Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 14 January 16 >

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! 22:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waine Turner (kickboxer)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet GNG or WP:NKICK, as ISKA isn't a major world title and they gave out titles left and right. Nswix (talk) 23:46, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Del Borrello[edit]

Christopher Del Borrello (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)

Del Borrello has run for a lot of positions, but has never won anything. There's lots about his family, his political positions, his endorsements and contributions, but there is no claim of notability and none of the reliable and verifiable sources needed to back up that claim in the article itself, nor could I find anything more in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I believe that the sources present are both reliable and verifiable, as many are from popular sources that are verified as unbiased. His coverage in the media should be more than enough to meet WP:GNG. Antny08 (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But the existence of campaign coverage also does not confer a free pass over WP:GNG that would exempt them from having to meet NPOL — every candidate in every election everywhere on earth always gets some campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then every candidate would get that exemption and NPOL itself would never apply to anybody anymore. So campaign coverage only functions as a bypass around NPOL if it demonstrates a credible reason to treat his candidacy as a special case of significantly greater notability than everybody else's candidacies, but that hasn't been shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He also is the CCO of the DelBorrello group, a banking institution in Philadelphia. Antny08 (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is still not "inherently" notable in its own right. Even business executives still have notability criteria that they have to surpass, and are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [[1]]
    This is an article having to do with one of Del Borrello’s businesses. It is written by Politico, a large and trusted source. He is the main talk of the article.
    [[2]]
    Another major article. Antny08 (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are both campaign coverage Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unelected politicians need to be notable for something other than being a candidate, since almost all candidates get coverage - and he is not (his stint as a hyper local politician does not count.) SportingFlyer T·C 13:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He is the CCO of the Del Borrello group. Antny08 (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rather ridiculous to think that we should have articles on people because they're compliance officers of small family businesses. CCOs of even massive corporations don't get articles, that's not a notable position, and that's not what sources focus on. There are a lot of losing candidates, and we can't have articles on them because there's some routine coverage of every campaign leading up to the election. Election campaign-related information is welcome to be added to 2023_New_Jersey_Senate_election#District_4. Reywas92Talk 20:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [[3]]
    This is an article having to do with one of Del Borrello’s businesses. It is written by Politico, a large and trusted source. He is the main talk of the article.
    [[4]]
    Another major article.
    Antny08 (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't pass NPOL and has no other claim to notability. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article about an unelected political candidate. There is no plausible claim of notability as a business executive. Bearcat and SportingFlyer have analyzed things well. Cullen328 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The reason for "delete" is that 95% of the sourcing is about the failed election bid and there is no solidly GNG source. The "weak" is because there is a bit a coverage about other topics, as well as some prominence of this election evidenced in sources which might put it into "edge case" territory with respect to the norm of how the standard is applied. North8000 (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [[5]]
    This is an article having to do with one of Del Borrello’s businesses. It is written by Politico, a large and trusted source. He is the main talk of the article.
    [[6]]
    Another major article. Antny08 (talk) 13:32, 20 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! 08:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raúl Aldana[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Mexico. Owen× ☎ 19:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Delete. I couldn't find any independent, reliable sources with in depth coverage, but his breadth of work comes close to meeting WP:ENT #1 if it can be reliably sourced. [7] is comprehensive but not reliable and I couldn't find anything better but I might have missed some Spanish sources. The lack of coverage of voice actors in general is a great shame and injustice, but we need something to base an article on and I don't see any coverage in reliable sources to base an article on. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the Delete argument is a Reluctant Delete. I think the discussion should carry on for a few more days and hopefully other editors can participate here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dhananjaya Das Kathiababa[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dhananjaya Das Kathiababa (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 would have have draftified this but there is already a draft. This article was a Frankenstein’s monster of religious fancruft, repeated material and appalling referencing. I removed unsourced material and then went through all the refs. Most were utter nonsense that had nothing to do with the article subject, or just mentioned his name but did not support the content of the article. There are only three sources left. One is not independent and I can’t access the other two. I’m prepared to believe that the subject may indeed be notable, but if they are this very poor article does them no favours. Mccapra (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, Hinduism, India, and West Bengal. Mccapra (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poorly sourced article and does not corroborate with the subject. I do not see any beneficial contribution and significant notability from this poorly sourced article.RangersRus (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable person. It is a recreation of an article that has been to AFD twice before. Most of the article appears to have been written by Srabanta Deb using various accounts to evade his/her block. Srabanta Deb usually recreates deleted articles using slightly different versions of the same name to make it harder to spot what he/she is doing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:08, 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. ✗plicit 02:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Vitoin[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:N. Last AfD by Wgolf was only closed as no consensus because no one commented. Boleyn (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 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. Reading S Marshall's comments as a non-bolded keep, there is consensus here. (non-admin closure) Schminnte [talk to me] 17:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny Food Co[edit]

Skinny Food Co (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 piece, fails WP:NCORP ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both would be considered reliable I believe, but The Times reference would not be considered WP:CORPDEPTH. The Lancashire Telegraph is borderline WP:CORPDEPTH as it does go beyond a routine announcement by providing background on the company. Are there any others as even if these both were found sufficient, not sure they would be enough for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mirror is also a British national newspaper, much less reliable than The Times (cf WP:DAILYMIRROR) and I would be suspicious of anything controversial that it said, but I would think it's reliable for the uncontroversial claims in this article, which is again already listed as a source. The article seems to be about the founders, but it's got quite a bit of depth about the business.—S Marshall T/C 22:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing and notifying of the deletion proposal. I tried to only use secondary sources that meet the standards for credibility. Although I do agree with you that some feel promotional, as far as I could tell none were advertorials, product placements etc, and were more just positive skewed coverage. I did try and balance the article and remove any overall bias in the article by proactively seeking out critical sources also.
Westenders (talk) 12:36, 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! 23:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – top sources are used. I concur with S Marshall. Also, the article isn’t very WP:PROMO imo. TLA (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sourcing is adequate for a corporate article and promotionalism is not so thorough as to necessitate a complete rewrite. It just needs some minor editing. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:36, 15 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! 22:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. No valid reason given for deletion. Windolson (talk) 23:51, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

College of Sexual and Relationship Therapists[edit]

College of Sexual and Relationship Therapists (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 find any secondary sources on DDG and DDG news search with significant coverage meeting WP:NORG. I also searched under its previous name, "British Association for Sexual and Relationship Therapy (BASRT)". Darcyisverycute (talk) 16:10, 1 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! 23:44, 8 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! 22:42, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait and the International Monetary Fund[edit]

Kuwait and the International Monetary Fund (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 topic is not independently notable. There isn't significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, as Kuwait does not have a relationship with the IMF that is worthy of an article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:19, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Traveling Awareness Bears[edit]

The Traveling Awareness Bears (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)

Doubtful notability. PepperBeast (talk) 21:55, 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fallen Angel (2003 film)[edit]

Fallen Angel (2003 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find any evidence that this film meets WP:GNG or WP:NFO. pinktoebeans (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator as per discussion and added sources below pinktoebeans (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this article has been previously tagged for speedy deletion in 2016 pinktoebeans (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And please note that that speedy deletion was immediately declined. The page was also ProDded in the past (and again, that was contested). More seriously, would you, in the light of the sources presented, consider withdrawing this nomination? Thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC) @Pinktoebeans:[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Junya Ito (footballer, born 1998)[edit]

Junya Ito (footballer, born 1998) (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. Created at a time when WP:NFOOTY was enough with an appearance in the J3 League. Can't find anything but stats pages for this player, and he's barely made a mark on Japanese football. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:00, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Kakande[edit]

James Kakande (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)

He doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My instinct is to support deletion, though a single by the subject was in the top 50 in Italy in summer 2006, which makes me wonder if a dedicated editor could scrape together enough sources. Without assessing reliability, here are some Italian-language sources I found in a few searches if anyone would like to attempt a salvage exercise: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sourcing found is Soundcloud, Rate Your Music, MySpace, Last.fm... None of which are RS or useful here. No coverage for this musician. Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:55, 21 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) 22:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Otter[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Daniel Otter (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)

Same rationale as the last AFD, the references mention the subject in passing and it doesn't appear that they have met the notability threshold. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:25, 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KGMM-CD[edit]

KGMM-CD (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) 19:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No SIGCOV in the Express-News. All it says is, The festival will be taped by Mas Musica TeVe, an independent music video network that airs locally on noncable channel 58. (Aug. 6, 1999). That's what became MTV Tres. Explains the call letters but very little else. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: That passing mention might be enough for a mention in MTV Tres#Free-to-air affiliates (which currently makes no mention of K58EU/KGMM, listing a different San Antonio station instead), but probably not even a redirect. Overall, a station with a history that is basically just Más Música TeVe, MTV Tres, and then becoming another all-diginet station doesn't strike me as the type of station that could possibly warrant significant coverge. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:44, 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. Complex/Rational 22:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third Harvest[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless better sources are out there. I couldn't really find any independent evidence of their existance with a couple searches. WilsonP NYC (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources found other than agricultural use of the term.Nothing in Irish sources either. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to find Third Harvest on discogs, musicbrainz nor on allmusic - which is not a good sign. Difficult subject to search for due to the farming references. At most I have found this BBC blog proves they played Rock the Lough, but that is nowhere near sufficient notability for inclusion. ResonantDistortion 12:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:54, 21 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) 02:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S. Horowitz & Co.[edit]

AfDs for this article:
S. Horowitz & Co. (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 notability demonstrated - Altenmann >talk 18:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Article is highly promotional in tone and needs a rewrite. However the firm has significant and ongoing national-level coverage in Israeli press, with the firm existing since 1921. For example [21] [22] Marokwitz (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Markowitz. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's the oldest surviving and 10th largest law firm in Israel. Already nominated for a second time. Again, with no good reason. gidonb (talk) 04:47, 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 Jakarta EE. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jakarta Activation[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N, or be worth a merge/redirect to Jakarta EE as it could unbalance that article. Boleyn (talk) 18:18, 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 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! 22:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carinthian Matadors Rugby Football Club[edit]

Carinthian Matadors Rugby Football Club (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 couldn't find the sources to confirm it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 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 redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KOBS-LD[edit]

KOBS-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) 17:29, 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 no consensus‎. Tossing aside the IPs and SPAs who should not have participated here per WP:GS/RUSUKR, both the Keep and Delete !voters have made some legitimate policy-based arguments. There do appear to be some sources that meet our standards, and many that do not. It seems unlikely that a relist will make consensus any clearer, so the best path would be to improve the article as much as it can be so future editors can determine if there's enough there, once things cool down. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Lira[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gonzalo Lira (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)

