who is certainly dead. I can't think off the top of my head, but I know there are Wikipedia articles on people of uncertain name, nationality, birthplace etc. That's not alone a reason to remove it. Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus here on what should happen to this article or whether Rolf Steiger is actually Jean Steiger. The reason that fact is important is whether or not the sources for Jean could apply to Rolf. More consideration needs to happen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - While we can confirm Steiger's existence and a rough outline of his Italian football career through the couple of sentences in the Il Napolista article, there is simply nothing available that amounts to significant coverage. I don't have access to Italian newspaper archives from the early 20th century, so perhaps there is something there, but from what is available, this fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @Svartner:, Per Govvy and Giantsnowman. Has online sources and defintly has offline sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As you know, WP:GNG requires more than the mere existence of sources. Your rationale is not consistent with policy. Jogurney (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The person in question was only part of a Napoli technical committee in the 1920s, and it is not even possible to properly confirm his name. Clearly fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, @Jogurney and Svartner: according to some sources on the Italian wikipedia after Terrile and Molnár departed Napoli, Steiger then became the first team coach. Hence why I declared he was a bit more important to the club in my above post and part of my reason for wanting to keep. I hope you guys do have a read of the Italian wiki page on him. Regards. Govvy (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svartner:, Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - so nearly two weeks and no evidence of WP:SIGCOV, and "it is not even possible to properly confirm his name"?
Number 1 "keep" has unclear words like "I believe there are" and "indication he might have been a bit more", and then gives link to a different man - so everybody has to assume is this man? From another language Wikipedia? WP:NOTSOURCE. Then there is more "I believe" stuff and, this is just ridiculous, why nobody does notice this - "I don't believe this should be deleted, that's what my gut tells me". Seriously? My gut?
Number 2 "keep" just goes after number 1. Nothing else. Seriously?
Number 3 "keep" follows 1 and 2. That gut again? Is everybody reading this gut?
Even "weak delete" says "there is simply nothing available that amounts to significant coverage... from what is available, this fails WP:GNG".
But seriously - biggest argument for "keep" is - someone has their gut speaking? Do we all bow down before it and obey this gut? I will not. --Hagesen 21:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sabina Rgayeva[edit]

Sabina Rgayeva (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 am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a Kazakhstani women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are all either interviews or trivial mentions. Everything else that came up in my searches were either transactional announcements or national team callups. JTtheOG (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Kazakhstan. JTtheOG (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found [17] ("the main sensation of Kazakhstani women's football... the attacking midgielder... the popularity of the Kazakh footballer is growing every day. Recently, she signed a contract with a global sports brand"), [18] ("Sabina Rgaeva, a member of the national youth team... played for the capital's WFC Astana-64 and the WFC Shakhtar-KarSU, with which she won silver at the Kazakhstan U19 Football Championship"), [19] ("promising... Kazakh football player Sabina Rgaeva... our football players very rarely manage to move to a foreign championship, and moving to a team from far abroad is something special here") and [20] ("[Rgayeva] became the first Kazakh football player to sign a professional contract with a Turkish club"), among more Russian sources. Clealry was significant figure in Kazakhstani women's football with professional and international experience. Article needs imporvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Coverage is exclusively Q&A interviews (with at most 3-4 sentences of intro, redundant between articles) from within two weeks of her signing with Antalyaspor in 2018. No evidence of SIGCOV, let alone SUSTAINED coverage.
JoelleJay (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I want to make sure these new sources are investigated and evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article and found in BEFORE are mill sports news, database listings/name mentions, nothing that meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.
Source eval:
Comments Source
Promo interview 1. "Сабина Ргаева: «Если есть поставленная цель, нужно добиваться своего по максимуму»". sports.kz.
Promo interview 2. ^ "Ргаева: «Антальяспор» возлагает на меня большие надежды". prosports.kz. 21 May 2018.
Name mention, team picture 3. ^ "Sabina Rgayeva - eKaraganda article". 4 January 2024.
Promo interview 4. ^ "Сабина Ргаева - Я за красивый футбол". el.kz. 18 May 2018.
404 5. ^ "Sabina Rgayeva - SportX article". 18 May 2018.
Sources above in keep vote are interviews, failing WP:IS, and nothing listed meets WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong soucing.  // Timothy :: talk  09:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strideapp[edit]

