Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 30 February 01 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polad Fataliev[edit]

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

unrelated references and statuses not found in rhesus. Redivy (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article are not WP:SIGCOV, and BEFORE found listings, mill game news, nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  14:06, 5 February 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 23:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Access Yea Community Education Program[edit]

Access Yea Community Education Program (edit | talk | history | 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 education program appears to have a very regional focus, only in a specific region in Australia, that does not meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. According to my online research, there are not enough reliable, independent sources, WP:NRV, that cover this program in detail. Chiserc (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Because the claim above that "This education program appears to have a very regional focus, only in a specific region in Australia" is contradicted by the article itself saying "AYCE is statewide..." HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it fails GNG regardless. LibStar (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't find information that the program was indeed a statewide program with national impact and it's more like "a state-funded high school program in Victoria, Australia". Chiserc (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have seen this program in operation, but I have no ownership or investment in it. It's just that you made your "very regional" claim a major part of your case for deletion, and it's not "very regional" at all. The main operations of the program occur around 90 km away from the township of Yea, in metropolitan Melbourne, a city of over 5 million people. It's open to kids from anywhere really, and Victoria is Australia's second most populous state. Maybe you need to reframe your case HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with you, the article along with many other public institutions, are not notable enough to sustain Wikipedia's notability criteria. Ⓒ𝕝乇тᵉⓇ (α ɯσɾԃ?) 15:25, 2 February 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. ✗plicit 00:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba – To the Hashira Training[edit]

Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba – To the Hashira Training (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Demon Slayer

This article is about an unreleased movie. It exists in both draft space and article space. Maybe some editors think that creating both an article and a draft prevents moving the article into draft space. Articles on unreleased movies only satisfy film notability criteria if production itself has been notable. There is nothing in this article about production. The articles are mostly about the schedule for theatrical release of the film including a world tour of theatrical viewings. Do the sources refer to production or contribute to film notability? No. A check of the references shows that they are mostly just announcements of dates of release.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 www.cbr.com/demon-slayer-hashira-training-arc-info/ Appears tp be a fanzine Sort of Yes Probably No
2 deadline.com Announcement of broadcast release date No No Yes No
3 Yahoo.com Announcement of theatrical release date No No Probably No
4 www.crunchyroll.com Another announcement of the date of release No No Probably No
5 kimetsu.com Announcement in Japanese of world tour screening No No Probably No

The draft is all right because it is a draft, and can be updated after the film is released and reviewed. The current article should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This movie is scheduled for release in 8 days. Given that the typical AfD discussion takes 7 days, this would result in an article being deleted and then re-created anew one day later. This feels like a waste of various people's time, especially the article creator. I also note that despite the OP's suggestion of foul play, the draft and the mainspace article were created by two different people who were probably unaware of each other. Also, CBR is not a "fanzine" and is an independent, secondary source. Toughpigs (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it be deleted? There's been wikipedia pages for other films that hadn't been released at the time of the publication of the article why single out this film in particular? KemKatlAcl (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Toughpigs, deleting the article then re-creating it the next day is just WP:BUREAUCRACY. This is one of the largest anime series in Japan so any required sourcing is basically guaranteed to be created once the movie releases in 8 days. Jumpytoo Talk 03:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Jumpytoo and Toughpigs. Put the Afd on hold, keep, whatever technical solution is best and wait for the release seems like the best solution. Sorry, but I'm afraid this is indeed a considerable waste of time.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The manga has sold over 150 million copies, so a lot of coverage will come of this film. Dream Focus 05:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I'm surprised someone even considered this discussion necessary. Plifal (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia should not be a bureaucratic place where sought after information cannot be found and just frustrates people. Wikipedia should be a place where people can find helpful information, even prior to the release of an upcoming film, because people need to find some basic information about what this film is generally. For instance, I am glad to have found out that this is a compilation film with some new material. If this page is deleted, I would have a hard time looking for relevant information from the web. M00NS3A5 (talk) 07:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the film will be released worldwide in just two weeks on Feb 23, 2024. Why delete it and recreate it again? Who benefits from this deletion? There is a lot to lose and little to gain. M00NS3A5 (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't understand why this discussion was relisted given the unanimity for keep but there's little question a movie in the Demon Slayer series is notable, and as others have noted, with its release around the corner, there's no reason to go through this motion just to recreate it a few days later. DCsansei (talk) 15:03, 7 February 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 00:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BNSD Inter College[edit]