Taken to Afd because its been here 4 times already. Legitimately promoted from draft. May pass WP:NAUTHOR. scope_creepTalk 17:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Delete, same as the last 4 times. "This is the 4th time in AfD, I'd salt liberally if this goes towards deletion, again. " Tired of seeing this pop up, he's not covered in any RS. Oaktree b (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll go to bat on this one. I wholeheartedly disagree that 4 prior AfDs mean that this must be deleted again, there's nothing in the policy that states this. In fact, setting that into policy would just open it up to abuse. Reviewing the deletion discussions reveals barely any consensus and it would be inappropriate to salt based upon such a weak foundation (this isn't a Chris Chan situation with obvious harassment).
    I think your comment is a little misleading, Delete, same as the last 4 times is what you've voted for the last 4 times, not that there's been a consensus to delete 4 times. I doubt you had any bad intent by this, but its an important clarification since not everyone is going to dig through the past AfDs. We have one draftify, one keep, one WP:GS/RUSUKR delete (which says nothing about notability), and one delete a decade ago.
    Regarding WP:BIO, we have New York Daily News, The Independent, NBC, Los Angeles Times, and Business Insider just to name a few. Yes, the article could be better written, but this was more than enough for it to be passed out of the draftspace initially. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 21:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete as a non-notable journalist/relationship coach that only got coverage for passing away. Nothing in his career warranted an article here, passing away doesn't get you notability. There have been multiple attempts to use semi-reliable sources in each of the last 4 noms, with nothing ever found each and every time. Oaktree b (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Passing away doesn't get you notability, show me the policy. Passing away in a notable way does, in fact, get you notability (as just one exception that could apply here). Plus it's been a perennial discussion that he is a notable author/public figure (see below and prior discussions). The only time there's been a consensus he's not notable was in 2014, which was a full decade ago and not reflective of the current article. "Nothing ever found each and every time" is blatantly false and salting is an extreme length to go. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 00:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dying isn't notable, NOTMEMORIAL. It's been happening forever, and we aren't a necrology. We need sourced that talk about the person extensively, in reliable sources, which we don't have. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTMEMORIAL Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. Yes, but notable murders, heavily publicized deaths, etc. have long been an exception to this (See Alan Berg as just one example from List of journalists killed in the United States). There are frankly hundreds of examples to call upon and Lira's death is somewhat controversial to say the least. Regardless, my argument is that he is notable outside of his death and the vast coverage of his death is a symptom of that notability. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 00:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    agreed, but he wasn't notable in life, so doesn't get so after dying. He's been discussed 4 times here already and was never deemed to be notable is my point. Oaktree b (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But nowhere in the policy does it state that prior AfDs are indicative of an article's viability come a new AfD. The 1st and 4th AfDs are nonstarters since they were a decade old and a procedural matter, respectively. The 3rd AfD ruled "As there's some material in reliable sources that could plausibly grow, the argument to draftify is more persuasive than that supporting outright deletion." (similar in the 2nd AfD) which lends to the credibility that 2 years ago he was already straddling the line of notability. At this point, seeing that Fox News, South China Morning Post, and maybe the Daily Beast (Which are relatively reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources), have all run pieces on him in just the last 2 days, what's to say we can't call his detention/death notable? The aforementioned list I gave you has many similar articles that were kept but have even less coverage than Gonzalo (Meaning that Keeping this article is in line with precedent and policy). The only reason this keeps going to AfD is because it's politically contentious; given 10 years I doubt we'd find the same amount of scrutiny. Frankly, we've kept articles for less. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 19:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    in what world would Fox News be considered reliable on the subject of Russian propaganda? Elinruby (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected. I was unaware of the recent 2023 downgrading until I went looking. Fox used to be a WP:CONTEXTMATTERS source, but this has since changed. This doesn't change my broader opinion since there are many better sources brought up below, but it was a good catch. Thanks!! 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 21:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    not only that but debunked: [23] Tucker Carlson, you guys. Elon Musk. I can't believe I still have to point out that these are not reliable sources. The man denied the Bucha massacre for crying out loud, in the face of massive coverage by actual RS. Somebody who cares so little about facts is emphatically not a "journalist". Elinruby (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not Wikipedia's job to determine someone's profession, if the sourcing calls them a journalist than that's final. We are meant to be dispassionate, not feeding our own biases; lest we perform a No true scottsman. One a personal note, I detest Lira's journalism, but it is not our place to gatekeep. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 21:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah? Produce an RS that does this. An actual RS. Elinruby (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here [24], it's a video produced by journalist Kim Iversen for The Hill discussing Lira, in which he's called a journalist. The New York Times called him a 'American commentator". The Independent calls him a self-described journalist. Perhaps the title 'political commentator and self-described journalist' would be a happy medium? 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 22:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The NYT might support "wannabe propagandist". I've been laughing too 😂 hard to check the video out yet. I'd have to check on the Independent's reliability since it was sold but it is moot because they don't claim he's a journalist in the first place. Elinruby (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, the current prose in the article ... Chilean-American novelist, film director, commentator, YouTuber and life coach blogger is more than sufficient. The current article never calls him a journalist at all (only using the word journalist once to refer to someone else), which makes me wonder what the issue is with this term. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 03:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Several editors say so here and some of the better sources refer to the Kremlin's attempt to portray him as such. It's what they do -- portray their useful idiot as a prisoners of conscience on free speech issues. That's why. Elinruby (talk) 11:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lira, has, in my opinion been notable enough in all four cases of previous deletion to have a Wiki page. Although, in the previous four cases, there was too much vandalism for the pages to be worthy to keep. This time appears to be different. Also, Lira wrote his own Wiki page at least one of four those times, to my knowledge. In short, I disagree with your argument and believe this article should be kept. NesserWiki (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The only really good source on this guy is a Newsweek article, which, tellingly, has the title "Who is Gonzalo Lira." The article was only released because Lira died recently, see WP:ONEEVENT and WP:RECENTISM. The article was moved to mainspace too quickly - we should have waited to see if any other mainstream sources started reporting on. As is, Lira is only really notable within the Pro-Russian corners of the internet, making finding sources on him difficult - the problems with the non-pro-Russian sources about him have been amply discussed in the previous deletion discussions and on the talk page (Daily Beast, for instance).--Ermenrich (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment is confusing to me. What does the title of the article have to do with its status as an independent top level media profile? The rest of your argument stands but wouldn't every thing that's notable have gone through a phase where they weren't, and then they became notable, and spawned articles with titles like "Hey check out this thing that wasn't notable until now" or the conceptual equivalent? WilsonP NYC (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fyi Newsweek is on the Perennial Sources list as generally not reliable after 2013 when it was sold. Elinruby (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lira honestly and accurately reported on the corruption and brutality of the Zelensky regime being propped up by Biden. He was arrested, tortured and murdered by the Ukranians for his beliefs and being one of the very few to present an opposing point of view to the US State Department narrative.. And even if one disagrees with that assessment, he had a large following on YouTube and if Wiki can mention the passing of other YT 'stars' and product influencers as well as the deaths of horses, turtles, manatees, etc as done in the past, it can mention Lira's biography as well 2601:58C:C180:4E10:6586:AFB9:C125:3204 (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is the only contribution to Wikipedia from this address Elinruby (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Being murdered for your beliefs, a perfectly common occurance, doesn't make you automatically notable. Wikipedia is not the place for a memorial article. This article needs WP:SALTED. The subject seems to be non-notable. scope_creepTalk 18:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People keep pushing these YouTubers as notable. The article should not have been created once let alone five times. On my phone, longer policy-citing reply to follow, but notably article seriously skews tbe facts, sources are awful for the topic area, and as someone asked already, how is misogyny a career highlight? Also, "director"???
    /me scoffs Elinruby (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please examine his life before he became a YouTuber. Fairly significant career. He got a million dollar advance for a novel he wrote. Thriley (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the source for the million dollars is an archived image of a paywall. It looks like a fantastic source until you click it. Elinruby (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m seeing it: “ If you nurse a secret novel in your sock-drawer, and with it dreams of publication and literary immortality, you should meet a beacon of hope by the name of Gonzalo Lira . Chilean-born, now living in Los Angeles, Lira is the author of the novel Counterparts , which just helped him to a $1-million (U.S.) two-book deal from Putnam in New York.” Thriley (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. Do you subscribe? Are you on a phone? I've definitely gotten a paywall twice but i'll try again later.
    Elinruby (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am logged on the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Very helpful for access to an overwhelming amount of material. Highly recommend you join if you haven’t already. Thriley (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Been there done that but thank you. In return may I point out that you can get 100 free searches a month at JStor just for creating an account? However while a lot of the sources used here might be eligible for sourcing something extremely uncontroversial like, for example, the agricultural products of Oregon, this is not that. The Ukrainian war and its propaganda are controversial enough to require special handling in and of themselves. This is a BLP whose best sources call the man a liar and a shill, and that's before we start looking at a plurality of the sources, if not a majority being unreliable, and what appears to be some very organized coordination happening somewhere. Sourcing that just barely reaches an absolutely minimum standard is not what we need here and at the moment we don't even have that... That's the issue here as I see it. Elinruby (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)of[reply]
Many folk get big advances for work but don't make it as authors. There is no book reviews at all, outwith the normal trade reviews for libraries and what so, so he pass WP:NAUTHOR. Getting lots of money isn't a criteria of notability. scope_creepTalk 17:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Elinruby: It seems to. The first 10 references are a joke. Anything you send me will be appreciated. He is not film director either. As far as I can determine he is directed one film and a short. That doesn't make you a film director. 17:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Moving this from draft was probably premature. I imagine major newspapers will cover his death eventually. If this is deleted, it should be moved back to draft. Thriley (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see at least three sources with significant coverage: one is the mentioned 2024 Newsweek article, two from 2022 Chilean article "What is known about Gonzalo Lira and his mysterious disappearance in Ukraine", another one: [25], hence WP:RECENTISM argument is invalid. - Altenmann >talk 18:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. I have just added the fourth in-depth article from a 2023 Ukrainian source: [26], and I am pretty sure google search for Ukrainian spelling Гонсало Ліра will give more valid refs. - Altenmann >talk 18:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.P.S. the here is fifth in-depth 2023 article from Times of India: [27], and cited in the wp bio, too. Concluding: delete-!voters thoroughly failed to exercise due diligence when claiming lack of coverage in WP:RS. - Altenmann >talk 19:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Considering that Lira had a mostly western audience, what weight should we give a source like the Times of India? The article in question is mostly just a regurgitation of Tucker Carlson and also contains wonderful quotes like this The former Fox News anchor also highlighted how people in the UK have been losing lives due to hypothermia in the absence of cheap Russian energy. In what world is that reliable? Show me any other reliable source reporting on people dying of hypothermia in the UK due to a lack of cheap Russian gas.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That India is irrelevant is an invalid comment, I would say. Although you are right. The article meticulously says it is retelling Tucker Carlson. - Altenmann >talk 19:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • What on earth? Lira's audience is mostly in the West, not India. He palled around with other Western pro-Russia online personalities like Scott Ritter and "Donbas Devushka" trying to reach people in the West. That's besides the obvious problems with what you initially described as "an in-depth article" that just repeats Tucker Carlson's inane nonsense.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I have already agreed that it is retelling Carlson, hence I agree it is not an additional source to be counted against notability. But judging who has rights to make comments on what is none of Wikipedian's business. - Altenmann >talk 19:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      From Perennial Sources list: "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage". And if it's pro-government, it's worth pointing out that India is energy-reliant on Russia. Elinruby (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.P.P.S, And here is the 6th 2022 Daily Beast in-depth article, How a Sleazy American Dating Coach Became a Pro-Putin Shill in Ukraine.
I am done digging here. The above is more than enough for all three criteria WP:COVERAGE: depth, duration, and diversity of sources. - Altenmann >talk 19:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Problems with the Daily Beast have already been discussed on both the article talk page and I believe in previous deletion discussions. I mentioned it in my comment above.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we remove the Daily Beast as a source for this article altogether, there are still other reliable sources covering him. Death Editor 2 (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked in Talk:Gonzalo_Lira#"Daily_Beast"_article_not_reliable_source and I see in favor of arguments there that the accusation is false. - Altenmann >talk 19:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then how do you propose we use a source that calls Lira a "Pro-Putin shill" without calling him those words due to WP:BLP concerns?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPPUBLIC. That he is Pro-Putin is claimed in many sources. - Altenmann >talk 20:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLP means Biography of LIVING Persons. Or do we have to wait until the New York Times confirms that he is dead? 2A02:A46A:2C29:1:F817:F206:1084:4987 (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP also applies to the recently deceased.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it has to be drafted again. This page is a mesh of editions and it can affect the impartiality of the matter. For example: in his career we can see that the misogyny in his videos is treated like a highlight in his career. How the hell is that a highlight and not a controversial element? Also, there's a ton to depure in the article that can be resumed in a few words without losing anything important. SupaaWiki >talk 21:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only contribution to en
wiki from this address Elinruby (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep....independent significant coverage in reliable sources addressing the subject in depth and directly....(;) including, randomly, El País (Costa Rica)....Helsinki Times...Hora do Povo... TF1, etc, etc. (And Afds should be about deletion not cleanup)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The El Pais piece is sourced directly to Sputnik (news agency). The Helsinki Times article is obviously not reliable for reasons I have already laid out in the article talk page ("Zelensky regime" "eight years of bombing of the civilian population of Donbas by Kyiv"). The "Horo do Povo" article is also obviously unreliable: it describes Lira uncritically as a "journalist" and contains "Kyiv regime" in its headline and again appears to rely entirely on Sputnik for a source. Other sterling journalism from this paper is a headline about "Fascist Netanyahu". TF1 appear to be reliable though, but again, its just debunking Tucker Carlson.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ......No comment except that one can add PLENTY of other existing sources in various languages, including, again, almost at random, Diario de Yucatán, La Tercera, Hungarian Conservative, El Correo, etc, etc, etc. And I'll leave it at that if you don't mind. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and I bet I can show how each one of them is also an unreliable source. "Zelenskyy regime", uses Sputnik as a source, uncritically uses Carlson, Lira himself, and Alex Rubinstein as sources of information. I can't access the final one, as it's behind a paywall, but I'm sure it would be the same.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TF1 is probably the best source there, but it's basically fact checking other sites, so isn't strictly about Lira. Newsweek, El Pais aren't acceptable for the reason listed. Daily Beast isn't a reliable source. Unsure of the Helskinki Times article. I'm not seeing notability with these sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ... Per above. I agree that removing this out of the draftspace was premature but not necessarily disqualifying, Mushy Yank put it better than I could. Honestly, we've kept articles for less and I remain unconvinced by Oaktree's argument that 4 prior AfDs must mean that we blacklist/salt this article in perpetuity. In addition, only 2 of the AfDs actually resulted in deletion. One is from a decade ago and one was a procedural deletion due to sanctions. There's been no consensus that this guy is not noteworthy and at this point, it feels more like beating a dead horse than anything productive. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 21:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Several important sources such as Newsweek reported on his death. The case is controversial and has had quite an international echo. I note that the article has been translated into 11 languages[28] including English and that between 12, 13 and 14 January alone the English article made 1348 views, which denotes that there is substantial general attention.[29]--Mhorg (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On January 15, the article had 15,500 views.[30] The article has been translated into another language, a total of 12.[31] Mhorg (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Newsweek is not a reliable source Elinruby (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With two novels published by major publishers, each of which received multiple reviews at the time, he meets WP:NAUTHOR, regardless of his later notoriety. His activity in Ukraine has certainly garnered the most in-depth coverage, and even though the reliability of some sources is contested (WP:DAILYBEAST, WP:NEWSWEEK), I believe we have enough reliable source coverage to include that part of his life as well. Here are the best sources:
Reviews of Counterparts
  • Zvirin, Stephanie (1997-12-15). "Counterparts". Booklist. 94 (8) – via ProQuest. (173 words)
  • Steinberg, Sybil S. "Counterparts". Publishers Weekly. 244 (47): 53 – via ProQuest. (222 words)
  • Perez-Stable, Maria A (December 1997). "Counterparts". Library Journal. 122 (20): 154 – via ProQuest. (160 words)
Reviews of Acrobat
  • Smith, Roger (January 2003). "Acrobat". Magill's Book Reviews – via EBSCO.
  • "Acrobat". Publishers Weekly. 249 (9): 54. 2002-03-04 – via EBSCO. (282 words)
  • Wall, Patrick (2002-01-03). "Acrobat". Library Journal. 127 (4) – via EBSCO.
  • "Acrobat". Kirkus Reviews. 70 (3). 2002-02-01.
  • Pitt, David (2002-03-01). "Acrobat". Booklist. 98 (13): 1096. (starred review)
Other reliable-source coverage
Jfire (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article seems to have been restored entirely because of the news of Lira's death. But death does not confer notability. If he was non-notable before he died, he's still non-notable afterward. And the vast majority of reporting about him seems to be from very unreliable sources. But I suppose this is a weak delete; I'm open to Jfire's argument that he's notable as an author. — Red XIV (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    > But death does not confer notability. If he was non-notable before he died, he's still non-notable afterward
    Is this actual policy? I can think of many examples of how the manner of death itself could certainly confer notability, and a political killing is high on that list. WilsonP NYC (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    you spelled pneumonia wrong. How is pneumonia" a political killing? Elinruby (talk) 12:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To rebut these arguments:
    > he was non-notable before he died, he's still non-notable afterward
    The sources above (from me) and below (from Bedivere) show that he was notable (as an author) prior to his death.
    > the vast majority of reporting about him seems to be from very unreliable sources
    Notability is based on an evaluation of the reliable sources. The existence of unreliable sources, in any volume, does not imply that a subject is non-notable. Jfire (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If he can source it yeah maaaaybe Elinruby (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. As a writer he received lots of coverage in his native Chile. The National Library has archived and released at least 24 articles related to Lira and his work, available online here [32]. That includes articles from El Mercurio, Las Últimas Noticias, La Tribuna de Los Ángeles, Qué Pasa magazine, among many others. These are all reliable sources from Chile and should suffice. And that does not count the coverage of Lira's activism, which has been called "one event" by commenters above. --Bedivere (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NAUTHOR with four books, two of which received enough coverage and were published by major publishing labels. He's received plenty of coverage in Chilean media, including in major news outlets, and compounded with the recent influx of news from English media regarding his antics in Ukraine and regarding his death, this is clearly a WP:ONEEVENT situation. — Knightoftheswords 04:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same reasons as last four times and other comments above. As User:Redxiv points out death does not confer notability - if he didn’t pass notability last four times then probably still doesn’t. As User:Ermenrich points out, the closest we have to an actual RS here is Newsweek which… isn’t an RS (though some people mistakenly think it is because it once was… like 15 years ago). The rest is junk like Sputnik or its derivatives or other obscure sources. This guy was/is well known within certain online circles but that’s not enough for an encyclopedia article. Volunteer Marek 07:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, the National Library of Chile link above contains several articles from the 1990s, all from reliable Chilean sources, making this person pass NAUTHOR, and completely disregarding their recent years. Bedivere (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meeting the author criteria is enough, I am convinced. The more current coverage however is also sufficient in my view. And lastly of course the manner of someone’s death can be relevant to their notability. WilsonP NYC (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although we need to watch out for biased sources so as to maintain NPOV. Even prior to the attention he received recently, Lira passed NAUTHOR. And contrary to what some people suggested, I think his involvement in the Ukraine situation definitely is relevant to his notability. 2804:214:86BB:1774:4E45:EE50:F8E0:C061 (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC) violates WP:GS/RUSUKR.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editor is a WP:SPA. scope_creepTalk 14:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedians famously have very low threshhold for GNG and tend to confuse a lot of sources as enough, when they often don't look at the quality of those sources. There's also clear confusion above, where thinking notability is derived. Just because his novels or films were reviewed is not proof the author himself is notable. And the paltry reviews are not enough to justify even articles on the novels. The novels and author are separate subjects. As an author, youtuber, and filmmaker he's a nobody who had little impact or notice. He would potentially be notable for the events leading to arrest and death. The poor sourcing of the article is a reflection to how few actual honest to goodness news sources have covered him. Business Insider, The Daily Beast, Salon, are very fluffy internet focused sites that I do everything to avoid in proper articles. Newsweek was once a solid source like 20 years ago, but in the internet age has degraded to being declared outright unreliable. A brief notice in NBC News piece is the only proper source in the entire article. Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
he's also a cowboy, an astronaut and a ballerina.<g> Elinruby (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he passes WP:NAUTHOR. The book reviews aren't particularly decent. There is no literary journals or critical theory journals. There is nothing in contemporary magazines where you expect to find a good reviews. Kirkus isn't something you would normally use, Publishers weekly is a industry trade journal and effectively non-rs for the most part in this context, its never used as a review source. The Library journal is an industry journal, again. Mcgill, I'm not sure about but not get the right signals from it. It looks like a trade journal. Booklist is the same. Its not rs. scope_creepTalk 14:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not much has changed since the last vote. He is still not notable enough, and his death did not make him more notable. Bear in mind that this is the 5th nomination, and this article was deleted every time. BeŻet (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"this is the 5th nomination, and this article was deleted every time" is not accurate. Only one of the prior nominations closed as a delete on notability grounds: the first one in 2014. The second closed as "no consensus", the third closed as "draftify" and the closer noted "some material in reliable sources that could plausibly grow", and the fourth was a procedural delete on non-notability grounds. So the only time the article has been deleted for lack of notability was ten years ago, prior to Lira's activity in Ukraine, in an AFD that did not locate nor discuss the English and Spanish language coverage of Lira's writing career. Consensus can change. Jfire (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not accurate. All the votes following the first when happened after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Lack of notability was clearly established during the third vote ("draftify" simply means to delete the article, move it to a draft and wait for a change in notability). The fourth vote was "delete" because nothing has been changed. I still believe that he is not notable. BeŻet (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
aw shucks somebody has turned up a passing mention of him on a New York Times list of ridiculous propaganda claims, and he got a whole paragraph! Then there is the archived image of a Globe and Mail paywall referencing the million dollars; that's good to go, right? Seriously, that's with only a very cursory click or two. Don't let me get started on a full-scale source verification here, none of us has time for that and I already have a backlog in source verification... Elinruby (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Story was reported on in Newsweek, Fox News and the New York Post, his case has been addressed at State Department briefings and by the Russian foreign minister multiple times, and by other notable (if not always reliable) commentators, he was mention in multiple other outlets before his arrest and death. Can't see how this doesn't pass WP:GNG (EDIT as of 1/20: this has been a learning experience for me in terms of which sources are considered reliable by consensus, however there are still plenty of sources that are reliable/in-depth, many of which I or other editors have added to the article since 1/16.) JSwift49 14:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newsweek, Fox News, and New York Post, are all crap sources and I try to remove them from any articles I find. This article is just piling crap tabloid and internet sources on top of each other. Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Post is not an acceptable source, nor is Newsweek or Fox News [33]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chilean newspapers, The Bulwark, The Independent, Business Insider, New York Daily News, Kyiv Post, Europa Press etc. JSwift49 15:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NYT, LA Times, NBC, TF1... If we want to remove those sources you mentioned we can have a discussion about that, but he is mentioned in many in which there is no dispute of reliability, so how does this warrant a deletion of the article? JSwift49 16:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JSwift49, I was in the other discussion.
These are biased pro-Ukrainian editors, who are sealioning this either discussion to waste your time. They do not like that Lira's death makes the Ukrainian government look bad.
They literally cite YouTube videos by this Jake Broe guy who had a spat with Lira on Twatter over e-celeb crap.
I hate to deflect but I don't see any of these editors looking at the Sarah Ashton-Cirillo's (related to GL Ukraine situation) Wikipedia article which is all just tabloid LGBT magazines, Fox News Las Vegas, The Daily Beast, and Twatter...but I don't think she should have her article deleted either.
Entire discussion is ridiculous... Thegreatmuffinman (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Post violates WP:GS/RUSUKR.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This account is an WP:SPA.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree a good chunk of sources were sourced from Russia/unreliable outlets so should have been removed, but yeah there clearly are enough reliable sources so the article should be at most fixed not deleted. We should not apply a higher standard to this article than the vast majority of others. JSwift49 18:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: mIght have a pass at AUTHOR, but the reviews are flimsy and we'd need more than those for sourcing. I still don't think we have enough in RS for notability, Daily Beast and Newsweek are depreciated. TF1 isn't strictly about Lira. Rest are sourced to Sputnik or in non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a WIRED article that stated one of his novels' movie rights had been bought by Miramax, not sure if helps but put it in. JSwift49 17:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are they deprecated? They both seem to be labeled "with additional considerations" (Newsweek reliable on "on a case-by-case basis" post-2013, the Daily Beast for being biased towards left-wing positions) on the list. Neither are listed as deprecated. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they are not deprecated. WP:DAILYBEAST is "no consensus", and WP:NEWSWEEK is "evaluate on a case-by-case basis". Jfire (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. He certainly does not pass WP:AUTHOR: no, he is not regarded as an important figure by his peers or successors; his books being reviewed is not really a proof. However, he might pass our general criteria as someone who appears in multiple sources. But most of these sources are weak, as noted, for example, by Oaktree just above and some others. He also does not appear as anyone of significance other than promoting a ridiculous misinformation and being arrested. And the history of creation and deletion of the previous versions of this page seems to indicate at promotion. Hence, I am leaning toward "delete", although have no strong opinion (he does appear in multiple sources after all). My very best wishes (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think a source review is needed here at least for the first block which may settle it. I'll do it tommorrow. scope_creepTalk 16:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply listing the sources, as some people do above on this page, is not enough. One should check what they say about the subject. For example, I noticed a NYT article. It says "Alex Jones, the American conspiracy theorist who often spreads lies on his Infowars platform, during his online show on Monday suggested that Ukraine would detonate a dirty bomb within its borders and then blame Russia as “a pretext to bring NATO fully into the conflict” and start World War III. “My analysis is, about 90 percent at this point, that there’s going to be full-on public war with Russia, and at least a tactical nuclear war in Europe,” ... And on YouTube, Gonzalo Lira, an American commentator who lives in Ukraine, said that “all the evidence” pointed to a “deliberate provocation that is being staged by the Americans.”. Such mention does count as a citation of Lira, but it says little of substance beyond noticing that Lira repeated/supported the claim by Alex Jones who is indeed a notable conspiracy theorist. My very best wishes (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gonzalo is notable person, his view were supressed and yet his views reached tens of millions worldwide. Some parts of the article do not base the claim on primary sources. Reviewing the telegram and subsequent youtube does not prove doxxing of other journalist during the initial phases of invasion of Russian forces. Also the claim that he did sent the positions of the troops to tiktok is not that easy to believe as he did not have tiktok channel and there is no evidence of that, there are points in the article that are not provable altough the fact that he was prosecuted in the ukraine remains important. For definition of doxxing I am using [1] maybe going through all the evidence of the ideas of the author he presented [2] and making the article more detailed would certainly improve the quality and lower the biased citations that stand contrary to the alredy established definition on wikipedia e.g. the doxing article Krypto Švejk (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Note the recent Arbcom request for modification of the sourcing expectations for the Antisemitism in Poland topic area. I advocated extending it to the Holocaust in Lithuania as they did but also to eastern Europe in general, which seemed to get some support, except that it's difficult to enunciate a standard for the war in Ukraine in particular beyond saying (me) that it is a HUGE problem. For which this article is a poster child. Elinruby (talk) Elinruby (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lira is notable by the sheer amount of literature about his passing, though he was quite famous even before. There are many newspaper publications about him from 2022 and earlier. Tiphareth (talk) Tiphareth (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Post violates WP:GS/RUSUKR.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing
  2. ^ https://t.me/realCRP
  • This account is an WP:SPA.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, My account is not single purpose. I am on wikipedia for more than 10 years. I did only contribute here less than on my local wikipedia, but this is not truth. rather your comment is against wikipedia rules as your comment is sort of personal attack. please restrain from further rules violations Krypto Švejk (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but having a single edit in 2016 does not keep you from being an SPA.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont have single edit, I also dont violate the general test. Please make yourself familiar with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account Krypto Švejk (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Before today, yes you did only have a single edit. Then you suddenly reappeared after eight years to vote in this AFD.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speci%C3%A1ln%C3%AD:P%C5%99%C3%ADsp%C4%9Bvky/Krypto_%C5%A0vejk for reference. I already said that I am originaly a local account holder and you did not verify it and falsely claimed that I have only one contribution. And then you used false tense and again falsely claimed nonsense. I am beginning to think your account is for trolling purposes Krypto Švejk (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can think that, but the fact is you have basically zero activity on en.Wiki besides mysteriously showing up to vote in this AFD. And that link shows you basically have no real activity in Cz.Wiki until you started editing Lira this year as well.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are at least three reliable sources that discuss him in specific in depth. He wasn't notable in 2014, he is now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lira was featured on Tass which referenced Tucker Carlson and Elon Musk. Not a reliable source but the Daily Beast wrote an article entitled,
How a Sleazy American Dating Coach Became a Pro-Putin Shill in Ukraine." There is controversy about Lira going way back to alleged sexual predation at Dartmouth. Lira is whatever you want him to be depending on your worldview. He is a journalist to some, a fraudster, an opportunist, a propagandist, an economist, a writer, film maker, a narcissistic opportunist, a pro-Russian shill, or a hero. How do you write an article about this human chameleon in a way that is accurate and balanced. 73.27.57.206 (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Post violates WP:GS/RUSUKR.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This editor is a WP:SPA, who has no understanding of the WP policies. scope_creepTalk 01:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dick. 73.27.57.206 (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you've just proven the point, we don't name call here please. Oaktree b (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I appreciate all the good faith feedback and discussion here, I’ve come to agree the original article needed improvement and my submitting it was premature. However I and other editors have now worked on it quite a bit so I’d like to request any decision be taken with these changes in mind. I more than ever believe the article adequately demonstrates notability (has a good number of reliable sources, and tons of articles on Wikipedia are of far less significant people), so it should not be deleted, especially given how different the previous four AfD submissions were. JSwift49 03:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The request for deletion is clearly a politically-motivated attempt to "memory-hole" relevant historical events and a public figure, however minor or unpopular, who has actively contributed in SIGNIFICANT measure to reporting and discussion of events leading up to and during the Ukrainian/Russian conflict from 2014-2023. The fact that he was a dissenting voice outside the MSM makes his reporting more relevant, not less so. Moreover, as the manner of his incarceration and death, foretold by Lira himself at the end of July, 2023, possibly or even likely involves crimes and human rights violations by both Ukrainian and US authorities, the request to delete, particularly at this time, is a clear attempt to hide the circumstances of his death and to censor dissent; to deny the public ready access to significant factual historical information. The page should not only be retained, but expanded, improved and ELEVATED in significance, at least until the Ukrainian conflict is settled. Whoever requested deletion, particularly at this moment when the circumstances of his death are still an active topic of discussion in the public realm, should probably have their own significance and moral integrity questioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:10AE:10:9E66:15A7:B596:232B:39FB (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC) Post violates WP:GS/RUSUKR.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:SPA scope_creepTalk 08:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Single purpose account' everyone knows what you are doing now. You are not arguing in good faith and cannot address any of the points as your sealioning trolling has been called out.
Fact is, you don't need an account to edit a lot of Wikipedia articles.
Where is your scrutiny towards the sources of the Ashton-Cirollo article?
Like I said already that article is all Daily Beast, Twatter, Fox News Las Vegas, and LGBT tabloid magazines. Their article still should not be deleted, but I don't see the usual suspects on here trying to brigade delete this article doing the same there...
Also, your opinion doesn't matter if you think GL is distasteful, many people find Scott Ritter distasteful (convicted sex offender), does that mean that they should not have a Wikipedia article?
Cause if that is the case then theirs should be deleted too. Fact is, are they notable? Yes, people can be notable by being infamous. Thegreatmuffinman (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC) — Thegreatmuffinman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This is a WP:SPA. Seems to be off-wiki canvassing. scope_creepTalk 12:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a fellow editor, it is important to use non-confrontational wording in discussions, as hostile wording rarely leads to resolution. My recommendation is to edit your comment for tone. Ca talk to me! 12:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing confrontational about that? SportingFlyer T·C 13:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he hasn't been notable before, and I don't really see anything here which pushes over the threshold. Don't see the WP:NAUTHOR, and the whole thing seems fringe and WP:NOTNEWS. Would also salt. SportingFlyer T·C 12:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he was notable before, as his first books received significant coverage in Chile as shown above Bedivere (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but I completely agree with scope_creep here. SportingFlyer T·C 19:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't intend to participate in the vote, as I'm not an editor, just a Wiki reader from Germany (not Russia, lol). My understanding is that Gonzalo Lira was arrested and prosecuted for voicing political views that were prohibited by the Ukrainian state and then died while being imprisoned. That in itself makes this a matter of public interest in my personal view, as freedom of expression is generally protected in European countries and citizens normally cannot be arrested or imprisoned for voicing political views, whether true or false. 2A01:C23:8CAA:900:4CCC:1BE:F5EF:7A5C (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the only post to Wikipedia from this address Elinruby (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the lack of statements from the White House about the survival or death of Lira, shows that something strange has happened to the journalist, making this character more interesting in the encyclopedias and in this one it also has numerous sources and a great development encyclopedic my opinion stay. 57ntaledane9 (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Post violates WP:GS/RUSUKR.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This account is an WP:SPA. Also none of the reasons mentioned have anything to do with WP:NOTABILITY.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ermenrich I am not an account for a particular purpose. I was the one who created the article in simple English and who is having a general query. You can leave your opinions https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzalo_Lira# My decision is that it remains with reliable sources and is an article that has other websites such as German, Portuguese and Arabic. 57ntaledane9 (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Jfire. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep feel free to debate the content (elsewhere), but the sourcing presented here satisfies the WP:GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He was a relevant figure in the Ukraine-Russia war since the beginning in 2022 and there are many credible news articles on him regarding this conflict. If Gonzalo Lira does not belong on wikipedia, then why are even more irrelevant people like Vladlen Tatarsky not merged with the event page (Assassination of Vladlen Tatarsky), but have their own separate personal pages instead? By this logic many pages must be removed. YitzhakNat (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, of course Tatrsky is a lot more notable, and not only his assassination, but even women used as patsy [34] is probably notable enough to have her page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is honestly a little concerning to read this discussion, as someone who loves wikipedia and sees it as in invaluable resource that sincerely aims for neutrality. this lira guy is clearly reprehensible, but the following and interest he generated over a long period justifies an article here. furthermore, the article could be quite a bit better, but was still valuable for what wilipedia is always valuable for to me - an easily readable overview of a subject with plenty of links to verify and go deeper. i am not sure what would make this article a nominee for deletion instead of just edits without thinking a lot of the editors are making disingenuous arguments because they simply find the subject matter distasteful. keep wiki neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.224.169.134 (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any page can be nominated for deletion, please nominate those you feel aren't at notability. The sooner we can clean out non-notable articles on wiki, the better. Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. There's a sort amount of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and whataboutism in the arguments of not just this keep vote.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would strongly support deleting or at least merging Vladlen Tatarsky also, anyone who starts an AfD please ping me. I have a couple of other names as well. Elinruby (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The other users have listed a lot of reliable sources. I think it easily passes WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Other than the sources listed, it was reported in mainstream media in Serbia ([35], [36], [37]), Hungary - which is a member of NATO ([38], [39]) and Romania - another NATO member ([40]). StjepanHR (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis[edit]