Strideapp (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:NSOFT. Was PROD'ed before with the reason: No indication that this application satisfies the applicable notability guidelines. Somewhat promotional in tone, but not blatant enough for speedy deletion. PROD was removed without providing any reason why this article should stay. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 21 December 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 12:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: ZDNet and GeedWire are both RS. Not super extensive, but enough to keep. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The product in question isn't even named this anymore, and so all the listed sources are extremely out of date. Steven Walling • talk 04:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. The ZDNet and GeekWire sources are both routine coverage of an acquisition which rely heavily on quotes from one of the founders of Stride; the Techcrunch article is better but WP:TECHCRUNCH cautions that they have a habit of relying on press releases and other PR material and might not demonstrate notability. I found more GeekWire coverage which is again an interview with a Stride representative and doesn't count towards notability. The fact that the sources are old or that the app has changed its name is not a reason for deletion, but on looking through them I can't see any evidence for notability. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I could relist this again but instead I'm closing it now at No consensus. A greater level of thoughtful participation would have helped bring this discussion to a more decisive closure. Liz Read! Talk! 07:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anabella Queen[edit]

Anabella Queen (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)

Promo BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in the article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. May be a case of TOOSOON, but this is pretty clearly a promo article.  // Timothy :: talk  07:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Weak keep, I don't think TOOSOON applies, it's been five yrs. Regardless, this is typical coverage [22]. Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear more about sources found on other versions of this article that could be incorporated in our version.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want more references on the page, why don't you add them? tell me !!! Soy Pau ♥️♥️ (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Soy Pau ♥️♥️, my role here is to assess AFD discussions, not improve articles. If you have questions about sources, I recommend bringing them to the Teahouse. Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then do you want sources in the articule? OK me too. Then in this days, I am going to add sources for the Page dont be delate.Bye Lynitaa 2.0 (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm closing this discussion as No consensus, despite comments coming in after the last relist, that was the third relist and it's time to close this discussion. No penalty for a future nomination although not in the near future, please. Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TransMolecular[edit]

TransMolecular (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)

Very obscure, fails WP:SIRS, lacks significant coverage DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Biology, Medicine, and Alabama. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There was a mention of controversies about protests against the company which I felt could help establish its notability, but when I searched for them, there was just one fleeting reference that TransMolecular had done business some time in 2005 with another company that was actually being targeted. Instead, I found plenty of independent references to the work of the company including an article in Fortune Magazine in 2003 that called it one of 14 "most exciting, innovative companies in the nation". Other articles I found seem to identify the company as a collaboration with researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. In any case, the company no longer exists after it cashed out and sold its assets to a Japanese pharmaceutical manufacturer in 2011, but article is no longer unreferenced. There are other references to successes during clinical trials of the company's experimental products that I have not attempted to integrate into the article. If there were actually protests against the company (I doubt it) then that could also be added back to the article. The company's archived website has an "in the news"[23] page that lists 18 additional independent references that establish notability (I have not looked into any of those). RecycledPixels (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would really help to get an additional review of the sources brought into this discussion to determine whether they would address the nomination statement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete: All of the sources listed in the archived news page, and posted by the last user, that I could access appeared to be trivial mentions, a sentence or so in a longer article about something else (except WSJ and NYT, which I couldn't access). Unless those prove to be substantial coverage, I don't think any of the cited sources amount to WP:SIGCOV. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which ones were you unable to access? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Eisai_(company)#History: the current target includes one sentence about Morphotek, which bought TransMolecular. This can be expanded to a paragraph, if sources permit. There are indeed many RS that mention the company, but as others pointed out, coverage is mostly limited to the products, not the company. And seeing as the company is now gone, new coverage is unlikely to appear. Owen× ☎ 23:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Moran (diplomat)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
David Moran (diplomat) (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am David Moran. It’s for others to decide about notability but I’d like to say that the article is years out of date. My Gov.uk page (the link is on the current page) includes my assignments to Armenia and as Regional Climate Ambassador to Europe and Central Asia covering more than 50 countries. Djm64 (talk) 10:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Azerbaijan women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neslihan Bozkaya[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Azerbaijan women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, failing WP:GNG. All that came up were passing mentions (2017, 2019, 2020, 2021, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify‎. Star Mississippi 03:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monashee Spirits[edit]