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

Previous declined prod. Whilst it has some notable alumni, could not find significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. LibStar (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If a school/college has one notable alumni it probably doesn't lend much weight to notability. If on the other hand there are a few it suggests the institution may be notable. This one is located centrally to one of the major Indian cities, Kanpur and has been established for 85 years, perhaps making notability more likely than a newer establishment out in the suburbs. Older Indian newspaper sources are not easy to come by online, so it's hard to evaluate whether or not this college was notable in the past, when it may not appear to be so today. Rupples (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I've been commenting/!voting on a few schools' AfDs recently and this one has been the hardest to come to a recommendation. Sources don't have much depth. This college has notability given its connections, but at the same time notability is not inherited. The institution seems to have a kind of "faded glory", in that it was likely notable 50 or 60 years ago, but isn't so much now. For that reason, I don't think it fits well in the only appropriate locality, Kanpur#Education because nowadays it's one of many such colleges in a city of over 2 million people. There's not an article on its immediate locality of Chunniganj, to which I I would have recommended a merge/redirect. As I can't see an AtD, the stark choice is keep or delete and to me it's somewhat illogical for this to have no mention on Wikipedia because of a lack of AtD, when it seems more notable than others which have redirects. Also, I suspect but can't prove, the college would be referenced in offline sources such as Kanpur newspapers from the 1930s to 1970s and other publications, maybe in Hindi, available in local public libraries. Rupples (talk) 20:40, 20 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! 23:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:49, 31 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 improvements made and sources identified Star Mississippi 01:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Narbett[edit]

Jon 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)

This got caught up in my cleanup of promotional articles and likely sockpuppetry, but after a second look I saw that this article had a longer history so I've restored and sent it here for review. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC, the only sources are a local blog, WP:ROUTINE injury report, and a fanzine. WP:BEFORE showed nothing that would contribute to notability. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Per nom. Fails in WP:V. Svartner (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep – Due to the new sources presented per GiantSnowman. The article has potential for improvement. Svartner (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Svartner the first source is not independent and likely not reliable. The second source is a bit more than routine, but is still not enough to meet GNG, especially by itself. JoelleJay (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not the point - the point is that there are sources out there, and that given the length of this person's career, there are likely to be offline sources out there which nobody has tried to check. GiantSnowman 13:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly notable. This player made over 200 appearances in the Football League (the English professional league), see this, and also had a career in Sweden. There is online coverage at here and here, and there will be offline coverage given he played pre-internet. Pinging @The Wordsmith and Svartner: to re-consider. GiantSnowman 19:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Appearing in professional league matches no longer satisfy notability requirements, as participation-based criteria were eliminated from WP:ATHLETE in the big RFC 2 years ago. For your sources, I made reference to those in my nomination statement though not by name. The Your Herefordshire source is significant coverage but of questionable reliability, being more of a community blog than something we'd use to demonstrate notability. The author, Matt Healey, is not a journalist but a party DJ, Sales Director for Your Herefordshire, and (most importantly) Hereford FC Matchday Announcer since 2002 🎤 according to his own website,[1] making him not independent of the subject. Your second source is a local news source, which isn't necessarily disqualifying but it is a routine injury report. Neither of them are sufficient to demonstrate notability. As far as pre-internet sources, sure they might exist and might give WP:SIGCOV. But we don't have enough sources available to satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC and give us the presumption of notability and existence of sources. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed with The Wordsmith that the sources presented above fall woefully short of GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I did a search of the Swedish newspaper archives and what I could find for "Narbett" were clearly just routine passing mentions and match recaps. The full text of the Barometern piece is very short -- "Jonathan Narbett came to Kalmar FF from Oxford in 1994. Here he goes wild in the home match against BK Forward. The question is eagle he was on his feet when he landed; few players in KFF history have fallen over as often as he has. Apart from an extremely unexpected hat-trick away to Hässleholm, he made an exceedingly modest impression and disappeared after the season back to Great Britain, specifically to Merthyr Tydfil in Wales. After a couple of years in Chesterfield and Worcester City, the trail of him ends. Wherever Jon Narbett is today is his 48th birthday." I still don't think this meets GNG, but would like to hear from @The Wordsmith. Svenskafans is a passing mention. JoelleJay (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That really doesn't seem like it meets WP:SIGCOV, and I don't think any of the sources presented so far meet either GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per GiantSnowman. Besides the sources alreayd in the article, I found 4, 5, and 6. Definitly has offline sources, having made 100+ appearances in fully pro English Football League in pre-internet era. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:48, 31 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 23:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vivekananda Vidyapith[edit]