  • Comment Lets examine the two blocks of sources + plus the above sources + chilean newspaper list on Lira to settle this once and for all.
Reference
Number
 URL Independent Reliable
 Significant WP:GNG Notes
1 [41] Yes No No No Its likely non-rs.
2 [42] No Yes No No WP:PRIMARY. Self-published opinion piece.
3 [43] Yes Yes No No Non-RS. Database generated profile.
4 [44] No Yes No No It is an interview. WP:PRIMARY.
5 [45] Yes Yes No No Its a passing mention, in reaction to another story.
6 [46] Yes Yes No No Its a quote, a passing mention.
7 [47] Yes No No No Seems to be some question of propagating a lie about a non-existant video. So article is not a reliable source, even though Daily Beast is generally considered to be reliable.
8 [48] Yes Yes No No Single para is passing mention.
9 [49] Yes No No No Short para, taken from Twitter. Its non-rs.
10 [50] No No No No Report taken a podcast. Staff report, no byline Profile effectively. Non-RS.
11 [51] Yes No No No National news agency of Ukraine. Article built from Twitter and Youtube. "The material was prepared by the editorial office of the Center for Strategic Communications and Information Security". No byline. Likely Non-rs
12 [52] Yes
13 [53] No No No No Uses Twitter as a source to build the article. Bylined article "Who Is Gonzalo Lira?"
14 [54] Yes Yes No No Its a routine annoucement of death and only 6 lines long. Probably satisfies WP:V for his death but not a particularly decent ref.
15 [55] Yes Yes No No Same press-release as a reference 14, confirming he died. It is 8 lines. There is no analysis, in fact there is nothing except he died of pneumonia. Its not significant.
16 [56] Yes Yes Yes Yes These library logins dialogs per consensus are considered non-rs as they fail WP:V. Article about his book advance. Here it is: [57]
17 [58] Yes Yes No No Same death annoucement as Ref 15. Same ref as 14
18 Yes Yes A recent RFC found it to be a paper of record. So reliable.
19 [59] Yes Yes No No Two paragraphs, not significant.
20 [60] No No No No Event listing for bookstore discussion. Its is non-rs.
21 [61] Yes Yes No No Incididental para with name mention (passing mention) about his book "Counterparts" getting picked up. Context on Stacy Creamer and Kathleen J. Reichs. Two para's. Satisfies WP:V.
22 [62] Yes No No No Event listing again, for some reason. Completely non-rs. Why is that even in the article?
23 [63] Yes 
scope_creepTalk 12:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment German reader here again, I find this evaluation a bit odd.
1. "Its likely non-rs." Wouldn't a reason here be warranted? Why is it "likely non-rs"?
5. "Its a passing mention, in reaction to another story." The name "Lira" is mentioned 8 times throughout the article in 7 different paragraphs. GPT-3.5 summarizes the article as follows: "Gonzalo Lira's blog post on Business Insider accused Paul Krugman of suggesting war as a fiscal solution to the economy, which was widely criticized and labeled as "totally batshit insane" by economists. Business Insider eventually pulled the post, acknowledging that it distorted Krugman's actual stance. Krugman responded, reaffirming his Keynesian position on government spending. The incident tarnished both Lira and Business Insider's reputation." Presenting this as a "passing mention" seems quite inaccurate.
7. "Seems to be some question of propagating a lie about a non-existant video." This is a 4,000 words article about Lira. GPT-3.5 summary: "Gonzalo Lira, a former manosphere YouTuber known as Coach Red Pill, has shifted his content from relationship advice to pro-Russian commentary on the Ukraine conflict. Presenting himself as an objective observer, Lira makes wild claims against Ukrainian President Zelensky, supports Russian narratives, and spreads debunked conspiracy theories. Despite gaining followers, experts dismiss his views as nonsense, and some suspect he may be indirectly compensated by Russia. Lira's transformation aligns with broader trends in the manosphere's entanglement with far-right networks and their alignment with pro-Russian sentiments. Critics suggest his pivot may be driven by a desire to remain relevant amid growing deplatforming concerns in the manosphere." Claiming the text is merely about "a non-existant video" seems highly inaccurate.
8. "Single para is passing mention." He's mentioned in two paragraphs, not one.
9. "Short para, taken from Twitter. Its non-rs." The text consists of 5 paragraphs. The name "Lira" is mentioned 5 times in 4 paragraphs and 10 times in total.
11. "Article built from Twitter and Youtube." The first paragraph is about Tucker Carlson and his claims about Lira. So this statement seems already inaccurate.
I know we are supposed to "assume good faith", but these distortions appear a little too consistent and severe to be accidental misreadings. So I can only assume some kind of agenda at work here. 2A01:C23:9115:E200:74D2:8AB5:E1C:AC12 (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Post violates WP:GS/RUSUKR.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This editor is a WP:SPA scope_creepTalk 16:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning what xyz person said in a blog post doesn't help establish notability. Even being mentioned in TWO paragraphs isn't helping. Please don't use ChatGPT to summarize articles either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]
"Mentioning what xyz person said in a blog post doesn't help establish notability."
I never claimed that it did. Pointing out that Lira is mentioned 8 times in 7 different paragraphs and is at the subject's center contradicts the claim of "a passing mention".
"Even being mentioned in TWO paragraphs isn't helping."
I never claimed that it helps establishing notability. Pointing out that Lira is mentioned in two paragraphs contradicts the claim that he is mentioned in one paragraph. I intended to correct a false claim, indicating a general pattern of distortion.
"Please don't use ChatGPT to summarize articles either."
It provides an approximate overview of a text's content by a neutral third party. If you are aware of evidence showing that GPT-3.5 is generally less reliable than humans in generating summaries, please provide references to the relevant scientific literature. 2A01:C22:9142:6A00:C26:1006:4237:8B7 (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm discussing the sources. If they don't establish notability, there is no point discussing them. Chat GPT is an unreliable source per wikipedia. So none of the sources discussed are useful, no matter how many times they mention Lira is the conclusion to be drawn. If you've so much as agreed the sources don't help notability, I can't see what the issue is. Oaktree b (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it's a non-passing mention, the source isn't reliable, so it shouldn't matter how it is used. I can't see that any of these sources discussed are helpful in proving notability here to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My criticism is that the source analysis misrepresents the sources. For example, claiming that reference number 5 (Salon) constitutes "a passing mention" seems false, considering that Lira is mentioned 8 times in 7 paragraphs and is at the center of the subject. This seems also the case for reference number 7 (The Daily Beast). I'm not sure how I can make this clearer. As for the sources' reliability, I am reading here that "there is no consensus on the reliability of Salon" and that "there is no consensus on the reliability of The Daily Beast." According to the source analysis the "Daily Beast is generally considered to be reliable." 2A01:C22:9142:6A00:C26:1006:4237:8B7 (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep, Some things about your evaluation don't make sense to me:
4: While the article is an interview, it also contains five paragraphs of the reporter writing about Lira before the interview itself. So that is secondary coverage as well as primary. Major Chilean newspaper, WP:GNG.
5: The article is about Lira's op-ed and the fallout from it, not merely a 'passing mention'. Salon isn't considered unreliable according to the "Perennial source" list. Why couldn't it contribute to WP:GNG?
7: I agree with the above commenter, reducing it to be about a 'non-existing video' question is not a summary of the article's contents, the article is much broader in scope. Why not WP:GNG?
9: The article is not merely "sourced from Twitter". It is sourced from the Chilean Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in which they state that Lira is missing and that they are searching for him, article also states relatives haven't spoken to him (which wasn't from Twitter), the only Twitter sourcing is when they describe Lira's Twitter posts. Given it's a major independent Chilean newspaper, WP:GNG.