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

I'm not sure this has enough WP:SIGCOV to make the cut. It looks like a mix of local coverage, passing mentions and non-RSes like WP:FORBESCON. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, sources such as "VancouverIsAwesome" don't make the cut for significant sources. Recommend for deletion. UptonSincere (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a tag for more references: I feel deleting the page is a harsh move, because the subject has many references in the local publications and covered deeply in most of them. Even it has non trival moderate coverage by Washington Post. Plus won the Canadian Artisan awards and fulfills the WP:GNG that deleting it would be harsher move. I do not know much than you professional Wikipedians but I rather suggest you to see the references again in detail. I suggest an admin to tag it with the notices for more references to be added for confirming its notability or to draftify it. Zagol Ethiopia (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify. The page is new, as indicated above. Bduke (talk) 02:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify seems like WP:TOOSOON, local coverage. TLA (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with the above to Draftify this article to allow more time to come up with good sources. Jacona (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Hunt[edit]

Marlon Hunt (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 kickboxer. The only source I could find was from BBC. Without quotes I get a bunch of unrelated sources for unrelated people. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 03:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the article is improving AliM7mdd (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment He certainly had a successful kickboxing careera and did meet the old notability criteria for kickboxers. However, neither my search nor the article provide multiple examples of significant independent coverage. What I found were fight results, database entries, and some interviews. My search through old Liverkick and Combat Press rankings did not find any that showed him ranked in the top ten, though my access to those magazines was not all inclusive. The article also says he was ranked "number one in kickboxing in 2008", but gives no source for the claim. Papaursa (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. The German source seems to give a bit of credit and avoid an all-out deletion, but this article needs more than that. I would recommend a draftification of this article unless more sources can be found which demonstrate further SIGCOV beyond the ones already cited. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @InvadingInvader, which German source? In the article there's one German blog, but that's SPS. JoelleJay (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on draftifying?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Of the sources in the article, 3 are unreliable (facebook and blogs) and 1 is a stats ref. Nothing showing up elsewhere either for GNG.
JoelleJay (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After more research I still didn't find evidence he meets any current WP notability criteria. I don't see multiple cases of significant independent coverage and he fails the current WP:NKICK. The claim of being ranked #1 in the world is based on local coverage (East Anglican Daily Times) of him beating a 40+ year old for the vacant "world" championship of the very minor BFKKO/WFKKO (British Freestyle Karate & Kickboxing Organisation/World Freestyle Karate & Kickboxing Organisation). While I still think he had a successful kickboxing career, he doesn't appear to have been ranked in the world top 10 by any independent source. I oppose making this article a draft because Hunt's career is recent enough that it shouldn't be that hard to find coverage. Also, the article is only a few sentences long so recreating it shouldn't be difficult if sources are found. Papaursa (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Rubino[edit]

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

Article about a musician, not properly referenced as having any serious claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. She did get one hit of magazine coverage in 2011 when she released her debut single, but getting one magazine feature isn't "inherently" notable in and of itself, and nothing else of significance has happened to her career since. This article is so outdated, in fact, that it still refers to the debut album that was forthcoming in 2011 in the future tense even though said album never happened -- and while she has released a few independent singles in the 2020s according to the Google, I can find absolutely no evidence that any of them accomplished anything noteworthy enough to secure passage of NMUSIC.
There just isn't anything of enduring permanent note here. Bearcat (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the one feature mentioned in the nom has no attributed author (Billboard Staff, see also ProQuest 849266612) so questionable RS. S0091 (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NBA on ESPN. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN NBA Sunday[edit]

ESPN NBA Sunday (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 notability based on sourcing. Could find nothing independent that talks about this brand other than in passing. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is, unlike NBA Wednesday and Friday (Sunday primetime games are considered special editions of NBA on ESPN) separate from the ABC telecasts and it only airs like 3-6 weeks max per season (unlike NBA Monday which only airs once)and that’s likely why we may not have separate sources that has that as a indicator (but each time the schedule has been released it uses this brand to brand these Sunday primetime games and have it separate from the ABC Sunday afternoon games and thus we need a separate area so we don’t get confused on the topic Hoopstercat (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Sumberg[edit]