Vivekananda Vidyapith (edit | talk | history | 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 sources establishing notability, and seems to have been written by the school itself from various IP address accounts. Beland (talk) 23:44, 31 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 11:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dinhing Dapita Sadya[edit]

Dinhing Dapita Sadya (edit | talk | history | 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 television show that fails both WP:GNG and WP:NTV, and has been tagged as being unreferenced for over eleven years. Aspects (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per reasons provided by nom. Llajwa (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:25, 31 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 23:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Madyina Ngulube[edit]

Madyina Ngulube (edit | talk | history | 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 BLP footballer. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that I came across was a couple sentences of coverage here, as well as this transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 23:21, 31 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. Regardless of whether it should have been draftified or not, consensus is clear among established editors. Star Mississippi 02:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Young (artist)[edit]

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

Article was moved to draft space by an experienced editor, then moved back to article space by another editor. The subject doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, it's difficult to find sources online because there is a better known glass artist of the same name. Current sources are of questionable quality (one is on a gallery website, another is an interview). The two inline citations were to Apple Music and Spotify, suggesting the article is here to promote the artist. Sionk (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. An article that has been around since 2010 should never be moved to draft space, certainly not without notifying all the editors who edited it over the years. If the subject is not notable, the article should be deleted through AfD discussion, but lack of inline sourcing or poor formatting are not justifiable reasons to draftify. Station1 (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly the point I made in my reply to Sionk. This article has been around for years and been contributed to by numerous editors. In my view the artist is notable as attested to by two cited independent reviews and a Swiss newspaper article. The fact that there is another artist of the same name is immaterial. Anyone is free to write an article about that particular subject using disambiguation. MrBongleton (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Just thought I'd make my stance more clear. I forgot to input my bold typeface. I've already shared my opinion here in my reply to Sionk. MrBongleton (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it seems to me that the sources are quite legitimate. One is a newspaper review for an exhibition the artist had in Bern, Switzerland, in 2011. There's a paywall for the newspaper in question (Der Bund) but that doesn't make the source any less legitimate. The relevant information is clearly visible in the newspaper article header (see link: https://www.derbund.ch/kontrapunkte-157989066396). There is also a review from Paris-based Le Musée Privé from 2011 which seems reliable (see link: https://web.archive.org/web/20120402105046/http://www.le-musee-prive.com/expositions/ben-young-locuslux-gallery-amsterdam.html). It's also worth pointing out that quite a few editors have contributed to this article over the past 8 years or more and none of them has seen fit to put it up for deletion. If you look at the artist's resume on his website (https://benyoungart.com/pages/about.html) you will also see a long list of exhibitions including ones referenced in this article (Group Exhbition: June 8/July 30 2011, Galerie Rigassi, corresponding to Der Bund article source, and Solo Exhibition: May 21/July 16 2011: Happy Nihilism, Locuslux Gallery, Amsterdam, corresponding to Le Musée Privé review). As an art historian interested in contemporary art I have found this article quite useful and knowing of the artist's work have contributed to it over the years as have others, evidently. Clearly the artist is also a recording musician but again that doesn't seem problematic. The biographical details referring to his musical activities are merely statements of fact that readers might actually find useful. MrBongleton (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, to be honest I'm surprised to see an article I contributed to and that's been around since 2010 being put up for deletion. I think it does what Wikipedia is here to do - inform. I don't think its deletion would benefit anyone. As mentioned by Mr Bongleton, there is a long list of exhibitions on the artist's website that correlate perfectly with the information in the Wikipedia article and indicate that the subject is notable. Artincider (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After a cursory Google search using the terms Ben Young artist and Ben Young painter I quickly came across several websites that reference his work including a British art publication called Trebuchet, based in London, that ran a review of his 2012 solo exhibition at Victory Gallery in Portland, Oregon USA. I have now updated that published review on his Wikipedia article under the references section. So there are now two newspaper / magazine articles referenced there that specifically review his work as well as two other online / print reviews of his exhibitions. Here are some of the links I found - bear in mind this was a fairly cursory search:
https://www.trebuchet-magazine.com/ben-young-victory-gallery-oregon/
https://artfacts.net/artist/ben-young/161486
https://www.mutualart.com/Artist/Ben-Young/8D9EB6E351DAE4E2
https://www.artnet.com/artists/ben-young/biography
http://undercoverpainter.blogspot.com/2010/11/ben-young.html?m=1
https://www.sarahmasaki.com/ben-young Artincider (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)nly s[reply]
  • Delete Sources are trivial mentions and WP:ROUTINE coverage. Article created and edited by a series of single purpose accounts, such as Bagman23, Insider.art, Arthurrubenstein, Artincider and MrBongleton. Comes nowhere close to meeting the WP:ARTIST notability guideline. Elspea756 (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • CU note Artincider and MrBongleton are being operated by the same person. I have blocked both, and have struck through one set of comments - obviously it is inappropriate for one person to attempt to have two voices in a discussion of this nature. I think it likely that they are being operated by the same person behind the string of accounts that have edited this article in series, but the old ones are stale - if any of them reactivate and engage in this discussion or continue editing the article, please let me know. Girth Summit (blether) 14:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:28, 5 February 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 23:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilio Ynares[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as the mayor of a city municipality of under 400k people. There is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV contributing to WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is a mayor of a small town or municipality in a province, not a city. AtorniYormeJKLlamera (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject person of the article is a mayor of a small town or municipality in a province, not a city. A municipality can be elevated into a city once the minimum population for a city has been met by a municipality. AtorniYormeJKLlamera (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 23:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated the nomination accordingly. JTtheOG (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as politician seems to be not notable --BoraVoro (talk) 11:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL per nom. Not as notable as his siblings. SBKSPP (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 11:06, 6 February 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 Naga Wrestling Championship per Nom and as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 02:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Venüzo Dawhuo[edit]