Also
11: I understand that it's Ukrainian state news and the Center for Strategic Communications and Information Security wrote their rationale for detaining Lira, but why is that unreliable for merely ascertaining what that rationale was?
13: When Twitter is mentioned in the Newsweek article, it is not taken as fact but rather it reports what people posted on Twitter in context. I'd agree with you if the article was taking what was posted on Twitter as fact, but by your standard, how could reliable sources discuss anything people put on Twitter?

There are also many other sources that in my opinion clearly count towards WP:GNG, including:

There has also been substantial Ukrainian media coverage, including The New Voice of Ukraine [72][73][74][75] and KyivPost [76], paragraphs in NBC/NYT articles, or dedicated coverage in FOX News, The Bulwark, Europa Press, The Week, The Times of India, Berliner Zeitung, though even if we want to exclude or qualify some or all of these sources in the article, the list above should more than suffice for keeping the article on Wikipedia. JSwift49 17:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you can't just say there are sources. If there are produce them Elinruby (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All mentioned are in the article and easily searchable. Regardless the ones I didn't link aren't integral to WP:GNG JSwift49 23:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking about the list above???? I have not yet looked at the Chilean sources, so put them aside for a moment. The majority of the English-language sources are dubious at best, and TF1, on a quick reading, seems to say you cannot believe anything at all the man says. This may not be coming across in machine translation, which at last check had trouble with French verb structures for reporting something untrue. You would be well advised however to compare your list to Perennial Sources, since several of those you are citing are declared unreliable there, or reliable only for "culture". That might possibly cover his dating advice on YouTube, maybe, but does not extend to political and military claims, even if they are made by a dating coach. Elinruby (talk) 09:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TF1 is debunking what Musk and Carlson said about Lira, and the fact they covered the controversy at all demonstrates Lira’s notability. NY Daily News, Independent, EFE/Swissinfo are all reliable and dedicated coverage. Insider, Daily Beast, Newsweek are marked as “no consensus”, not unreliable. But even if you exclude all of them the four above plus Chilean/Ukrainian in-depth coverage, book reviews and lesser coverage in other outlets including NBC/NYT clearly satisfy WP:GNG JSwift49 13:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Independent is questionable. It's green, yes, but check the comments. I've left it alone for now as tag-bombing is discouraging and some other stuff was worse. Also check out the comments about the Daily News. I am starting to think everyone involved in this article needs a contentious topics notification. We don't do tabloids in this topic area. It's not supposed to be about how much you can get away with. Elinruby (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors formed a consensus about The Independent and The New York Daily News being reliable. I am sorry that your opinion on these sources is in the minority but that is life sometimes. JSwift49 19:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source table of these six sources[edit]

I've looked at the 6 sources presented above, one good one, rest are partials for helping notability here, I still don't see GNG being met. No changes in my !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i would argue the Independent article is reasonably in-depth and doesn't just discuss the Tweets, it discusses the general situation including implications for the White House, and Business Insider also says a lot more. Besides, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Adding some:
NY Daily News: [77]
La Tercera (major Chile newspaper): [78][79][80] (last link should be included as there are several paragraphs written about him before the interview)
More Daily Beast coverage: [81][82]
Europa Press: [83]
New Voice of Ukraine: [84][85][86]
CNN Chile: [87]
KyivPost: [88]
Mala Espina: [89]

Hill TV: [90] (reliable source but video is opinion-y, not sure if this counts as a contributor/how much editorial oversight since these were permanent hosts of the 'Rising' show)
The Bulwark: [91][92] (same thing as Hill, the source is opinion, not sure how much oversight, though I do think it contributes to notability)

I think this combined with all the book reviews, plus the shorter mentions of significance in NBC, NYT, United Press International etc. satisfies it just fine. I could even include TASS' story on Maria Zakharova's response to Lira's death since TASS is considered reliable for quotes from Russian politicians. [93] JSwift49 00:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
El Mercurio [94] Yes newspaper of record, story with byline Yes does not appear to be unreliable in 1996 when article was published Yes Full story about the author, with byline ✔ Yes
The Independent [95] Yes article has byline Yes considered a RS ~ half page, mostly about the twitter exchanges ~ Partial
Business Insider [96] Yes has a byline ~ no consensus on reliability of the source ~ discusses the twitter exchange ~ Partial
EFE vis Swissinfo [97] Yes EFE is along the lines of AP Yes no bylines, but do have author's initials at the bottom ~ perhaps 6 paragraphs about Lira, partially helping ~ Partial
TF1 [98] Yes French news network, story has byline Yes generally considered reliable ~ talks about his detention and points out falsehoods in the news stories ~ Partial
Daily Beast [99] Yes has byline ~ average source per RS guidelines ~ short article, talks aobut his death ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The problem with posting lots of these links in many of them either are of significant e.g. death notices, or only generarted because of the interest of Musk and Carlson. Other like Daily Beast are non-rs. Business Insider is absolute junk, its a trade journal and the reason they're printing is because of Musk. Nothing else and its affiliate news. You would never use for a WP:BLP. Its not dedicated stories. They are copied from elsewhere. We will go through them all. scope_creepTalk 18:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An issue here is it seems to me you misrepresented many of the sources you did review.

Furthermore Daily Beast is described as 'no consensus', you yourself say above in your review "Daily Beast is generally considered to be reliable", and the Business Insider article in fact wasn't copied from elsewhere. Both of those articles as well as the other links are in fact stories centered around Lira. JSwift49 18:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately billionaires and their interests often determine what gets covered in the media. It happens even at the best news organizations. Thriley (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the WP:ARS here to do a pile on like you have done in the past, I will revert and take the whole the lot of you to WP:ANI. scope_creepTalk 17:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assume good faith and comment not on a person but their sources found. No one has ever done a "pile". Sometimes people show up and find sources and comment on them, sometimes not. Dream Focus 18:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea right. We will see if any other of the ARS cronies turn up. scope_creepTalk 18:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors from ARS would probably be more helpful than IPs right now. Thriley (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, it's just an AfD. You're not helping your case by being openly hostile. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 19:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't go through all that hassle last year so please curb the advice, until you know what your talking about. scope_creepTalk 19:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scope, that was me being polite. Threatening people into not participating is a gross violation of AfD policy, not to mention what you did with Counterparts (novel) is obvious retaliation. From WP:ICA and WP:AGF to WP:HA; that threat could even be seen as a type of WP:CANVASING (If nothing else, it derails normal consensus building). If ARS gets inappropriately involved, then we'll deal with it and you'll have my support the whole way through ANI, but right now they're not and you're immediately calling them bad faith actors to poison the well. I repeat, calm down. An AfD isn't worth making enemies over. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 13:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SCMP is an opinion piece, so not helpful in determining reliability. I've explained the rest already, so no need to go over them again. Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll finish the source analysis on Saturday. There is other problems with this article which haven't been addressed in this Afd, which have now just came to light. scope_creepTalk 19:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sourcing comment: Many of the editors above seem completely unfamiliar with the concept of a reliable source: Twitter and cough TASS are never reliable ever, Newsweek has not been reliable since 2013, and the list of perennial sources (basically an FAQ, see WP:RSN) says Business Insider might be reliable for popular culture, which would not include making a dating coach out to be Nelson Mandela. The Cypriot news source looks sketchy also. Elinruby (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've thrown one together (see above), it helps as it's a concise view, but still doesn't change my opinion, meaning I'm still not seeing notability as having been met here for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is perhaps a story about his death while in detention, but there isn't much strictly about the event, and what we have is mostly fact-checking of the narrative around him. Most are circular references about the person. I can't see notability at this time, I don't think we have GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it important to include all the reviews of his work from the 90s and 2000s- they contribute towards GNG. Thriley (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    they do, but no one has put forward enough extensive and RS to build an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure I follow. The reviews are now in the article. Thriley (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not valid as sources for a review ref. They are trade journals that produce a profile for every book that comes out, that starts to sell. They are junk refs and will need come out. Putting them in, when they are known to be crap sources is really poor editing behaviour. That is disruptive editing. They are never used to prove WP:NAUTHOR, ever. scope_creepTalk 23:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean Kirkus and Publishers weekly? I use them all the time. Perfectly acceptable sources to demonstrate he was major author. They aren’t paid promotion- I’ve seen plenty of negative PW reviews. There’s also other reviews too in major newspapers. Thriley (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never use publishers weekly. Its not reliable and never has been. The Kirkus ref is a better but there is no author information and that makes it problematic. It is another indication of lack of presence. WP:THREE genuine reviews would do it? scope_creepTalk 23:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from PW and Kirkus, there’s newspaper reviews. Thriley (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THREE is an essay and the guy who created it said people kept misusing it. His personal essay says he isn't going to read through a dozen sources, three are enough to convince him.
For notability, two is enough. WP:GNG clearly states "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Multiple means more than one, so two is fine.
Publishers Weekly has always been a reliable source. I have placed it in many articles over the years. all past discussions about it that I am aware of, have determined it counts as a reliable source. They are often quoted along with other reliable sources at Amazon, Apple [100], and other places that sell the books, or even libraries that mention them [101]. They are also found inside the book or on the cover quoted with other notable reviewers. [102]
You were called out by another editor for being "openly hostile" in your interactions with me above, then you moved a perfectly acceptable article I created for a book Gonzalo Lira wrote, into draft space. draft:Counterparts_(novel) Will someone else look it over and tell me if you believe it should've been moved there? The article clearly states the guy was given a million dollar advance for the book, and list two reliable sources reviewing it. Dream Focus 01:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning Counterparts. Moved back to Main. Added 3 sources, identified by User:Ficaia below. Best. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A number of sourcing criticms are rooted in assertions around editorial intent. This is irrelevant. We can only assess the actual text of a source. Furthermore, if, for example, the New York Times reports on a debate on Twitter/X or postings to YouTube, just because we do not accept those inital sources as reliable due to their self-publishing status, there is no "fruit of the poison tree" principle that per se discounts the NYT's coverage of those postings. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Given the number of reliable sources covering both him and his work, he passes general notability guidelines with flying colors. Death Editor 2 (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be substantial news coverage: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, as pointed out by others. There were also reviews of his first novel in 1998: 1, 2, 3. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 40,000 readers have visited this biography in the last 30 days. I think it's good that such people have an encylopedic, neutral, reliable source of information. BobFromBrockley (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was made at 21:38, 14 January 2024‎. 47,325 views so far. Five days not thirty, so even more impressive. Dream Focus 19:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This man is notable historically, not just a news cycle. He is Featured on Google, YouTube, and major news sources, and not for just one event but a series of instances. Some of the early "Delete" pushers appear to be POV biased (that just came here to push against this article rather than a legitimately neutral Wikipedia purpose). I myself found out about this AFD after searching for this article, not before. I didn't even know it was up for "Deletion".Ryoung122 21:52, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plenty of coverage both of his exploits in Ukraine and of his earlier career. Btw the previous AfDs weren't unanimous. Alaexis¿question? 17:25, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was a weak delete in a previous AfD. There was a bit of coverage, but not enough. The material since his death takes it over the threshold, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:10, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No grounds for even nominating this for deletion. It made sense to nominate it in c. April 2022, not anymore. The fact that you don't like a subject so much you want to even erase any trace of it on the internet cannot be grounds for deletion on Wikipedia. Major coverage worldwide internationally and not just English but Spanish, Russian, Ukrainian. I bet thousands were googling his name even before his death. The guy was mentioned by several prominent figures even prior to his death, and again, in many languages not just English. It is extremely rare --maybe even unprecedented-- that a US expat gets arrested/murdered abroad for expressing some political views ont the internet and just that. If some pro-Ukrainian outlets hearsay accusations are to be taken seriously, i.e. he was filming military installations for Russia, then that makes him even more notable as a 21st century US spy for Russia, which is even more rare & notable. --Yabroq (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel it's necessary after reading the most recent wave of "keep" votes to remind everyone that whether or not we personally think Lira was a particularly notable or historical individual is not relevant to whether he gets an article on Wikipedia. What matters is whether WP:RS support that conclusion. So far, I have only seen tabloids, weird, obscure newspapers, and non-RS like Fox News, TASS, and various sources associated with governments friendly to Russia used on the article. I can't judge the Spanish language sources as well as the English language ones but I would surprised if it wasn't the same story there. I realize that a lot of people feel strongly that he deserves an article, but unless you can get a good news source to actually cover him, a source like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, all of this talk of how there are tons of sources about him and how he was mentioned by famous right-wing figure X is just a load of hot air.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, this is turning into a WP:SNOW that should've never been AfD'ed. There's just too much coverage and your assessment of So far, I have only seen tabloids, weird, obscure newspapers, and non-RS like Fox News, TASS, and various sources associated with governments friendly to Russia used on the article is demonstrably false and without any merit worth considering further. Heck, he's got two books on Wikipedia now (Counterparts (novel) and Acrobat (novel)). We've debate the sourcing to death at this point and the consensus is becoming clear that he meets WP:NOTE; maybe not GA level sourcing, but that's not AfD's problem. He's got 64 sources worth of coverage and about a dozen of which fall squarely in WP:RS. Please review Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and WP:CONTEXTMATTERS to get a better idea of what does and does not qualify as WP:RS. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 04:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While this page is probably going to be kept, the pages about his novels should deffinitely be deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • “So far, I have only seen tabloids, weird, obscure newspapers, and non-RS like Fox News, TASS, and various sources associated with governments friendly to Russia used on the article.”
    Have you not looked at the article in its present form? Demonstrably false comment. JSwift49 11:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently, it seems that the article contains several important and reliable sources. Mhorg (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A clear strong keep, for all the reasons given by senior editors here, meets WP:NOTE on every level. And that he is dead does not mean he will not be continued to be referenced by notable sources, the evidence is that it has even increased that, given that his death was reported across the world, and by global sources. So, a strong keep, and let's now work together to get the article to where it needs to be, in terms of Wikipedia standards. Luganchanka (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gonzalo Lira has been covered by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events, as Jfire has so aptly demonstrated. When also acknowledging the 1996 profile that was written about him by a WP:NEWSORG, it's quite clear that he passes WP:NBASIC while avoiding WP:1E concerns.
    With respect to the arguments for deletion, I've read through them, and I don't find them persuasive in the least. Scope Creep's table above was interesting, but I disagree enough that I'm inclined to keep here. I'd be a bit more sympathetic towards deletion if his only activity were getting jailed in Ukraine and dying in prison, but such a case doesn't reflect the reality of the sourcing situation here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you keep this bio of an obscure red-piller blogger, in a few years you will just have to delete it anyway. →StaniStani 01:49, 23 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 House van de Werve. Daniel (talk) 19:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles II Henri van de Werve, Lord of Schilde[edit]

Charles II Henri van de Werve, Lord of Schilde (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 appears to be yet another genealogical entry. I have searched Google Books and Google Scholars for references to this man and have found no indication of significant coverage. The name "Charles II Henri" appears to be entirely invented. WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy says that Wikipedia is not a genealogy website. Surtsicna (talk) 15:54, 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. ✗plicit 02:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Hoffman (author)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Arguments at 2007 AfD for keeping it were poor. Boleyn (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I couldn’t find anything worth adding to the page (reliable sources, or any other meaningful reference). 185.104.138.35 (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It currently doesn't meet WP:GNG and I can't see that there's anything better out there. Thebookstamper (talk) 14:27, 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.

Motokatsu Miyagami[edit]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎

Motokatsu Miyagami (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 member of notable bands, per WP:BANDMEMBER Broc (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP BANDMEMBER doesn’t really explain what to do in a situation like this at all, is there more precedent here? My instinct is that someone who’s been a member of three notable bands has a decent claim on notability themselves, but the guidelines don’t really provide any guidance on where the bar is. Obviously SIGCOV applies but that’s a little tricky, does it have to exclude the bands they are in to count? WilsonP NYC (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably this is covered by WP:BAND #6, "is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles", in which case the inclination would be for us to keep the article on those grounds. Dekimasuよ! 13:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK in that case add my vote as Keep to this discussion. WilsonP NYC (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dekimasu shouldn't the subject still have significant coverage in independent secondary sources? That's completely missing here, he's just a guy changing bands very often. --Broc (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't receive this ping, but yes, there should still be significant coverage in independent secondary sources. I was mostly answering WilsonP NYC's question here. I did not search for sources in Japanese myself, but presumably almost everything is in Japanese in this case. Ddid you search for Japanese-language sources as part of WP:BEFORE? Dekimasuよ! 04:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks everyone for the comments. I'm withdrawing the nomination, as the notability criteria are satisfied by WP:BAND #6 and the presumed existence of multiple secondary sources. --Broc (talk) 19:48, 21 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. ✗plicit 14:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark These Words[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article. Fails WP:NALBUM ThaddeusSholto (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found no evidence of notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odd Crew as to why no AtD. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:50, 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. ✗plicit 14:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Liberal National Party of Brisbane leadership election[edit]

2019 Liberal National Party of Brisbane leadership election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Without actual numbers as to the result of the election itself (other than who won it), this article lacks a purpose that could not be achieved in the text of another article. I propose its deletion. An article like this should exist instead with the results of a list of LNP mayoral leadership elections, if there are sources for it. (Also, the "Liberal National Party of Brisbane," not a thing.) J2m5 (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominator. There really is not much to write about for this topic, and this article is part of a broader pattern of Totallynotarandomalt69 treating local government as if it were a state government or federal government.. Steelkamp (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    pretty unfair comment there - BCC is pretty widely treated as a large government which is why there are very in-depth articles for its elections, even by-elections and wards get pages
    But I think the initial @J2m5 comment is fair so I'm happy to support delete and maybe re-direct to a more expanded section on Schrinner's page? Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The current wording "Liberal National Party of Brisbane" wouldn't be good because that's not an official name in use. So I would prefer a straight delete rather than a redirect under the current article's name J2m5 (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Makes sense, support that Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Totallynotarandomalt69, please read WP:POLITICIAN. Mayors and councillors are not notable most of the time. TarnishedPathtalk 04:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Without any secondary sources (all are WP:PRIMARYNEWS), merging is not a good AtD, and there is no clear target for a merge in any case. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Following on from WP:POLITICIAN that mayors/councillors are rarely notable, I fail to see how an article about the preselection of them is notable. TarnishedPathtalk 04:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: can't find anything that suggests notability --Devokewater|(tαlk) 19:47, 20 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)‎ Geschichte (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some Assembly Required (2007 TV series)[edit]

Some Assembly Required (2007 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2020 DonaldD23 talk to me 13:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Camacho, Melissa (2022-02-24). "Parents' Guide to Some Assembly Required". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2024-01-17. Retrieved 2024-01-17.