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

An orphan article. A search in gnews reveals nothing. Gbooks and Australian search engine trove yields little. She has not won any major awards nor meets WP:ARTIST. LibStar (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Visual arts, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, works are held in numerous collections Hermann Heilner Giebenrath (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, Comment I don't see sources in the article or here that support the sentence saying "Examples of Sumberg's art are held in The National Gallery of Victoria, The Queensland Art Gallery, The Heide Museum of Modern Art and the Smorgan Collection." Elspea756 (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:I have been through the sources and added a link to a copy of the article if I could find it through Newspapers.com. I also found a biographical entry in a book (see further reading). I wish I could see more of the listed sources but can see enough to say she meets notability based on sources. Rublamb (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne Harrison[edit]

Yvonne Harrison (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)

According to El Vocero and El Nuevo Dia, no SIGCOV shows up if you search those websites, which actually run contrary to an edit summary. Since I can't find any more SIGCOV otherwise about the Puerto Rican athlete, nominating for deletion. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Puerto Rico. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment SIGCOV requires significant coverage from sources independent of the subject. I believe that some will argue that her coaching page on St John's University is SIGCOV, but technically that isn't since St John's U is her employer and not independent. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • She won a gold medal at a central american and caribbean games and participated at an Olympic games, so based on that, I will say keep. Jeanette irresistible Martin (si?) 07:18, January 11, 2024 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, thank you for nominating the article because it helps us improve it. Please read the first part of Yvonne Harrison#Biography, Harrison's name became a household name in Puerto Rico in part because of the coverage given to her career by local newspapers such as El Vocero and El Nuevo Dia, which follow her accomplishments and doings almost on a daily basis. The daily coverage in multiple newspapers and the "household name" descriptor are the clearest possible evidence of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Annoyingly the newspaper website paywalls all content over 30 days old, but you can see from the search results that there are a number of website hits, not even including the paper newspaper hits where I assume most coverage was published. --Habst (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I stated, I searched those newspapers and I saw no coverage. All four articles seem to have at the best of my ability and level of access, mention her in passing. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Their archives don't go as far back as when Harrison competed, however; I would AGF that the creating user 20 years ago knew what they're talking about, as otherwise I don't see why anyone would write that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @InvadingInvader, thank you for your scrutiny because it motivated me to find this article:
    Please read it in its entirety. It is a full page story dedicated entirely to the subject, clearly demonstrating WP:SIGCOV. It has a lot of details, including that she was "best friends" with Flo-Jo before her death, with them calling each other once per week and staying at Flojo's home. That is pretty amazing to me actually, and deserves more fleshing out in the article. But yes, this is a very strong keep to me. --Habst (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This find by Habst is excellent and proves notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given the apparent self-promotion at issue here, I'm disregarding the SPAs and the IPs, which results in rough consensus to delete. Sandstein 13:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Spatzal[edit]