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

Brief BLP of the winner of a very small state wrestling championship, sourced only to local/regional press. Redirecting to Naga Wrestling Championship would be a decent ATD. Mccapra (talk) 22:22, 31 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 23:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of GAC vehicles with joint venture[edit]

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

Detailed list spun out of another article last year, but almost entirely unsourced. Nobody at NPP has wanted to mark it as patrolled, and I suppose it would be possible to go through all the claims in all the fields in the table and look for sources, but nobody has volunteered to do that. Meanwhile we have an effectively unsourced article in mainspace, which doesn’t seem satisfactory. Not sure what to do with it so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless massively improved. An effectively unsourced list is not acceptable in mainspace, especially without any evidence that it meets WP:NLIST. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks the necessary elements to meet the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 15:28, 6 February 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 23:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Middlesex 9s[edit]

Middlesex 9s (edit | talk | history | 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 RL competition. Fails WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Barely sourced, out of date, a quick Google search doesn't bring anything of note up. Mn1548 (talk) 15:21, 1 February 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 23:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Smales[edit]

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

Journalist whose career doesn't appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Roles at Vogue significant, but I don't think enough. Very few internal links. Hard to find external references. Seaweed (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Rugby League Conference. RL0919 (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire & Humber Merit League[edit]

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

Very minor amateur RL league which only existed briefly. Fails WP:GNG as no significant coverage exists. J Mo 101 (talk) 20:22, 31 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sreejith Mohandas[edit]

Sreejith Mohandas (edit | talk | history | 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:TOOSOON for a director with no feature films in their filmography. The award received by Food on the Road is not notable. Sources one and three are about the film 'E Valayam' and two is the short film directed by the subject. Unable to find anything on WP:Before. Looks like the career and Personal life sections are original research. Fails GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, Entertainment, and India. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Kerala. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well articulated nomination. I might have gone Draftify, but at the rate films get made, it would probably G13. If the creator wants to hold onto the work, it could be sent to user space. As it stands, though, I concur with the nom, and meeting WP:NFILMMAKER seems to be a long way off as well without having established clear notability of the films to make up a body of work. -2pou (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have received the award for my short movie. I have added the image to my Wikipedia. But the news is not available on the internet. The news was published in the newspaper. I have the image of that news. But that image is not in good quality to publish in Wikipedia. The Indian Cinema (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination: not yet notable per WP:NFILMMAKER, and from the reply by creator above, evidently an autobiograpy. I can only find passing mentions of him online in articles about films he's worked on. Wikishovel (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPA article creator says at their user talk page that they are indeed Sreejith Mohandas, an associate director of E valayam, and that Wikipedia is "one of the perfect tool for the public relation", so draw your own conclusions. See also WP:Articles for deletion/E valayam. Wikishovel (talk) 18:45, 6 February 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. ✗plicit 00:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of current CFL team rosters[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN and goes against WP:TG to boot as a list page. Let'srun (talk) 19:52, 31 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 23:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Indoor Football League team rosters[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN, is merely a long list of non notable people while fails the GNG. Let'srun (talk) 19:45, 31 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional brewers[edit]