      The review notes: "While the series is very informative, it lacks some of the spark needed to make it fun viewing for kids who don't already get a kick out of science. Its focus on almost every step of the product-assembly process sometimes makes it a little tedious. But the uncomplicated scientific explanations give interested tweens and teens a real chance to learn the physics behind how the products we use every day actually work."

    2. McNeill, Brian (2007-09-06). "UVa physics professor snags spot on Discovery Channel". The Daily Progress. Archived from the original on 2024-01-17. Retrieved 2024-01-17.

      The article notes: "Abowling ball. A Gibson electric guitar neck. Hundreds of jelly beans. The nifty souvenirs are one of the best perks of Louis Bloomfield's new gig - co-host of the Discovery Channel's upcoming show "Some Assembly Required." ... Bloomfield, a popular UVa professor who teaches physics to non-science majors, will debut Dec. 26 as the science expert on "Some Assembly Required" alongside co-host Brian Unger, a former Daily Show correspondent. ... During each one-hour episode, Bloomfield and Unger visit three manufacturing operations around the country, including the factories where workers make Gibson guitars, Jelly Belly jelly beans, New Balance sneakers, Steinway pianos, coffins, sushi knives, bowling balls and more."

    3. "Bloomfield brings science to masses: UVA prof co-hosts Discovery Channel show". C-Ville Weekly. 2007-12-04. Archived from the original on 2024-01-17. Retrieved 2024-01-17.

      The article notes: "Bloomfield is the co-host of the Discovery Channel‘s "Some Assembly Required," a show that travels to factories and plants—like the Gibson plant in Tennessee—to take a closer look at just how everyday things, most of which we take for granted, work. ... From guitars to Wisconsin cheddar cheese to ice-making Zambonies, "Some Assembly Required" has taken Bloomfield across the country in search of the not-so-obvious hidden in everyday objects that have surprising scientific and technological beauty. ... Bloomfield landed the Discovery Channel gig when a former student auditioned for the role of the show’s host. He didn’t get it—it went to Brian Unger of "The Daily Show" fame—but while there, he recommended Bloomfield for the co-host spot. The show’s producers contacted Bloomfield, who is a natural fit."

    4. Engler, Daniel J. (2008-06-10). "TV Picks June15-21, 2008". National Catholic Register. Archived from the original on 2024-01-17. Retrieved 2024-01-17.

      The article notes: "Discovery: In this series, hosts Brian Unger and Lou Bloomfield visit factories across America and join workers in manufacturing the products about which we wonder “How do they do that?” — from acoustic guitars to Zamboni machines and even cat’s-eye marbles."

    5. Durden, Douglas (2007-12-27). "Discovery finds host at U.Va". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2024-01-17. Retrieved 2024-01-17.

      The article notes: "Louis A. Bloomfield, University of Virginia physics professor, adds Louis A. Bloomfield, TV host, to his résumé at 10 tonight when the Discovery Channel previews its new "Some Assembly Required." The hourlong series looks at items ranging from high-tech to mundane in its quest to unravel the process of assembly. Bloomfield, author of a textbook ("How Things Work") and a trade book ("How Everything Works"), is joined by humorist Brian Unger, a former "Daily Show" correspondent, as co-host. We recently asked Bloomfield to tell us about his debut as a TV host, and what makes "Some Assembly Required" work."

    6. Ravana, Anna (2008-04-18). "Old Town Canoe gets airtime Discovery sends TV crew, firm makes Outside '30 Best'". Bangor Daily News. Archived from the original on 2024-01-17. Retrieved 2024-01-17.

      The article notes: "Old Town Canoe and its parent company, Johnson Outdoors, received national attention this week from Outside magazine and the Discovery Channel program "Some Assembly Required." A film crew of seven from "Some Assembly Required" enjoyed an afternoon of sunshine Thursday on the Penobscot River as they filmed an episode on the making and use of the firm's canoes and kayaks. Director and producer Emily Hodges said Old Town Canoe's long history of canoe making was what appealed to the show's research team."

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

    Cunard (talk) 09:28, 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. ✗plicit 13:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta Beach Jacobson[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Roberta Beach Jacobson (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)

She doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. She has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, with a question over notability since 2006, so hopefully we can get this resolved now. Previous AfD was 'keep' but that was in 2008 when our standards were significantly lower for inclusion. Boleyn (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Her website comes up, then various links to buy her books. Nothing about the person, no reviews of the books I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with Boleyn that this kind of promotional hagiography was a common keep at AfD back in the way -- without even looking at the previous one, I'm sure there were "Ooooo, look, she wrote a lot of books!!" answers -- but enough is enough. The subject meets none of the provisions of BIO or GNG, there is not and never has been any proffering of reliable sources concerning her. Time to clean this up. Ravenswing 14:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - an IP editor removed reviews on 13 March 2023 [103] (Globe & Mail archive version; ABC AU archive version). These reviews discuss her contribution to Rite of Passage: Tales of Backpacking 'Round Europe, but on their own, do not support WP:AUTHOR or WP:BASIC notability. Other reviews removed by the IP editor on 13 March 2023 [104] seem to be not helpful for supporting notability (absolutewrite.com) or have limited information provided to help locate the review (The Journal of the Lincoln Heights Literary Society) for assessment. Beccaynr (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I also searched for sources and reviews online and at the Wikipedia Library. There were some results for her writing, but I have not found substantial independent and reliable secondary support for WP:AUTHOR or WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 19:49, 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 no consensus‎. Arguments come down to "meets GNG" versus "no it doesn't." No one demonstrated the available sources are not valid towards notability, neither did anyone clearly demonstrate they are. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amala Shaji[edit]

Amala Shaji (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 claim of notability for this promotional article on a tiktok user. It has been stated that she is a model and musician, although this has not been proven by the sources cited. Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG, and WP:NMODEL. Thilsebatti (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've written an article about an internet celebrity for the second time. She does not meet any of the WP:ARTIST requirements. This is just an another case of WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Thilsebatti (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A celebrity vanity page. Fails GNG. Article has some weird claims that she is a social worker,model and actor. She has not acted in any movies yet and is not a big boss contestant. Only thing she is having are some Instagram and tik tok followers which is not a notability criteria.116.68.101.172 (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Most coverage is about being a Big Boss contestant, but it's just enough. Most is in malayalam script, so a Gnews search brings up lots there. I'd give it a pass.Oaktree b (talk) 17:05, 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) 09:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. The sources used in the article, although mostly tabloid, demonstrate enough notability to 'get over the line'. Redtree21 (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does't meet WP:GNG, nor WP:ARTIST . Dcotos (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Specific assessment of the sources available would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 12:36, 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. Daniel (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Tegucigalpa[edit]

Embassy of the United States, Tegucigalpa (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 scant information on the embassy building, which appears entirely unremarkable, can easily be included in Honduras–United States relations, of which this is a content fork. Biruitorul Talk 08:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete another unnecessary bilateral relations content fork created in a spree of non notable embassy articles. LibStar (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The sources listed by Pilaz should have put an end to this discussion in my opinion. WilsonP NYC (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • change to keep on the basis of sources found which meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:42, 22 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 due to lack of participation, with no prejudice against an immediate renomination at AfD. Daniel (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Borough of Wandsworth Rifle Club[edit]

Borough of Wandsworth Rifle Club (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 club. Hundreds of such clubs exist in the UK, and I cannot see why this one is particularly notable. Other than Wikipedia mirrors and some directories, can only find one external source about the club here.

Article is also completely unsourced and has been since 2009. Elshad (talk) 13:15, 25 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! 06:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has been largely unsourced since its inception, but that does not appear to be for want of extant sources. A search of the British Newspaper Archive turns up more than 100 articles, out of which a strong Wikipedia article could undoubtedly be built. As for the claim that "Hundreds of such clubs exist in the UK, and I cannot see why this one is particularly notable", the first sentence of the article appears to hold the answer: "the Borough of Wandsworth Rifle Club is one of the oldest clubs belonging to the National Small-bore Rifle Association". Indeed, it appears to date to 1903. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:49, 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) 06:45, 8 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) 12:26, 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. ✗plicit 13:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seung Chan Kim[edit]

Seung Chan Kim (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 by WP:NACADEMIC Bon courage (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, as the nominator, have you read *all* the sources already in the article (before nomination)? And, have you read most (if not all) the sources in the article’s history that had been removed from the page? Plus, have you read the sources in the person’s Wikipedia articles in Korean and Japanese as well? I suppose you don’t know Korean and finding sources might be difficult, but reading the existing sources with the help of machine translation should be the basics right? I would say I’ve read most of them. This is not about how good one can find sources, it’s just about time and willingness. And I believe it’s required before nominating an article for deletion. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. See WP:BEFORE. Hence the deletion nomination. This person is not sufficiently notable for an article so far as I can see. If you can show otherwise, please do so. Bon courage (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have read them all, I wonder why you didn’t notice this (about how his discovery “surprised the world”:
* https://web.archive.org/web/20160213045645/http://vip.mk.co.kr/newSt/news/news_view.php?t_uid=20&c_uid=410851&sCode=21
which I cited below. It’s in the article now. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I don’t think we need WP:MEDRS to establish notability, since others are more interested in removing than finding them, here’s a good start:
Though I consider doing this (is becoming) a time sink. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC); --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure whether I’m going to contribute anymore to a time sink created by others; as I’ve already done much work and WP:NEXIST, but what I said is considered “imagined”. Why do I care? Why do I care who die from cancer, Alzheimer’s, COVID, etc., earlier or later? Everyone will die someday anyway. Who cares. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC); 20:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zhang, L.G.; Kaplan, D.L. (2016). Neural Engineering: From Advanced Biomaterials to 3D Fabrication Techniques. Springer International Publishing. p. 108. ISBN 978-3-319-31433-4.
    • About this book: “This book covers the principles of advanced 3D fabrication techniques, stem cells and biomaterials for neural engineering. Renowned contributors cover topics such as neural tissue regeneration, peripheral and central nervous system repair, brain-machine interfaces ... “
    • Chapter 3: Engineering Neuronal Patterning and Defined Axonal Elongation In Vitro
      3.9 Magnetic Applications
      3.9.1 Magnetic Fields
      First paragraph. He laid the foundation.
--Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACADEMICS #1,
WP:ANYBIO #2
--Dustfreeworld (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rao GS, Gowthami B, Naveen NR, Samudrala PK (2021). "An updated review on potential therapeutic drug candidates, vaccines and an insight on patents filed for COVID-19". Curr Res Pharmacol Drug Discov (Review). 2: 100063. doi:10.1016/j.crphar.2021.100063. PMID 34870158.
    • ” 5.2.3. Patents filed on treatment strategies ... Covid-19 Suitable Triple Knockout Dnai oligomer remedy was developed by Kim seung chan, which contains the single strand DNA coupled with three parts and transported by liposome to remove the virus genome.”
    • [107] [108] [109]
    • [110]
--Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can’t search for sources in Korean so will reconsider if anyone finds anything decent, but on present showing notability is clearly not demonstrated. Mccapra (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Kim appears to still be a student, too early in their career to disentangle their contributions from their academic advisors', and in this case it's complicated by the existence of at least three other people named Seung-Chan Kim or Seungchan Kim, publishing moderately-well-cited works in different topics. The "talent award" cited in our article is for a research paper published as first author while Kim was a high school student at Seoul Science High School [111]; that's an impressive accomplishment but not enough for WP:PROF notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. He has long history of contribution in biomagnetism. See magnetogenetics page, which I recently added his work, group with three people (W Im, ST Lee, SC Kim) studying quite early in 2012. The research materials seem earlier to be in 2007 and patened at the same time. Even celebrities who are students and younger Song Yoo-geun remains prominent. Why should Seung Chan Kim should be a target? He already has a Ph.D. and over 30 years old. 188.169.108.174 (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @188.169.108.174: If you have sources (links to references / reliable websites) please post them here. Don’t be discouraged though some sources you added to the article had been deleted. People can always find a reason to do that. Post the links here, so that everyone can see them. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And the language of the source does not matter. Just post it. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term 'Notability' is subjective in this manner. This person has numerous accomplishments which is not underweight from other listees in Wikipedia. 188.169.108.174 (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that subjective. See WP:NACADEMIC for notability criteria. Bon courage (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I apologize for the strong words. Of course it has certain standards. Thank you. 188.169.108.174 (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ 188.169.108.174, besides WP:NACADEMIC, there are many other standards such as WP:ANYBIO#1 (awards) and #2, WP:BASIC, etc. Wikipedia welcome new content. Just don’t believe it blindly when someone tells you a subject doesn’t meet any ONE standard and therefore should not has its own article. Similarly, don’t just believe blindly when someone tells you they are improving the article “in the usual way” when they revert your edits outright. It’s in violation of WP:PRESERVE. They should’ve tagged or tried to fix the potential problem first (unless it’s serious problem involving copyright, libels, etc.) IMO, “experienced users” doesn’t mean much here. Yes some of them are very reasonable; and know and follow policies very well. But for the others, it’s just the opposite. So always check for yourself. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Holy WP:BLUD. Bon courage (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think explaining our policies in greater detail to our new user is a problem :) --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACADEMIC toobigtokale (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, WP:NACADEMICS#2, WP:NEXIST, WP:BASICS and WP:HEY.
    The person is a recipient of the highly prestigious national level academic award Talent Medal of Korea in 2009 (“Between 2008 and 2013, this award was the Talent Medal of Korea bestowed by the President of the Republic of Korea with a post-nominal (KTM) and Presidential Medal.”) It’s awarded to scientists and inventors (not for academic performance as a student) by the president so should satisfy WP:NACADEMICS#2
    • Maeil Business Newspaper
      • https://web.archive.org/web/20160213045645/http://vip.mk.co.kr/newSt/news/news_view.php?t_uid=20&c_uid=410851&sCode=21

        “Kim Seung-chan (19) of Yonsei University, who won the Korea Talent Award in 2009, ... he discovered that when nerve cells were treated with a magnetic field, they were guided in a certain direction ... the results of this study were published in the Journal of Neuroscience Methods, an SCI-level academic journal, in September 2008 and surprised the world ... “

        (Machine translation by worldlingo.com)
I remember very clearly that I had watched the news on TV (yep, TV ... I loved it so much when I was young :) mentioning his discovery about magnetic field changing the orientation of neurite outgrowth. That was reported as a *very important* discovery back in 2009, and that’s why I still remember it.
Further, finding sources in Korean and posting links of the translated pages won’t be easy for most of us who participate in this discussion (I did find some sources, but it’s not easy as I don’t know Korean. What makes things more complicated is that most Korean sites seems to be blocking the script from Google translate (probably because they don’t want their content crawled by bots). Also, the English name of the person has many variations (e.g., SeungChan Kim, SC Kim, Seung-Chan Kim, S-C Kim, Seung Chan Kim, S. C. Kim, Kim SeungChan, Kim Seung-Chan, Kim Seung Chan, S. Kim, etc.); and, there are *many* Korean called Kim. I tend to WP:AGF and believe in our Korean-speaking users (and many of them have edited the page as seen from the page history). The person’s discovery is very important to the fields of neuroregeneration, precision medicine in oncology, etc., not to mention his other achievements and awards. So again, keep. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC); edited 20:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The person’s discovery is very important to the fields of neuroregeneration ← is it? Are there any WP:MEDRS? As for the medal, it seems in the years it was issued, they had an annual quota of 50 to hand to high-schoolers, so that's not exactly 'highly prestigious'; that would be something more like the Korea Science Award. Bon courage (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about biography and notability. Not everything needs MEDRS. I won’t mind if others can take the time to find more sources though. Btw, please note WP:NEXIST. Further, it’s a national post-nominal (KTM) and Presidential Medal. Someone has already added KTM next to Kim’s name in the article. This also indicates that it’s a very important award for Korean. Moreover, I think (and per WP:NACADEMICS#2) age is not a problem. And I don’t think any unimportant discovery will be reported in the TV news as “first of its kind”. Thanks and regards, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything needs MEDRS, but claims that something is biomedically significant could be shown to be by such sources. Where is the impact this work has made (open question)? Also note per WP:NPROF: "Victories in academic student competitions at the high school and university level as well as other awards and honors for academic student achievements (at either high school, undergraduate or graduate level) do not qualify under Criterion 2 and do not count towards partially satisfying Criterion 1". So that medal doesn't mean anything towards notability. Bon courage (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind giving WP:NEXIST and WP:PRESERVE a solid read? Please don’t take things personal. If you are challenging the reliability of the TV station at my place, or you are challenging my good faith, I’d better stay out of this (especially when you are deleting content and refs in the article during our discussion; btw, please note that MEDRS does *not* strictly prohibit the use of primary source). Thanks, --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC); edited 18:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEXIST sure, that's basic. But notability resides in actual sources, not imagined ones. There is no reason why an article should not be improved in the usual way while at AfD. Bon courage (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the word imagined. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. Bon courage (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you are just citing the last sentence of the policy? (And “seldom persuasive” means “imagined”?) Let me cite it in full then:
“Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article.
The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of independent, published reliable sources in libraries, bookstores, and the internet) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any.
Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.”
But *even if* sources already exist in the article, people tend to ignore them (or even remove them) instead of trying to find better sources based on the already existing ones (which contain keywords and so on). So, forget about it. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:PROF. Single medal won in high school does not indicate long-term notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s a national post-nominal award bestowed by the President of Korea, not because of his academic performance in high school. Other world-class athletes also got that award too. The situation maybe a bit complicated and finding more sources in English maybe difficult though, as the criteria (and likely name) of the award has changed in 2014. Anyway, there are other awards that the person has received. Please see: Seung Chan Kim#Awards, all these IMO would satisfy WP:ANYBIO. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC); 17:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've read through the Maeil Business News source and I remain unconvinced. Both the subject and the event (publishing the paper in high school) lack any lasting coverage. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 13:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Seung Chan Kim#Awards which satisfies WP:ANYBIO #1. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    2016 secondary book source (lasting coverage) about his discovery:
    --Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not yet proven. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:17, 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 redirect‎ to A1 (group) as an AtD. Daniel (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Read (singer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mark Read (singer) (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)