Thomas Spatzal (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 am not seeing evidence that WP:PROF is met. There were a couple of high impact papers which look to have come out of his PhD but apart from that their publication record is pretty thin and whilst I can't accurately calculate an h-index, it does not look particulary high for a biochemist. The article makes lofty claims about how the research resulted in a "paradigm shift" but it is not supported by the references cited. This is probably best explained by the fact that the article appears to be an autobiography. SmartSE (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Xxanthippe and Kj cheetham: Can you please expand on which sources you used to determine that C1 is met? SmartSE (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Thomas+Spatzal the "Evidence for interstitial carbon in nitrogenase FeMo cofactor" paper has almost 1000 citation (also noting https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1214025 says 697), and he has multiple first-author papers with over 100 citations. Quoting Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#C1, The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work, taking into account the note about Google Scholar at Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics too. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
cheetham, maybe you do not understand the workings of scientific publication. You are correct: that interstitial carbide paper is highly cited. It is a paper by Einsle et al. Einsle is the prime mover. Spatzal is one of several et al's. If we used that method of assigning publication glory to the (mere) coworkers on the paper, Wikipedia would be flooded with articles on dutiful students. We scientists often put good students at the front end of the paper as a reward for their diligence. Spatzal did that work under Einsle's direction while he was at Freiburg, as one can see from the attributions. In science, the prime actor is the "corresponding author". --Smokefoot (talk) 13:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That one paper is not the only reason I !voted to keep. I'm not going to get into a discussion on the order of paper authors here, but for that specific paper, the "corresponding author" is Einsle. Please also WP:AGF with your edit summaries. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly this is a comment from a person who is not a scientist. Here is how scientific publications are organized (see also "author requirements" at all major journals): First author (Spatzal in this case) is driving the research, performs vast majority of experiments and writes up the paper. Last Author (Einsle in that case) ist the PI. This is common scientfic practice. 83.135.55.83 (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Always interesting how many inexperts feel compelled to voice opinions on topics where they immediately demonstrate ignorance or naivite. This first author is just a student. Some of the commenters should talk to some grown-up who publishes in the sciences. But its an unimportant article so who cares?--Smokefoot (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Experienced editor Kj cheetham has said all that needs to be said about why the subject passes WP:Prof. I seem to hear the sound of axe-grinding. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
The number of high impact (first author! and corresponding author!) publications seems high. The impact factor of the cited journals is high, too. Additionally, all the major publications have a very very high citation score. 84.62.154.99 (talk) 13:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to change my !vote to only "weak" as I'm less sure than I was. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
•Keep. The article needs some re-phrasing but the scientific impact on the fields of nitrogenase, nitrogen-fixation and bioinorganic chemistry clearly justifies this. 84.62.154.99 (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That opinion voiced by German IP address, unregistered editor. Also notice that all of Spatzal's non-review papers are with big shots, Einsle and Rees. He's has nothing without these PIs.--Smokefoot (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Statement is factually incorrect. Please stick to Wikipedia guidelines. 2.206.81.109 (talk) 08:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To 1 edit spa: you need to prove your contention. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: less sniping, more policy please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep. Impact on biochemistry is demonstrated by high citation and independent secondary citations of the contributions. Reasons for deletion are not fulfilled and notabiliy passes. ApoptosisFlash (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— ApoptosisFlash (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 15:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep. Notability passed. Impact is confirmed by independent second-source publications (in Science, see ref.) referencing the weight of the work. Subject also has several last author/corresponding author publications demonstrating independence of research from peers/mentors past PhD.
Side note: PhD work has to be credited to respective students, otherwise it would defeat the purpose (e.g. some students received nobel prizes for their PhD work). Analyna90 (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Analyna90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 01:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am not seeing clear evidence that C1 of WP:PROF is met through this subject's independent scholarship, and C2-7 are not met at all, so there's nothing left. This person is early in their career. Sure, there are citations to papers coauthored with doctoral and postdoctoral advisors, but that does not seem sufficient without evidence that they themselves drove the work - and despite what others have said above, the order of authors does not provide this information infallibly. If this person's work shines enough to achieve a really notable academic career, their own work will gain a high citation rate and they will receive awards and other accolades to boot. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm increasing less convinced by my original !vote, in light of what Qflib said, so changing it to very weak. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Participants have not been able to find significant coverage of this individual. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marija Stasiulytė[edit]

Marija Stasiulytė (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 am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a Lithuanian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tigaon, Camarines Sur#Education. Daniel (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

San Rafael National High School (Tigaon, Camarines Sur)[edit]

San Rafael National High School (Tigaon, Camarines Sur) (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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to a lack of participation. No prejudice against immediate re-nomination. Daniel (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teruko Kiriake[edit]

Teruko Kiriake (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)

Unbundled nomination from prior AfD. WP:BEFORE shows only Japanese language sources with nominal statistics-type coverage of the competitor e.g. [28] and [29]. As a commentor at the bundled AfD stated, standard athlete blurb...stats page with no secondary coverage...local-interest community news story and so forth do not demonstrate notability; WP:NATHLETE requires additional, NOTNEWS coverage, or medals at major event, which does not pertain here. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per my argument at the bundled AfD.
JoelleJay (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the bundled nom was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Jahn ☆ Bri (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harihar Temple[edit]

Harihar Temple (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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Digital Quran. Daniel (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JQuranTree[edit]

JQuranTree (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:NSOFT. No independent and reliable sources covering this software. The only source with WP:SIGCOV is this paper by Kais Dukes, which is also a developer of this software, so it can't be considered independent. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lake Youngs. Daniel (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Youngs Park[edit]

Lake Youngs Park (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:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG, insufficient information for an article DirtyHarry991 (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cormorant oilfield#Accidents and add a brief mention. Daniel (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venture One diving accident[edit]