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

A list and topic that I do not believe passes the WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. I've done some searches, and I can find no evidence that the topic of fictional brewers or breweries have been discussed in reliable sources as an actual topic or as a group or set. (Though I did learn that there is a real-life brewery named the "Fiction Beer Company"). The sources included in this article are only on a couple of the specific entries, not on the topic as a whole, and most of them are either non-reliable, or barely mention the actual beer brewing. Rorshacma (talk) 18:46, 31 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. Harley Poe does not appear to make sense as an ATD as band members went on to other blue-linked bands, but editors may create one at their discetion. Star Mississippi 02:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calibretto 13[edit]

Calibretto 13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since 2013 and I can't find enough significant coverage that would show they need their own article. The only point in their favour (as far as I can tell, anyway) is that they released albums on Tooth & Nail Records, a significant indie label, but I'm not sure that's enough. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 06:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment that I forgot to include in my original message: if the consensus is that they shouldn't have their own article, it might be best to redirect to Harley Poe? Not sure though. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 06:45, 17 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! 06:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see know cause for deletion of the article. A number of bands, roughly the same size from Tooth and Nail Records have their own Wikipedia pages. While there are not a lot of sources available, I think the deletion of the page would be a further loss of information. Theo1858 (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced that they're notable enough considering the lack of coverage - Discogs doesn't convey notability in the slightest (and is generally considered an unreliable source due to being user-generated), Concert Archives is at least partially user-generated and doesn't require artists listed to be notable, and the Harley Poe review is only a passing mention. There is the one Punk News review of Dead By Dawn, but I don't think that's enough to convince me. We'll see what others say, I guess. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 11:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I would say Calibretto meets Notability section 1 criterion, with multiple published album reviews in newspapers, print magazines, and punk zines.
They also meet criterion section 5, with two full length albums and 1 EP released on Tooth and Nail Records (A notable independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable, and a significant impact within a specific music genre (alternative Christian punk and hardcore scene)
The band's music was also featured in multiple published works including the Stephen Baldwin produced documentary "Livin It" and the WB tv show "What's New, Scooby Doo?". Theo1858 (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 18:05, 31 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. Star Mississippi 02:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zacharias Sexual Abuse Center[edit]

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

Could not find indepth coverage either in google news or books. Mainly 1 line mentions, like getting support from the Chicago Bears. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:32, 17 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! 06:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 17:51, 31 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. Not all !votes here made strong policy-based arguments, but the added material does appear to be significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sainty[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP. I have added a para, which I hope establishes some level of notability. Roundtheworld (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. I agree with @Roundtheworld this diplomat is quite well know, the article should remain open. Diogo Costa (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being "quite well known" is not a notability criterion. LibStar (talk) 12:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get an assessment on recent contributions to the article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 17 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! 05:43, 24 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, The WordsmithTalk to me 17:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Characters of the Street Fighter series. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Kanzuki[edit]