He is not notable independent of A1. This could merge/redirect there, but might unbalance the article. I couldn't find the 1st AfD, but decision was merge/redirect at 2008 AfD. Boleyn (talk) 12:06, 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 ‎ snow keep. Graham87 (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Reisner[edit]

Dan Reisner (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 notability Romidoll27 (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Passes the WP:GNG. New user. Not sure why they chose to nominate a notable sulptor. gidonb (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm having trouble finding notable museums that have collected his work, but it isn't necessary; the sources in the article demonstrate a clear pass of WP:GNG by providing reliable independent in-depth coverage of him. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Independent coverage is more than adequate. Kablammo (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The editor who started this AFD has a ... bizarre editing history to say the least and I've blocked them as an obvious sock (the quacking is deafening). Graham87 (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for taking action, Graham87! Can you also snow keep? There are two more discussions in the Israel queue that can use a speedy snow delete. At one I haven't !voted, just miss the button. gidonb (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gidonb: Didn't think of that; will do. Graham87 (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creth Hines[edit]

Creth Hines (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:NSPORTS. No sources cited in the article that aren't wide-sweeping databases with low inclusion criteria.

In my WP:BEFORE I did a google search that turned up statistical databases. I then searched Newspapers.com, which turned up a dozen or so one-sentence mentions [can be seen here]. None of these is significant coverage of Creth Hines under WP:SIGCOV. Instead every one of them is a brief mention that covers the same fact: that Creth Hines was a javelin thrower at Georgetown. FOARP (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BeanieFan11. Scorpions1325 (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that the sources from BeanieFan11 demonstrate that this person has been significantly covered by multiple independent RS, so this article should be kept (and improved). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:57, 23 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure)‎ PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Wesley Neill[edit]

Jay Wesley Neill (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 like WP:1E. I am not sure what the criteria is for murderers, but I don't think this is generally notable. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years. Boleyn (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Oklahoma. Shellwood (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:1E is not a stand-alone reason for deleting an article. The primary purpose of 1E is to ensure that articles about events are centred on the event rather than a single individual involved in the event. Failing 1E is primarily addressed by renaming and editing the article to be about the event so long as it passes WP:NEVENT, and only deleting where an article about the event already exists and there is nothing to merge/redirect. In this case, there is no corresponding article about the massacre. The massacre clearly passes WP:NEVENT due to decades-long in state media and beyond including coverage of the event in 1984, coverage of the trial in 1985, coverage of the 2002 execution (see the source in the article) and retrospective coverage in a 2008 academic article and a newspaper story from 2021.
I'm open to renaming and editing the article to be about the event, or a merge/redirect if a suitable one can be identified. The article about the town has a section about the massacre, but the detail here would be undue if merged into it so I do not support that. Basically, the nom seems to have misunderstood what the purpose of 1E is - it isn't, by itself, a reason to delete. FOARP (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Someone who murdered four people would seem to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination per above comments. Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even beyond 1E there were two people involved in this (even though only one was executed). Should be retitled "Geronimo Bank murders" or something of the like. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:02, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Anderson (singer)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2011. No sources found except for database entries. The individual albums do not appear to be notable, either. Fails WP:GNG. Earlier AfD discussion in 2013 did not really bring forward any arguments for notability. Broc (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, and Georgia (U.S. state). Broc (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Looking for reliable sources came up flat. I could hardly even find any promotional material, even when searching for his name and albums. He is clearly a non-notable artist. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Appears to be a religious preacher with the same name, unsure if it's this person. Regardless, no sourcing found for a singer. Oaktree b (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean Delete I found one source that had just a tad more information on him, but I'm not convinced that it's of high enough quality for Wikipedia. Otherwise, I think that this article should be deleted. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 04:47, 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.

Jean-François Gautier[edit]

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

The result was Speedy keep as withdrawn Mach61 (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Jean-François Gautier (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 quite borderline, but I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. This ahs been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep whilst this article definitely requires work. After a quick search I think GNG can be met, however more sources should be provided. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination per good points above. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 16:09, 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. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mariya Rusalenko[edit]

Mariya Rusalenko (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)

Minimal citation counts, deputy director, don't see how meets WP:NPROF. Wrote a book in 2023, but insufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Don't think meets WP:GNG from other coverage either. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheetam, may be ur right, we may add those sources like maxim too and book too.
  • Delete. Not seeing the citations for NPROF C1, nor the secondary coverage for GNG.
JoelleJay (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JoelleJay,
I would respectfully like your comments on her on other criteria.
NPROF C6: The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
Deputy Director of Republican Research Center for Radiation Medicine and Human Ecology, build for post Chernobyl Research. The highest Authority on that research authority in Belarus and Russia and the region. Also on the scientific editorial board of the institution.
NPROF C7: The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
One of her books (hormones and preserving youth) is endorsed by the president of the United nations General Assembly for the contribution to the community. She is also Assigned as the Director General of Belarus Maldives Cultural center. Her work on IVF and endocrinology is documentation in Belarus media.
Being recognized by the minister of state of Health of another country and the President of UNGA is not something an ordinary scholar can achieve. Also, most researches done in Russian languages are not properly indexed in google.
NPROF C1: The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
I cannot fully agree on this part since, her academic achievements has led for the recognition under C7. And its covered significantly, locally and internationally. Existence Leesaaisath 13:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NPROF C2:
  1. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
here is another link on December 6th of recognition. https://mvdoctors.org/press-release-1/
I ask all the editor colleagues to participate and to look in to local literature and do research and help in developing these works. We need support of all to make wiki better.
As I have started researching, I myself is seeing more and more material on this page. Every article has to abide by wiki rules, and we shall all enforce it, and at the same time we shall work to appreciate and treat with respect and fairness to all articles as much as possible. Existence Leesaaisath 22:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C6: Deputy Director is not the highest post of the institution, and anyway that is not a notable independent research institute so even its director would not qualify.
C7: Belonging to various government committees and receiving recognition from international bodies are not enough to qualify (else everyone who worked on UN subcommittees would be notable).
C1: For her field, this would require thousands of citations by other academics, in peer-reviewed academic literature.
C2: I see no evidence she has received an award equivalent to, e.g., a Guggenheim Fellowship. JoelleJay (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C6: The Chernobyl incident and the organization she belongs that was made to investigate it and heading its research is not significant than, I guess we have redefined very guidelines as we wish to interpret.I have visited the website and seen their history in Russian/English. Also, if you listen to the the live interview you can understand the research they are doing on cancer research with US and the countries. I think we need to focus on countries as a whole and not on western and English media alone. I have an article on Dr. Ali Niyaf here, had not seen these criterias mentioned this way. He has less scope than this individual we discuss here.
C7: Recognized by the President of UNGA, and Minister of state of health of another country, for the work and recognized by the a biggest doctors body in another country; if that is not credible, then I really do not understand how the guidelines apply.
C2: I don't think only EU or US or their societies recognition can be a norm since, there is various sanctions on individuals and countries these people are born to and these countries have it own standards and classifications.
C1: I dont think its only one criteria we should look on on that angle. And also I believe we need to look to think balanced.
My explanations are purely not based on this article, its my understanding to interpret the right and balanced way regardless of which language the persons are represented and valued, thus I respectfully note these & I thank you JoelleJay for the contribution to this discussion. Lets investigate deep and find more. Existence Leesaaisath 10:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Her research can be highly important and impactful and still not make her notable. The notability requirements for a page are there partly because they allow us to write a comprehensive, neutral article on the person, which means independent secondary sources providing significant coverage are crucial. The websites of people/organizations someone is affiliated with (including those awarding the person or publishing official recognition) are not independent, interviews are primary and not independent, the person's own publications and quotations in media are not independent, and brief descriptions of the person by independent secondary media outlets are not significant enough. JoelleJay (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear JoelleJay,
Thank you for noting that out. That is what I am trying to explain. Notability is via many sources and its can been in many articles in russian, english and also in Maldivian, most are independent also state media sources of the country if you research on them in Belarus. I dont think we can have a bling eye on it. Also its not one media outlet. Its cross country and major media sources.
Also, regarding notability I have thoroughly explained and highlighted above with Wiki why she fits certain criterias as explained in the criterias of Wikipedia. I cannot agree on the fact a person is notable by a highlight on specific organizations alone or specific news sources as you have mentioned, but a mix of reliable secondary sources. Also we should not focus on interviews since, in my research alone I have found news sources on her.
In retrospect her work is published in oxford too among many I have come across. We can work with one angle, but why? shall we decredit state organizations and international organizations and define the criteria otherwise to state as non notable.
And if the criteria definition you have detailed is put in place like 1000's of citations, then we will shun and many contributors to science in these countries unfairly deemed non notable for Wikipedia and will show a deficit in the presence of Wikipedia in its own right in these regions. That is why I put in place Ali niyaf as an example. If a person lives in Maldives will understand the magnitude of notability on him and in fits the criteria listed, but as per your explanation his article needs to be removed too.
As I have mentioned we are looking to develop wiki, and looking not only to one scope or a professor, but in general too on notability. I welcome to please read more an investigate to help develop our thoughts here. I am delighted to give few hours of my time in it.
We may not be able to fathom certain media coverage due to language barriers we have. This is something I have been advocating from the start. Existence Leesaaisath 13:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget this page is only to discuss the notability of Mariya Rusalenko with respect to the guidelines and policies. This isn't an appropriate forum to discuss revising notability guidelines (would be better going to the talk pages of the guidelines themselves). -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With Respect -Kj cheetham, developing wiki is not about changing guidelines (should not be). I mentioned it in reference to populating it with articles as per the guidelines of wiki. Also, with examples in articles I have created, I am asking that, the guidelines define what is notable and not notable and we have no right to add extra rules or remove extra rules with various interpretations.
I have argued with respected to editors here for explanation and links and also example of other approved articles. I did so, since countries like Belarus, khazakstan, or Romania, Maldives, these are countries with very deep language and media, and we have to look deep to the local sources, organizations to as the guideline say to define notability. In western only sources doesnt define them fairly.
That is why I have put Dr. Ali Niyaf, who i made an article which is approved. Why it was approved as per current definitions by some authors here?
And now lets imagine, are we to remove it: its one of the most famous individuals in the country. Anyways, lets look more on these. I hope this discussion will assist more on making a better understanding and making wiki contributions a pleasant work.
I urge all to look positive in adding your ideas and thoughts, and create arguments with facts and examples possible. Existence Leesaaisath 16:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
& Kj cheetham Thanks for pointing them out. I was once advised by Timothy to not use links of Tabloids. Now I know I remember, thanks User:I'm tla for noting it out Existence Leesaaisath 16:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fairly notable researcher with quite a few publications on topics such as the Chernobyl radiation fallout. Stellarnelson (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC) — Stellarnelson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete per nom. The Maxim and USA Today source is sponsored. Stellarnelson is likely a WP:SPA. TLA (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please remove those links from consideration. I dont think we need to weigh on those links for this person on this article. I have previously been skeptical on it and didnt add them. Article doesnt have them anymore. Existence Leesaaisath 16:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Input from more editors needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The nominator and non-author/SPA editors who have evaluated the article and sources have come to the correct conclusion: the subject of this article does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NACADEMIC. Jfire (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the contribution. Please kindly explain the GNG criterias how the article does not meet it. It will be useful. Also please search the person in native language (Russian). Here is the link.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F+%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE&sca_esv=599294221&biw=1366&bih=610&sxsrf=ACQVn0-Inj7SU3-e2k7MRUAx2_LTvNSy9A%3A1705536996023&ei=5G2oZZ6IAde8xc8PzuUc&ved=0ahUKEwieirK21OWDAxVXXvEDHc4yBwAQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%8F+%D0%A0%D1%83%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHdCc0LDRgNC40Y8g0KDRg9GB0LDQu9C10L3QutC-MgwQIxiABBiKBRgTGCcyCBAAGBYYHhgTSKYEUABYAHAAeACQAQCYAZsBoAGbAaoBAzAuMbgBA8gBAPgBAvgBAeIDBBgAIEE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1
    As I have explained above, with the local language search please weigh on guidelines. Also give me your ideas on why Ali Niyaf and Mariya Rusalenko has difference in meeting Guidelines. I want to respectfully highlight this with all our colleagues here on the importance of understanding local languages in this process. It can really hinder our judgement and fairness in enforcing guidelines of Wiki Existence Leesaaisath 00:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Leesaaisath, you might want to be careful not to WP:BADGER people on here, especially to repeat things you've already said. Also when referring to Ali Niyaf, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS tends not to be a good argument at AfD. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Kj cheetham,
    This discussion is focused to learn. Lets not divert it in a wrong way. I have mentioned all our collaborators with respect and dignity, since many have contributed here for years.
    I too take a lot of time to read the guidelines and develop my skills, and focus to contribute from spheres I am familiar with. I have with enthusiasm tried to explain as many times as possible some issues, we face and weighing Articles in various regions and languages.
    I have created the article for Ali Niyaf too, the point is all are under one guideline and I dont see any issue to example here to our colleagues to explain the challenges we have, since are arguments to learn for me and others and should be fact based.
    Also, I want to highlight that, we as editors with lack of knowledge of certain languages on where the article subjects are native from, may not be the best weighing certain articles. This is why I have asked for an explanation and helped with a link to have a look. As an editor I see them and since it has much more than other articles I have published here, I ask politely for explanations from editors. Its important to discuss these things so our work will be better and and things be more clear. Without proper justification and facts if decisions keep on made, it will demotivate the new editors to learn more and contribute. (I give my energy here this much since I genuinely want to contribute to wiki)
    When you look into the Russian name search for the article source, its a different world and we need Russian editors to participate to give their views. I wish all to Think to develop the work here (not only this article), and lets find more ways to contribute to every article here, its what Afd page instructs us. Existence Leesaaisath 15:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment Just because sources are sponsored doesn't mean they can't be used at all (WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD), just they don't add to the notability case. Use of Amazon links is more like advertising though (WP:AMAZON). -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Kj Cheetham,
    You are right, I will edit as advised that can counter any rules. That is something new I have learned. Thanks Kj Cheetham Existence Leesaaisath 00:21, 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. Setting aside the blatant ChatGPT arguments and the IPs who are quacking into a megaphone, nobody has advanced any legitimate argument that this article meets our guidelines. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Narbett[edit]

Oliver Narbett (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)