Venture One diving accident (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 diving accident that does not seem to pass WP:EVENT. The cited sources are the report about the accident and a book listing people who died of diving accidents in 20th century. The only other coverage of the incident that I found is this site that lists the event among other diving accidents. Found no suitable place to redirect this article to. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Scotland. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No historical coverage of the event, nothing in Gbooks or scholar. Sourcing is almost entirely from a tech report on the accident; doesn't make it notable, it's an accident investigation required by law. I can't find any sort of lasting effect of the event. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree that it is concerning that the article is almost entirely sourced from the fatal accident report. I had a quick look to see if I could find newspaper coverage and the incident was reported in The Glasgow Herald (11 May 1977) the day after it occurred , largely focusing on the fact that it was unclear why Craig Hoffman had collapsed, though this was a relatively small story on p.3. This on its own is unlikely to be enough to satisfy notability requirements, but I do wonder if there was significant coverage in other news material or anything in any histories of the North Sea Oil industry. Dunarc (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect is a potential AtD, but it needs to be added at the targt to be suitable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and add a brief mention to Cormorant oilfield per above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and no indication any input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 02:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resistencia (Venezuela)[edit]

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

This article was the result of an undiscussed split; it is not notable enough for its own article and is a coatrack of information that was used to justify the removal of content from the guarimba article. WMrapids (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have it the other way around: you're insisting in using the term guarimba as an adjective or to any riot in Venezuela, despite the majority of sources leaving clear that it is a term for barricades. This split should solve any SYNTH issues currently in the main article, and you're free to detail further about violence during the protests here as long as it meets the verifiability conditions. Uninvolved editors are free to learn more about the topic at the article's talk page: Talk:Guarimba. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep La Resistencia is one of the best-known groups in the Venezuelan protests, just as it happens with decentralized groups in other countries like Antifa. It was already mentioned in the 2017 Venezuelan protests article and Resistencia disambiguation years before the nominator started the Guarimba article, and its notability is demonstrated in its independent coverage that meets WP:GNG: [31][32][33][34][35][36][37]. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Guarimba's split version as a reference:[38]. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vishen Lakhiani[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Vishen Lakhiani (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)

Re-nominating, see WP:COIN#Paid editing agency. Please review whether the reasons of the previous nomination still apply. Janhrach (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Weak Keep Article is "oh look this man has created a company" type. References are extremely poor. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 11:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He may get a pass via WP:NAUTHOR. Worth a look. If so I'll change my !vote. scope_creepTalk
There is reviews on the boooks. I think he probably passes WP:NAUTHOR. I think he is probably not notable at the moment. The coverage is quite poor. scope_creepTalk 12:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep South China Morning Post and BBC seem to be about him, should have enough to keep it. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – I concur with Oaktree b. Additionally, NYT bestseller helps, Mindvalley is quite well known. TLA (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and no indication any further input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 02:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Aramaic[edit]

Lebanese Aramaic (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)

Firstly, see discussion on article talk page. Fails WP:GNG. Page mostly discusses and gives examples of Syriac language used in Lebanon. The intended topic of the article is an Aramaic language (probably Western) spoken (and now extint) in Lebanon in earlier times. From my knowledge, this language/dialect is not documented, thus not discussed in Aramaic studies. Few (none?) WP:RS listed discusses this "Lebanese Aramaic" or "Lebanese Syriac" or "Surien" language. Much is based on this article, which is far from WP:RS. Shmayo (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I do not see a point in deleting an article about a real language. As discussed in the talk page the article is mainly about Lebanese Aramaic itself but does mention Classical Syriac, as do many of the other Aramaic language pages, as this was the written language of colloquial Aramaic. There are various sources that discuss the specific Aramaic language of Lebanon which are cited throughout the article. As for Amine's source, at most it should be removed and replaced with a more reliable source if deemed unreliable rather than deleting the entire article as a whole. Red Phoenician (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Lebanese Aramaic page is integral to Lebanon's history and present, as the current spoken Lebanese is a continuation of Surien, and is not extinct. Modern Lebanese is an evolution of this language, and reducing it to just Arabic or even Lebanese Arabic overlooks the country's diverse and long history, whether Maronite or not. While Arabic influenced Lebanese, it didn't erase this language to replace it with Arabic entirely. Preserve accurate history; don't delete pages based on a misinformed narrative. Maclearie (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Phoenician: Amine's articles is most definitely not a reliable source, and now would be the time to add one. Any reliable sources discussing anything other than Syriac-Aramaic are merely just mentioning that an Aramaic language other than Syriac was probably spoken in the area. The other Aramaic languages that you are referring to are discussed (and termed) in Aramaic studies.
@Maclearie: I am not denying the Aramaic (Syriac or other) influence of Lebanese Arabic, but that is not a factor here. Let's discuss this here, not the roots of Lebanese Arabic. Shmayo (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synoptic Office[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable private company going about its business. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is WP:SPIP or passing mentions. Created by Special:Contributions/Bautista.elishamarie98 with no other contributions beyond this topic. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Vasave[edit]

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

Zero notability as a climber (per WP:NCLIMBER) never appearing in any climbing media. One of his claims of notability is reaching Everest Base Camp (not Everest, which is itself no longer sufficiently notable). Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milasha Joseph where stories are generated in the Indian media (per WP:NEWSORGINDIA) but the inherent event(s) that are the foundation of the BLPs notability are clearly not notable. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sources are fleeting promo that are likely non-independent.
JoelleJay (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firm Foundation Christian Academy[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in the article and found in BEFORE are not WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  06:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Created reasonably recently so don't want to soft-delete, relisting to establish clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I am not able to find any information about this school online. From the information I see, fails WP:NGO. Would be happy to be proven wrong, but right now that's what I see. RetroCosmos talk 01:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. But it looks like this article still needs some clean-up editing. Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kumarasamy Visalini[edit]

Kumarasamy Visalini (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 meet notabilty criteria per WP:BLP1E - see concern on talk page. The single event of supposedly having an IQ of 225 is dubious as best and only 1 event, unlike other prodigies, such as Hirata and Ung-yong who have more events. aeschylus (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Also known as the youngest to receive various certifications and is the author of several scholarly articles (now added to article). Coverage is over several years, not just for the announcement of her IQ.
Rublamb (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for a few more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep story in the Hindu as well [39], as well as what's in the article, confirming she has a high iq, but the article now reads more like a resume. Oaktree b (talk) 01:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Moorish Science Temple of America. Liz Read! Talk! 00:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Pittsburgh standoff and shooting[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to the Moorish sovereign citizens section of Moorish Science Temple of America, under legal incidents. While this isn't notable enough for its own article it does seem to have caused legal problems (getting so many cops suspended) and is an interesting example. There actually is coverage of it in the context of "a wider trend" so I think it's not undue
Actually did get significant coverage just last week, four months after this occured, which I think shows some lasting importance even if it would be better served in the context of that article instead of its own (https://www.dailyitem.com/wire/politics/public-safety-and-criminal-justice----and-the-perceptions-of-both--/article_e642abc9-ce0f-5092-bd16-0d6b7679fd6c.html). At the very least it is an interesting example of sovereign citizen violence PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge also to Eviction in the United States, at least. Such a violent reaction to serving an eviction notice needs to be documented somewhere and the content ought not be lost. While WP:NOTNEWS applies to this event, I am not so sure that the event should be dismissed as just not notable. The police are certainly going to pay attention to this and adjust their tactics accordingly. I suspect the lasting effects are still to play out, too. I wonder if this was pitched as a different sort of article, such as a notable police killing of a person, whether it would then be considered notable. Given a whole suburban neighborhood appears to have been endangered, with surrounding homes shot up, too, the reaction of the evictee appears extraordinary and was unexpected. I also cannot help but draw parallels with the Napier siege in New Zealand, where a major part of the city was locked down by an active shooter, after police executed a search warrant. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as two different Merge target articles are being proposed. It also would have been preferable if a more thorough deletion rationale had been provided by the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, two different Merge targets are being suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz I think Cameron was suggesting we merge it to what I suggested and also add a part to the eviction in the US article. Or maybe not. @Cameron Dewe Thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz and @PARAKANYAA: To both target. My rationale for suggesting Eviction in the United States is that a brief account of this incident would serve to illustrate what can happen when law enforcement officials get it wrong and have an extreme reaction to the eviction process that the evictee refused to participate in. My rationale for Moorish Science Temple of America, under legal incidents, is that the various sovereign citizen movements have beliefs that seem to be at odds with the laws of the land that fail to appreciate and understand common law and their rights and responsibilities. It is like they are fighting for their rights but rejecting their responsibility to abide by the law when it goes against them. There are two different reasons, so two targets exist. Sorry if life is more complicated than Wikipedia wants it to be. Having multiple redirect target suggest the event might actually be notable, too. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cameron Dewe The content could go on more than one page, but technically a redirect can only point one place. Which would you prefer? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: If that is the case, I would agree with your suggestion of the Moorish Science Temple of America, under legal incidents, because it is more specific. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, okay. I'm gonna try to clean this up a bit before the merge happens at least... PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Matson[edit]