BLP of an ultra runner whose main claim to notability is that he “ holds the Guinness World Record for the "Fastest marathon dressed as a Morris dancer (male)". Other than that I don’t see anything that would meet our requirements for an article. Mccapra (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be retained for a number of reasons. Firstly, setting a Guinness World Record is an impressive and notable achievement (it has media coverage). Secondly, the individual has run some of the toughest and most notable ultrarunning events on the planet, which is no small feat. Thirdly, there are other similar articles of ultrarunners who have also set Guinness World Records, see Rik Vercoe (for example at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rik_Vercoe), so this profile corresponds with current practice. Fourthly, the individual has run over 100 marathons in addition to his record setting events, which is incredible, there are a number of sports person articles detailing sportsperson who have achieved a lot less in their sporting career (for example footballers making only a few professional appearances (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Oliver_(footballer)). Fifthly, the individual seems to have a number of notable relations. 62.190.87.10 (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this argument. It makes sense to retain the article, given the five reasons explained. 92.40.212.243 (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the individual has also won the "I Run & I Know Things 2020" timed event ultramarathon, taking first place after covering more distance than other competitors in the allotted time (https://saturn.runiverse.co.uk/result.php?eventID=52), another notable and impressive feat. 62.190.87.10 (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I’ll add that this article is possibly an autobiography by an account which has edited little else on Wikipedia. I’m delighted the IPs above agree with each other on this matter (rolls eyeballs). Mccapra (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a number of notable achievements and media references, no? 62.190.87.10 (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you again for your continued commitment to upholding Wikipedia's standards and for your observations regarding the potential autobiographical nature of the article.
    I would like to clarify that, as a new editor, my contributions to Wikipedia have indeed been focused but are driven by a genuine interest in a specific niche. So far, my efforts have been concentrated on drafting articles and making edits related to the Welsh town of Narberth and individuals who have historical, ancestral, or cultural connections to this area. This focus is due to my personal interest, knowledge in this particular subject area and recent news articles that have come to my attention.
    Going forward, I plan to continue contributing to Wikipedia by drafting articles and updating existing ones that meet this criteria. My recent efforts in this space are indicative of my commitment to enhancing the content related to this specific area of interest, and I hope these contributions provide some assurance as to my credibility and intentions as a Wikipedia editor.
    I look forward to continuing to contribute constructively to Wikipedia and appreciate the opportunity to clarify my editorial focus and intentions. I appreciate your dedication to maintaining the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia's content. Narbethwriter (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your commitment to Wikipedia's standards. Regarding the proposed deletion, I would like to reinforce the argument for retaining the article on the ultra runner, now also considering additional notable achievements.
Enhanced Argument for Retention Based on Notability Guidelines:
Significance of Achievement: The subject's holding of a Guinness World Record for the "Fastest marathon dressed as a Morris dancer (male)" is a unique and notable accomplishment. This achievement alone is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded," in line with Wikipedia's notability guidelines for people.
Coverage in Reliable Sources: The individual's achievements have been covered in credible sources, including an article by Eleanora Pilastro on achievements at the Berlin Marathon and a listing on the Guinness Book of World Records' official record page. These sources demonstrate significant attention from the media, satisfying the general notability guideline.
Additional Notable Achievements: Besides the Guinness World Record, the ultra runner has completed some of the most challenging ultramarathons globally, including the Marathon Des Sables. This adds another layer to the subject's notability, showcasing endurance and achievement in extreme sports.
Sports Notability: The completion of prestigious ultramarathons like the Marathon Des Sables, combined with the Guinness World Record, aligns with the specific notability guidelines for sports figures. These accomplishments reflect significant honours within the sports community.
Argument Based on Deletion Policy:
Presumption in Favour of Inclusion: With the subject's achievements being more than just a single event and including participation in world-renowned ultramarathons, the article aligns with Wikipedia's preference for inclusion, especially when the subject demonstrates potential for ongoing notability.
Potential for Improvement and Future Notability: The subject's continued participation in challenging sporting events suggests a trajectory of increasing notability. The article has the potential for future development as more achievements and recognition may arise.
In summary, considering the Guinness World Record, media coverage from reputable sources, and participation in notable ultramarathons like the Marathon Des Sables, the subject of the article meets the notability criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. The achievements in ultra running, combined with the record, support the case for the subject's notability, in line with Wikipedia's guidelines for sports personalities and biographies. The principle of inclusion and the potential for future notability further endorse retaining the article on Wikipedia. Narbethwriter (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: fyi to closer in case they're not familiar with the style, these are pretty obvious LLM-generated comments above by Narbethwriter. -- asilvering (talk) 02:15, 23 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! 08:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexi Áñez[edit]

Alexi Áñez (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 Bolivian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches was this eight-sentence story about her Achilles injury. JTtheOG (talk) 08:32, 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 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! 08:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen L. Fowler[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. None of the provided citations assert any notability. Much of the article is unsubstantiated and uncited Vertigo Acid (talk) 08:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Engineering, and South Carolina. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find any additional sources with the standard search tools. There are some false hits for a historic supervisor of Sonoma County, California and some articles this Stephen Fowler may have written but nothing "about" him. Nothing in the article or that I can find online suggests that he is notable as either an academic or media personality. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:22, 22 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! 08:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James L. Pharr[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. None of the provided citations assert any notability. Much of the article is unsubstantiated and uncited Vertigo Acid (talk) 08:21, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 08:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Margarita Vargas (footballer)[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a Bolivian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions (2018, 2019, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 08:20, 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. Could have closed as N/C, but as Jfire points out (thank you!), the sourcing isn't there and we also have some verifiability concerns. Star Mississippi 18:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Aquarium[edit]

Alexandria Aquarium (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)

It exists, but I couldn't establish what makes it notable. Other language WPs exist but have similar issues with lack of sourcing and evidence of notability. Google check didn't come up with sufficient evidence of notability - I am aware though that I may be missing something as this is not an area of the world I am familiar with. Boleyn (talk) 09:32, 25 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! 06:25, 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) 06:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:ITSANAQUARIUM. Tourist attractions are usually listed in guidebooks and are generally considered notable. The citations from Egypt Today are a good example of the kind of coverage this sort of public attraction often gets. Toughpigs (talk) 05:02, 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! 07:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. I don't think this is a good example for WP:ITSANAQUARIUM. The most extensive guidebook coverage I've been able to find is in a National Geographic guidebook, whose coverage consists of this sentence: Across the street is the Marine Aquarium, where the fish, sea turtles, and Nile crocodiles, housed in small and dirty glass tanks, are barely more alive. On TripAdvisor it's 31 of 69 things to do in Alexandria. So I don't believe the Egypt Today sources, which say things like the ultimate sea collection and one of the most important tourist attractions in the city, should be considered reliable on this subject. Note that Arabic wikipedia claims that the photo on the page is of a different museum. Jfire (talk) 18:41, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 08:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Yusen[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO, most statements in the article were unreliably sourced. (I'm not convinced the one remaining source is reliable either, the author is a lab leak conspiracy theorist). He doesn't seem to warrant a standalone article per WP:1E, any reliably sourced information could go into an article related to COVID-19 if due. JaggedHamster (talk) 07:36, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 08:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weebl and Bob[edit]

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

This article has a lot of WP:CRUFT, but aside from that, I don't see why the subject is notable. I can only find trivia mentions here and there based on Google searches. Spinixster (chat!) 08:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - completely agree with the above, this may be a bit wordy but that's not a reason to delete. There is the possibility to merge into List of Weebl's cartoons if other editors think this is necessary, though. --GnocchiFan (talk) 19:32, 21 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 World War II in Yugoslavia. Star Mississippi 18:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslav-Albania Front[edit]

Yugoslav-Albania Front (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)

Prod removed with no change in absence of reliable sourcing. No sourcing presently in the article to demonstrate notability, my own preliminary searching shows no sourcing that the term Yugoslav-Albania Front itself is in usage to describe events, duplicates material from Invasion of Yugoslavia. Possible original research. Happy to withdraw if RS can be demonstrated. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete Hello. I do not believe this article should be deleted, as this is discussing the front of Yugoslavia and Albania, not a specific battle. I just listed some battles because they took place on that front. As for “duplicates material from Invasion of Yugoslavia”, can you tell me what part is duplicated? I did not purposely duplicate anything. Also, there is no original research here. I will look for more reliable sources later if it is still needed. Thanks. Antny08 (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing unique that isn’t already in the overall article or in separate articles. This conflates two completely different operations on two different borders at two different periods of the war, which is the definition of OR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But is about the front, not a specific battle. Completely different from other articles. Antny08 (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable sources call this a “front” and include both the invasion and the operations at the end of the Axis occupation? None I’m aware of. And I’m pretty familiar with Yugoslavia in WWII. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need a source to know it was a front of World War II. This article is just talking about the invasions that took place on this front and their outcome. Antny08 (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually you do. No source I have seen refers to this as a front, and in any case, the border of Greater Albania in the fighting at the end of the war was in a different place than at the beginning of the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:31, 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 per the clear consensus below. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Helsfyr-Sinsen[edit]

Helsfyr-Sinsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD<noincludeLijil (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)>View log</noinclude> | edits since nomination)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Describes a now defunct borough of Oslo. Not really notable, and no links refer to it. Egil (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:30, 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 no consensus‎. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ARM Cortex-M development tools[edit]

List of ARM Cortex-M development tools (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)

As pointed out at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of uncertainty propagation software, this list similarly violates WP:NOTDIR * Pppery * it has begun... 00:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content from ARM Cortex-M article was move to this new "List of ARM Cortex-M development tools" article on July 18, 2013 to allow growing room and shorten the original article, per edit comments.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not sure about the possibility of a merge. Azuredivay (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTDIR/WP:NOTCATALOGUE. No merge. Ajf773 (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - stop this sillyness about a list article shouldn't be a list. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; web development is not the only type of software engineering, and plenty of people discuss the topic of developing for microcontrollers. jp×g🗯️ 19:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article you linked is a very brief, high-level overview of the ARM architecture. The page up for deletion is a laundry list of any old piece of software or hardware that's geared toward development on one specific family of ARM processors. I fail to see how that's relevant here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, let's spend thirty seconds on Google Scholar, specifically looking for sources that cover development tools, specifically, for ARM Cortex-M processors, and see what we can find for just one search on the front page.
    General resources (tools, etc):
    Martin, Trevor (2022). The Designer's Guide to the Cortex-M Processor Family. Elsevier. p. 25.
    Yiu, Joseph (2013). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M3 and Cortex-M4 Processors (3 ed.). p. 12.
    Yiu, Joseph (2015). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M0 and Cortex-M0+ Processors (2 ed.). p. 607-632.
    Lucan Orășan, Ioan; Seiculescu, Ciprian; Căleanu, Cătălin Daniel (January 10, 2022). "A Brief Review of Deep Neural Network Implementations for ARM Cortex-M Processor". Electronics. 11 (16): 2545. doi:10.3390/electronics11162545.
    Yiu, Joseph (2015). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M0 and Cortex-M0+ Processors (2 ed.). p. 58.
    Martin, Trevor (2022). The Designer's Guide to the Cortex-M Processor Family. Elsevier. p. 499-519.
    ARM toolchains, flows:
    Ovidiu Vermesan; Mario Diaz Nava (May 2023). Embedded Artificial Intelligence: Devices, Embedded Systems, and Industrial Applications. p. 80-85.
    Lai, Liangzhen; Suda, Naveen; Chandra, Vikas (January 19, 2018). "CMSIS-NN: Efficient Neural Network Kernels for Arm Cortex-M CPUs". arXiv:1801.06601 [cs.NE].
    Yiu, Joseph (2013). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M3 and Cortex-M4 Processors (3 ed.). p. 652.
    Yiu, Joseph (2015). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M0 and Cortex-M0+ Processors (2 ed.). p. 85.
    Yiu, Joseph (2015). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M0 and Cortex-M0+ Processors (2 ed.). p. 329-404.
    Yiu, Joseph (2015). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M0 and Cortex-M0+ Processors (2 ed.). p. 409-422.
    Yiu, Joseph (2015). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M0 and Cortex-M0+ Processors (2 ed.). p. 459.
    IDEs, debuggers:
    Martin, Trevor (2022). The Designer's Guide to the Cortex-M Processor Family. Elsevier. p. 69.
    Martin, Trevor (2022). The Designer's Guide to the Cortex-M Processor Family. Elsevier. p. 263-312.
    Yiu, Joseph (2013). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M3 and Cortex-M4 Processors (3 ed.). p. 518.
    Yiu, Joseph (2015). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M0 and Cortex-M0+ Processors (2 ed.). p. 387.
    RTOS:
    Yiu, Joseph (2013). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M3 and Cortex-M4 Processors (3 ed.). p. 605.
    Martin, Trevor (2022). The Designer's Guide to the Cortex-M Processor Family. Elsevier. p. 355-395.
    Compilers, development suites etc:
    Ovidiu Vermesan; Mario Diaz Nava (May 2023). Embedded Artificial Intelligence: Devices, Embedded Systems, and Industrial Applications. p. 80-85.
    Lai, Liangzhen; Suda, Naveen; Chandra, Vikas (January 19, 2018). "CMSIS-NN: Efficient Neural Network Kernels for Arm Cortex-M CPUs". arXiv:1801.06601 [cs.NE].
    Yiu, Joseph (2013). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M3 and Cortex-M4 Processors (3 ed.). p. 561-582.
    Yiu, Joseph (2015). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M0 and Cortex-M0+ Processors (2 ed.). p. 392.
    Yiu, Joseph (2015). The Definitive Guide to ARM Cortex-M0 and Cortex-M0+ Processors (2 ed.). p. 427-454.
    jp×g🗯️ 09:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think any of that really helps though. As I said below, this page is merely a laundry list of pieces of software and hardware, the vast majority of which is primary-sourced to websites about said software or hardware. Taking the various Definitive Guide books in your search results above, these necessarily use some of these as tools to guide the reader through, but it's not the focus. Per WP:NLIST, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." And I don't think you're going to find anything like that. Even on the off-chance you can find someone somewhere that does, it's still not really enough; this list very much falls into the spirit of what WP:NOT is all about. As is, the list is a giant pile of WP:OR, as editors are the ones who must do the research to find these things. All together, this is a really strong case for deletion I think. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That does not make sense. If sources exist for List of IDEs and debuggers for ARM Cortex-M processors, and also List of toolchains and development workflows for ARM Cortex-M processors, and also Real-time operating system development for ARM Cortex-M processors, all of which are subtopics of this article, then these must necessarily be viable sources for a combined article covering all of the constituent subjects.
    This is the kind of musical-chairs reasoning that results in the wholesale deletion of giant swaths of content: people will say to "split articles out because of size concerns" or "merge all articles into one because the coverage on each is scant", creating list and overview articles with a disjunct scope, then a few years later people will say "delete because none of the sources cover the specific overall topic as notable".
    If this article has a disjunct scope, it can be moved to a better title, but no, it should not be deleted, and specifically there is no basis to conclude that the topic of development for these processors is not a notable subject. jp×g🗯️ 20:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But sources don't exist for your red-linked lists, so I'm not sure how that helps either. It's not a notable topic, because Wikipedia does not collect lists of names of products, nor is it a link farm, nor is it a guidebook, nor a vehicle for original research, nor is it anything that this list would fall under. This sort of list dreck is routinely deleted, as it should be. There's zero encyclopedic content in here, and it should be excised, not split, not merged, but deleted. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so to recap, my argument consists of providing 24 specific citations with page numbers to five different sources, and your argument consists of saying that "there are no sources"? Am I missing something? jp×g🗯️ 13:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. I can't find any reasonable sources for this topic. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 06:09, 10 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! 07:28, 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. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baker & Dale[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable. Lewcm Talk to me! 19:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and England. Owen× ☎ 19:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although only a stub article this seems to be because not much has been published about the subject. There is no doubt that the car existed and this gives it some historical importance. An article about the car also exists on German Wikipedia.Malcolma (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I'm not sure if it's possible to do but could I suggest merging some of the UK cyclecar articles into a single article, since many of them only have one or a few sources. Lewcm Talk to me! 22:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started going through the red links on the Cyclecar article but didn't finish. This is why there are no red linked items under the UK listing starting with A or B. I think merging them into one article would be problematic as it wouold not be easy deciding what to include and what warranted its own article. As it stands, having lots of short or stub articles is not ideal nut does it do any harm? There was a UK motoring journalist who was writing up the history of many cyclecars but sadly he is no longer with us so that source has gone. Malcolma (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i agree that there are a lack of sources, but this seems important for an WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA. TLA (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Historic vehicle manufacturers and marques have generally been considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Also, importance is not an inclusion criteria, but notability is. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's WP:CONSENSUS. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right, that's not OTHERSTUFF. It is WP:INHERITED. I fail to see how consensus can dub that everything in a specific group in automatically notable. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is a policy or consensus that says all historical cars are notable, please point me to it. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In what possible way is it WP:INHERITED? You're just clutching at straws now. We've had a number of AfDs about historic motor vehicle manufacturers. I don't think I've ever seen one closed as delete. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There will always be exceptions to a rule. Just because you have seen one doesn't mean it won't ever happen. And, dang it, I confused inherited and inherent again. Sorry about that, that isn't the first time I've confused the terms. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:22, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soraca Jonin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. WP:NOTINHERITED. Longhornsg (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and Ireland. Longhornsg (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Scolaire (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The entire article appears to be based on a single 17th century inscription/plaque in Ross Errilly Friary. The suggested familial connection to Charles Edward Jennings (born a century later) is weak, questionable and largely irrelevant. Cannot see any justification (relative to any applicable NBIO or GNG criteria) to retain this title. Guliolopez (talk) 12:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. For good order, I have added the (scant) sources, that I found in my own WP:BEFORE, to the article. And updated to at the very least attribute some of the speculation the article contains. So it is clear(er) who is/was doing the speculating. As noted above, the only sources I can find ALL relate to the inscription in Ross Abbey. And involve speculation from the antiquaries/writers (who observed the inscription) as to who the subjects of the inscription might have been. This kind of "coverage", in all honesty, would seem to erode (rather than contribute) to notability. As it emphasises that no substantive biographical sources appear to be available. Which we would expect to find (even in the 17th century), if the subject was notable... Guliolopez (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a notable figure. Spleodrach (talk) 13:53, 20 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 Gokarna, Karnataka#Education as a viable ATD when multiple AfDs have not brought on participation or consensus. Star Mississippi 18:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhadrakali High School[edit]

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

WP:GNG Thewikizoomer (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:53, 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. ✗plicit 05:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FunnyFest Calgary Comedy Festival[edit]

AfDs for this article:
FunnyFest Calgary Comedy Festival (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 convinced by the last AfD and this article is still unreferenced after over a decade. A search for sources such as gnews and gbooks yields little. Even searching through Canada's national broadcaster ["FunnyFest Calgary Comedy Festival" site:.cbc.ca] . Fails GNG LibStar (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Canada. LibStar (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is not reliably sourced as getting the topic over WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT, and even on a ProQuest search for older sourcing that might not have Googled I'm mainly just getting glancing namechecks of its existence, in arts listing calendars and articles about individual comedians, rather than substantive coverage about it. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not impressed with a list of totally unsourced achievements. There are various well-attended festivals in Calgary that don't justify articles, this should be among them. 4.16.149.14 (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - echoing sentiments above. grungaloo (talk) 21:03, 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. Star Mississippi 17:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belize–Venezuela relations[edit]

Belize–Venezuela relations (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 gives no information about the relations between the two countries other than when they were established. Only one reliable source covers this topic. Interstellarity (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per NoonIcarus. Extensive articles cover their relationship to each other. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:33, 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. ✗plicit 03:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sucel Maceo[edit]

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

Poorly sourced footballer BLP. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2017, 2018, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 03:40, 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. Normally I'd relist but given volume of noms by this editor and the keep thoroughly refuting the why, I don't think it's needed here. Star Mississippi 17:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strait Talk[edit]

Strait Talk (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 as per WP:RSSM. TLA (talk) 03:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Song, Bingzhong 宋秉忠 (2017-11-16). "美批羊皮 海峽尋新論壇染反中色彩" [U.S. approves sheepskin, Strait Talk dyed with anti-Chinese colors]. Commercial Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-01-17. Retrieved 2024-01-17.