Emily Matson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The majority of the article is sourced from obituaries, and they (and related things covering her death) contribute the vast majority of the press coverage about her---though I understand obituaries are considered reliable for the most part (see Wikipedia:Obituaries as sources), I think it is odd to say that they can contribute notability, given that a large amount of semi-well known but not wikinotable people can get obituaries about themselves published. Also, her only notability comes from her suicide, which in itself I do not believe to be a notable event.

AriTheHorsetalk to me!

00:08 (updated 13:23), 21 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - to the nom, did you do a BEFORE? There seems to be a lot of coverage of her death in the American press. Netherzone (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did. There is a lot of coverage of her death, but I do not think that this necessarily qualifies her for a biography as per WP:1E. Suicide on its own, I do not believe is a "significant event", and had she not commited suicide, none of those sources about her would have been written.

    AriTheHorsetalk to me!

    05:11 (Updated 05:20), 21 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep. Press coverage nevertheless indicates basic notability.--Ipigott (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I don't think she passes BIO, the journalism awards appear minor. Rest of what we have is a basic resume, worked as a journalist, was hit by a train and passed away. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Some policy-based arguments would be helpful in coming to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Men's World Floorball Championships[edit]

2026 Men's World Floorball Championships (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)

Event is happening in 2026 as of now it's WP:TOOSOON Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's too soon, then why is there articles for other world championships in 2026. You can't just pick and choose. They either all get deleted or they all exist. Also, DON'T DELETE IT! If you get your own way, make it a draft. Don't make my time making the article a waste. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2026 FIFA World Cup, 2026 FIBA Women's Basketball World Cup, 2026 Women's FIH Hockey World Cup and 2026 Men's FIH Hockey World Cup are some of the numerous tournaments that will be in 2026 that have articles (there are many more notables World and European championships in 2026 also). As I have already mentioned, you can't just pick and choose. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you are comparing events of completely different notability levels. Svartner (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep That's enough information for an article. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since Finnish is presumably not easily approachable for most contributors, here's a brief summary of the sourcing as of 15 January 2024: IFF and Suomen Salibandyliitto (Finnish Floorball Association) are rather obviously not independent. Both STT references are press releases written by Suomen Salibandyliitto, and thus also not independent. The Etelä-Suomen Sanomat story is attributed to STT (thus almost certainly based on a non-independent press release) and consists of next-to-no useful content: Two sentences about how multiple floorball events will be organized in the coming years, two non-independent quotes, and then three sentences of background about older events. Not useful for notability purposes. The tampere.fi reference is a press release from the city where several of the events will take place, I don't view this as useful for notability purposes. The final reference, from Ilta-Sanomat, appears to also be a simple regurgitation of the Salibandyliitto press release, starting with Two floorball world caps will be played in Finland on consecutive years, Salibandyliitto announces.. It's a short story discussing multiple events, and there's no independent analysis or content beyond just the trivial basic facts they presumably lifted from the press release.
In total, we have a bunch of press releases from non-independent parties, and then two barebones news stories that simply regurgitate said press releases without any independent content. Ljleppan (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:TOOSOON and the event is way less notable than event like 2026 FIFA World Cup, 2026 FIBA Women's Basketball World Cup and 2026 Winter Olympics for example. 11:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB14:11E1:400:CD1A:F55A:AEB1:5C5 (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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Snowball[edit]

Operation Snowball (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 organization. Jax 0677 (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The previous relist was never transcluded to the log: see closure request. This should be considered the first relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There are some ghits, like above, but they are mere mentions or interviews of the leaders or participants of the organisations activity, which is not sufficiently independent. No independent person can be found to be making qualities commentary on this organisation. It’s close, but definitely fails. All draftification should someone find better sources. Also note that the current version looks too much like the archive of the organisation website. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/2024_January_11&oldid=1196955213"