      The article notes: "「海峽尋新論壇」是由美國華裔大學生林柏瀚（Johnny Lin）於2005年在布朗大學創立，接受美國和平研究所資助；2011年4月起，「海峽尋新論壇」正式在香港設立「海峽尋新香港論壇」（Strait Talk Hong Kong），並且固定每年4月在香港大學舉辦，邀請中國大陸、台灣、港澳三方代表參加。"

      From Google Translate: ""Strait Talk" was founded by Johnny Lin, a Chinese-American college student at Brown University in 2005, and received funding from the United States Institute of Peace. Since April 2011, "Strait Talk" has officially established the "Strait Talk" in Hong Kong. "New Hong Kong Forum" (Strait Talk Hong Kong) is held regularly at the University of Hong Kong in April every year, inviting representatives from mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao to participate."

    2. Chung, Chenfang 锺辰芳 (2023-11-07). "从人性化角度化解台海冲突 "海峡寻新"提供两岸年轻人对话平台" [Resolving conflicts across the Taiwan Strait from a humanistic perspective. "Strait Talk" provides a platform for dialogue between young people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait] (in Chinese). Voice of America. Archived from the original on 2024-01-17. Retrieved 2024-01-17.

      The article notes: "曾任联合国高级调停顾问的美国俄亥俄州肯特(Kent)州立大学和平与冲突研究院副教授新井立志(Tatsushi Arai)博士，在2005年创立了“海峡寻新”(Strait Talk)的跨海峡两岸新世代对话，希望透过在美国大学就读的来自中国、台湾和美国华裔青年新世代，以“互动式冲突解决”(Interactive Conflict Resolution)对话，为台海两岸关系的和缓寻求人性化的冲突解决途径。... “海峡寻新”最早是在美国布朗大学举行，后来扩展到华盛顿的乔治华盛顿大学、加拿大阿尔伯塔大学、加州的伯克利大学和台北的校园，""

      From Google Translate: "Dr. Tatsushi Arai, an associate professor at the School of Peace and Conflict Studies at Kent State University in Ohio, who was a senior United Nations mediation consultant, founded the cross-strait cross-strait new generation "Strait Talk" in 2005. The dialogue hopes to use "Interactive Conflict Resolution" dialogue among the new generation of young people from China, Taiwan and Chinese Americans studying in American universities to seek humane conflict resolution methods for the easing of cross-strait relations across the Taiwan Strait. ... "Searching for Innovation across the Straits" was first held at Brown University in the United States, and later expanded to campuses at George Washington University in Washington, the University of Alberta in Canada, the University of Berkeley in California, and Taipei,""

    3. Chen, Yunpu 陳運璞 (2010-04-06). "舊金山大學 話美中台三角關係 高棣民：到中國學中文成趨勢 李以安：兩岸將越來越和平" [University of San Francisco: Talking about the triangular relationship between the United States, China and Taiwan]. World Journal (in Chinese).

      The article notes: "柏克萊大學教授高棣民（Thomas B. Gold）特別介紹這個非政府組織「海峽尋新」（Strait Talk），在美東已成立五年，在美西是第二年展開活動。這個組織由台灣出生的林柏翰發起，如今每年在美東布朗大學和美西柏克萊加大等地舉辦活動。"

      From Google Translate: "Thomas B. Gold, a professor at the University of Berkeley, specially introduced this non-governmental organization "Strait Talk" (Strait Talk), which has been established for five years in the eastern United States and is in its second year of activities in the western United States. This organisation was founded by Lin Bohan, who was born in Taiwan, and now holds events every year at Brown University East and the University of California, Berkeley."

    4. "布朗海峽論壇開講" [Brown Strait Talk starts]. World Journal (in Chinese). 2006-11-03.

      The article notes: "由布朗大學(Brown University)學生舉辦的海峽尋新論壇(The Strait Talk Symposium)即日起至5日在該校內舉行。邀請中美台三地的專家探討兩岸關係未來的發展。"

      From Google Translate: "The Strait Talk Symposium, organized by Brown University students, will be held on the campus from now until the 5th. Experts from China, the United States and Taiwan are invited to discuss the future development of cross-strait relations."

    5. 通过新一代人、平台和项目建立中美互信（中英文对照） [Building US.-China trust Through Next Generation People, Platforms, and Programs (in Chinese and English)] (in Chinese). Beijing: Social Sciences Literature Press. 2014. p. 36. ISBN 978-7-5097-6446-6. Retrieved 2024-01-17 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Another model to highlight is a student-created enterprise. Students at Brown University started Strait Talk in 2005. It now has a second base in the San Francisco Bay Area. Each year, the student organizing committees plan a week-long symposium and select fifteen student delegates from Taiwan, China, and the U.S. to participate. The students engage in conflict resolution training, hear from regional specialists, and develop a consensus report on dispute resolution and cooperation. The report is submitted to leaders from the three regions."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Strait Talk (traditional Chinese: 海峽尋新; simplified Chinese: 海峡寻新) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:24, 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! 08:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Mehta[edit]

Bobby Mehta (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 see a WP:COI here. No references at all; article in the Times is only a mention due to his role at HSBC, not WP:SIGCOV. TLA (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or return to draft status) as this only has one real source and most of the long article is completely unsupported with citations. Notability is at least plausible, if borderline, so improving it as a draft is also an option. WilsonP NYC (talk) 04:17, 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. ✗plicit 02:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seina Tsukimori[edit]

Seina Tsukimori (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 here: Deprecated source, Instagram posts, interview. Online is slightly more promising, but come down to press releases/promotional pieces. TLA (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I am not a "field expert", but these does not appear to be any real 3rd party coverage; ample evidence she exists, is a model, and has appeared in things, but that's it, apart from a personal "my hobbies" type of bit. I note that the WP:ja page has more references, but a number are marked "not valid reference", and the page is marked as problematic. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is the only news coverage I could find, I'm unsure if it's a RS [112]. A search of .jp websites doesn't bring up much beyond social media, blogs or e-commerce sites. Oaktree b (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Not a Wikipedia policy expert here, but I can tell that the article doesn't meet the notability criteria. The writer is literally forced to use instagram as a citation... Even the jpwiki version is flagged as
    • Personal research
    • Lacking citations
    • Not notable
    Probably the best to delete and see if she meets notability criteria in the next few years or so...
    (AlphaBetaGammsh (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak Delete. While I don't have any confidence in my ability to find Japanese sources that might not be cited yet in the article, nothing in the text or proffered sources suggests that better sources exist or that she is otherwise notable yet. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:04, 22 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 02:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Crothall[edit]

Katherine Crothall (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:INDEPENDENT sources apart from some small mentions? Seems to fail WP:GNG. TLA (talk) 02:48, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Posti SA[edit]

Posti SA (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)

References seem to be only press releases and other non-WP:INDEPENDENT content. TLA (talk) 02:46, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Filthy Casual[edit]

Filthy Casual (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)

Claims without sources. References consist of press releases, WP:SELFPUB, and one defunct source. Generally, not WP:INDEPENDENT. TLA (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, Fashion, Canada, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. The only things I could find on it seem to be from the company itself or just business listings. I couldn't find any third-party coverage or anything substantial enough to warrant an article. The current references are dead but are archived - unfortunately they appear to only be more promotional material from the company itself (i.e. doesn't meet WP:RS).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn‎. We all make mistakes. Star Mississippi 13:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Saunders[edit]

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

Neither a G5 nor a G4, but I still don't see that factors have changed since this was deleted as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenton L. Saunders. Yes, he has joined Boards, changed roles but there's nothing to indicate he's a notable businessman including the Forbes cover. I don't see a viable ATD given his ties to multiple companies. Star Mississippi 02:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Science, and Medicine. Star Mississippi 02:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That prior AfD was very thinly attended and didn't get the right outcome. Saunders was CEO of Allergan, an S&P 500 company. That should have been good enough by itself. Then he became CEO of Bausch and Lomb, another, even bigger, megacorporation, both of these should meet some SNG, but I'm not an expert in this area, so let's look at WP:BASIC. There are hundreds of reliable sources that provide significant coverage of Saunders: here are a few. I will probably add some more later. [113] [114] [115] [116][117] Jacona (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here are a few more: [118][119][120][121][122]. Creating clippings, fixing the url and posting here is a bit painstaking. If you would like, go to newspapers.com to find many, many more. Jacona (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't spend hours.
    I assume most who participate will have or can get access. What do you think has changed most since March 2022. My primary concern remains that while the mergers are notable, I haven't found enough to indicate he was the key figure in them. Happy to keep looking on my end as well. Star Mississippi 04:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Star Mississippi, In March 2022, the AfD was really not worked. As far as being a key figure, he was the CEO of two of the biggest corporations on the planet. He at times held other significant roles, such as COO. There is a wealth of WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:RS. He met WP:BASIC then, and he still does. — Jacona (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I may have not made it clear, he is the current CEO of B&L, a position he has apparently held twice, as well as being the current chairman of the board. [123] — Jacona (talk) 04:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given status as leader of two massive companies that affect the daily lives of millions. SIGCOV is extensive, I’m not sure where to even start with a comment like “there's nothing to indicate he's a notable businessman including the Forbes cover.” WilsonP NYC (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WilsonP NYC, You're right, this is a heck of an endorsement for WP:N. — Jacona (talk) 04:48, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yaremis Fuentes[edit]

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

Poorly sourced footballer BLP. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2012, 2018, 2023, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 02:07, 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: created by now-blocked and CU-confirmed sock, and substantially the same as a previously deleted version. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Babu Shiv Bahadur Singh[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Babu Shiv Bahadur Singh (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)

Twice deleted at AfD. Fails GNG and NBIO per previous AfD discussions. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babu Shiv Bahadur Singh (2nd nomination)  // Timothy :: talk  01:54, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Hirsch[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alan Hirsch (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 could not find any indepth coverage as there are many other people of the same name. Current sourcing includes a lot of primary sources and not enough to meet WP:BIO. Created by a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 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.
  • Delete on WP:PROMO grounds. The last AfD was a near unanimous keep, so he might be notable, but this article should not be in mainspace as written - it's a CV. SportingFlyer T·C 01:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AFD was closed 5 minutes after it was posted and your opinion came in after the closure so it wasn't considered. Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 22 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! 00:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Solis[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Brian Solis (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:SIGCOV in WP:INDEPENDENT sources, whilst being WP:PROMO. TLA (talk) 00:36, 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 speedy keep (non-admin closure). TLA (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cavity Search Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cavity Search Records (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:SIGCOV that is WP:RELIABLE. Most notable press is the death of a co-founder. TLA (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per sources in last AfD. Mach61 (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: On second thought, you're right. I think it barely meets notability. Don't want to clog up AfD discussions, so I will be withdrawing my nomination accordingly. TLA (talk) 02:03, 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 redirect‎ to Darkest Days. Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes It Hurts[edit]

Sometimes It Hurts (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 song. I wanted to at least have the discussion about this rejected PROD. Jax 0677 (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Charting is an indication of notability, but not a guaranteed pass. I can't find anything discussing this song, tried a Gnewspapers search but nothing came up. Very early in the internet age, might be covered in paper sources. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Darkest Days per WP:ATD. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Darkest Days, the parent album. There is evidence that this song was released as a single and achieved some minor chart placements, but per WP:NSONG there is no further media analysis or coverage of the song in its own right. Therefore there is nothing with which to build an informative encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kentucky Wildcats basketball players[edit]

List of Kentucky Wildcats basketball players (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:NLIST. It's a bunch of hand-picked former players with no clear, consistent criteria for inclusion. The list borders on being trivial, too. Each of the players are notable unto themselves, but there are no third-party sources that describe all of these players as a group with overlapping notability beyond having simply played for Kentucky. SportsGuy789 (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Basketball, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTDUP, this is a standard navigational list complementary to the category. The very obvious criteria for inclusion are 1) Kentucky Wildcats basketball players; 2) who have articles. NLIST is neither a helpful nor necessary approach here. postdlf (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. This is a navigational list. There should be no need to find sources discussing all players in one place. Cbl62 (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - However, this list contains only the men's basketball players. My only suggestion would be that this be renamed to List of Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball players, to distinguish it from the articles about Kentucky Wildcats women's basketball. — Maile (talk) 15:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all Keeps above. This looks like a garden variety list article. We keep alumni lists and lists of people who are from a particular area, and this falls into that rubric. That it's incomplete just means it needs to be made complete. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 18:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There is a category for that and any list should have more specific criteria (those who played in the NBA, won awards, etc.). The parameters are too broad. Rikster2 (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those kinds of lists would be useful for sure, but this particular list isn't flat like a category is. It contains columns for differentiating details. Could it be richer in presentation? Perhaps - but I don't think that's a strong enough reason to delete. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 21:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is it necessary to have a list that needs to be maintained when there is a category collecting the exact same information? Yes, it can be presented differently but I don’t think that’s a good reason to keep, to use your same language. Right now it is not comprehensive because it can’t keep up with new player articles being created Rikster2 (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It is clearly encyclopedically useful to readers to be able to not only see all notable UK men's basketball players, but also to be able to sort by when they played - a category does not provide that sort. Also, again, that it's incomplete today or has trouble catching up so far are really not relevant to this discussion. This is clearly not a mere duplication of a category. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 21:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • It’s relevant because as the nomination noted, there is zero criteria for the inclusion of those currently on the list. Historically we have avoided this type of article for college basketball because it adds minimal value and nobody steps up to maintain it. This isn’t a sports almanac, it’s an encyclopedia. Rikster2 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:CLT, a category doesn't preclude also having a list article. And there are reliable sources that provide information on the Kentucky men's basketball players as a group such as here. Rlendog (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That link is just a sort option on basketball-reference. You can literally sort by any school, it doesn’t demonstrate notability for this list. The site is a stat site for NBA players so if it shows anything it is that “Kentucky Wildcats who played in the NBA” might be a notable list option Rikster2 (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rikster2's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasoning above provided by Postdlf, StefenTower and Rlendog. Cbl62 (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Browsing over this on Google, most sources I found are about Kentucky players in the NBA. There are however a few sources that discuss the greatest Kentucky basketball players of all time without referencing their NBA careers such as [124][125] but this list isn't limited to them. If kept, then it should probably be moved to List of Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball players as it only covers the men's program. Alvaldi (talk) 10:59, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Kaufman[edit]

Nick Kaufman (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; passing mentions in court cases, routine coverage. WP:COI with uncited statements. TLA (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Fails GNG. There are also 5 (!) editors who contributed to this whose first edits were to this article. Most of them single-purpose accounts. Also, this edit is a pretty compelling one that hints at all of these SPAs being Nick himself. Requesting salt so Nick can't re-create his own article down the road once eyes are off of it. SportsGuy789 (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons well covered by SportsGuy789 WilsonP NYC (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was involved in notable court cases, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I do not seem a strong reason to WP:SALT. Marokwitz (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lawyer with interests, experience and expertise in fields that are currently closely followed in Israel. An accessible chap who likes to write and share. As a result, he has written opinion pieces and has been interviewed for distinguished Israeli newspapers and TV shows. He also shared his biographies with Enwiki and Hewiki. Hewiki was deleted after much debate. We should do the same because virtually all his coverage is primary. gidonb (talk) 05:43, 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! 00:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mystro Sugar[edit]

Mystro Sugar (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)

Don't think this meets WP:GNG. A lot of poor sources here, Complex doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Also may be WP:UPE. TLA (talk) 00:16, 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 redirect‎ to Stabbing Westward#Discography. Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Essential Stabbing Westward[edit]

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

Non notable album. I wanted to at least have the discussion about this rejected PROD. Jax 0677 (talk) 00:01, 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 redirect‎ to Stabbing Westward#Discography. Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What Do I Have to Do? (album)[edit]

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

Non notable album. I at least wanted to have the discussion about this rejected PROD. Jax 0677 (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not boldy redirect the article to Stabbing Westward, and only go to AfD if that is reversed? Mach61 (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - "I at least wanted to have the discussion". --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jax 0677 I'm confused: the only reason you prod an article is to avoid discussion, yet instead of taking a second no-discussion option after I de-prod you open an AfD. Why? Mach61 (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Redirect is not blatantly visible. PROD and AFD are plainly visible. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you've told me numerous times be bold. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - "PROD and AFD are plainly visible". --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also curious about what has happened to Jax0677's relentless bloodlust for never ever ever ever deleting anything because it is earth-shatteringly crucial to preserve attribution for former editors who said something uninformative about someone non-notable, as seen here or here among many others. But now Jax is suddenly proposing albums for deletion without considering the standard procedure of redirecting to the band, which happens to satisfy that same unceasing tooth-and-nail fight-to-the-death obsession with never ever ever ever deleting anything, not even redirects created because of previous deletions as seen here. What gives? At least be consistent in your obsessions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - WP:RM has a section for controversial moves. Since this is likely controversial, I want to have buy in from the Wikipedia community before removing such an article. Redirecting and merging are possible outcomes for articles in AFD. There is no WP:Articles for discussion forum. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely missed the point. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:38, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_January_15&oldid=1198185466"