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

A large part of this character's reception is strictly about how professional players regarded her in Street Fighter V...and not even specifically in articles for her. While gameplay can be a factor for a character's notability, it doesn't show an overarching importance beyond the game itself, or any impact towards it. Other mentions are trivial, not really establishing any importance or examination. Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per nom. A mention in NPR is surprising, and there's also a Destructoid article here, but everything else feels rather press-release like. I am not seeing the significant coverage needed for a standalone page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the sources indicate the character's notability and popularity, especially in the reception. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I went through your votes at afd, such as at Gouken's and Yuuki's AFDs. Why do you keep providing weak rationale for almost every AFD??? GreenishPickle! (🔔) 16:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:VAGUEWAVE. You've got to be more specific if you want your stance to be seriously considered by the closing admin. Sergecross73 msg me 21:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will keep this short as I do not want to make this AFD about me; I will be honest, I had intended to give longer explanations but due to some exams I have had less time. I was under the impression that my arguments were good enough, as I had seen some AFD arguments which were full of just one word answers/policies/essay links or "per x user" or "per above", and I think that explanations were short but reasonable enough. For some, as the explanations on the notability of sources had been explained above, I did not want to be repetitive. Additionally, it is not "almost every AFD", there are hundreds of current and past AFDs that I have not commented on - I do not look at all of them, only some, but I only comment on articles I think are notable/able to be improved. If you would like to talk about this more, I can send an email or discuss on my talk page. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE. As the guideline says "A "vote" that doesn't seem to be based on a reasonable rationale may be completely ignored or receive little consideration, or may be escalated to wider attention if it appears to have been treated as a simple vote count. It is important therefore to also explain why you are voting the way you are." That also includes making sure it is not just vaguely waving at "sources" but detailing which ones support the rationale. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware that it is not a vote - that is why I have always provided explanation, though I was unaware that they were not long enough. But I have been on Wikipedia long enough to know that AFD is not done by the number votes, but rather the quality of !votes. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem boils down to the fact that you can't really do these vague "keep per user" or "keep its notable" stances when you're the first person to advocate a specific stance in the discussion. That really only works when someone has already written a well reasoned, detailed response that you agree with. Sergecross73 msg me 00:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:DaniloDaysOfOurLives which in particular?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the sources mentioned above, the main source that stuck out to me was [2], as it is clearly independent, and whilst it is part of a list, it does take about the character in detail. [3] also stuck out to me as it talks in depth about the character, as does [4] though to a lesser extent. I saw them as independent as the websites are not focussed on Street Fighter but the video game genre. Additionally, many of the list articles showing the character's popularity do strengthen the notability - on their own I would be on the fence, but in addition to the others, I think it meets GNG. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:DaniloDaysOfOurLives Well the last one there, if I may, is essentially a press release, and not discussing the character per se. Additionally the redbull entry is discussing the gameplay of multiple characters in the context of Street Fighter V based off the player's perception. There's a possible issue of him being a reliable source of course, but a bigger matter is it's not showing importance separate from the game itself. Think of, say, someone using articles like these to justify Killer Instinct characters. Not trying to shoot you down, just explain the issues as I'm seeing them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ps Blog could qualify as a primary source. Red Bull would be okay for sourcing purposes, but a list of characters tends to prove the characters as a whole are notable rather than a single one. There's a reason listicles are considered very dicey. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 17:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. Despite liking Karin, and not thinking it's quite as weak as some merged Street Fighter articles, I feel that it is unfortunately lacking in both significant coverage and evidence of notability. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Article is in weak state. It needs more that has been discussed primarily about the character. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 09:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Zxcvbnm. This isn't WP:SIGCOV. It's probably better to follow the coverage and include it with the rest of the series or characters. Characters of the Street Fighter series could be a good target, and I would suggest some development/reception information going there too. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The two sources in here and the Anime News Network source are good. Karin seemed to get a decent amount of attention for her return after a long absence. The creation section has some interesting details too. I think these sources satisfy the WP:GNG. MoonJet (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually think that the Anime News Network source is great, and the Destructoid source is decent. With the NPR source, however, it seems to be summing up that she is popular and that she ranked highly on polls, the NPR source itself doesn't seem to say much. If there was a third source on the caliber of at least Destructoid, I might change my mind. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:25, 5 February 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singham Again[edit]

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

Notability tag removed and I do not see the issue addressed so coming here to get consensus. Fails WP:NFILM. Classic example of notability based on announcements and press releases. Announced in 2017, official title in 2022, filming began in September 2023 and an announcement of release for August 2024. References show it is filming but nothing showing it is substantially complete and per NFILM, we have seen many films delayed so nothing to tell this is actually going to be released in August. Many references are unreliable or churnalism so fails WP:GNG as well. Would recommend draftify but previous film related draftified articles are simply moved back to mainspace shortly thereafter and we wind up right back here so not sure if it is an acceptable WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify. This is another case of a movie article created way ahead of undecided release date and not even reached post-production stage. Too early to have an article in namespace.RangersRus (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to Cop Universe as film is still under production and a part of that franchise that is still not covered under post-production. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 18:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nomination. Krishna Dahal (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - deleting/draftifying major Indian films such as this only gives ammunition to socks to create more of a mess, as we've seen countless times before. The film is currently filming, just like major Hollywood films as Venom 3 or MI:8 (both of which were also delayed many times). The article, of course, can be improved with better referencing so tags should stay. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comparisons. Of course, on a cursory glance those appear to meet WP:GNG while this film does not. Also, why would we reward socks by keeping pages that do not yet meet guidelines. This one likely will, but falls within WP:TOOSOON. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not rewarding them at all. I'm only thinking from the perspective of readers who would want to read up about a big upcoming film. We shouldn't let them suffer due to the follies of socks. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article is well sourced and meets WP:NFF since the filming section is comprehensive. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would not meet NFF based on the content on the page. It would need to meet it based on where filming is currently at and the reliable sources that support it. It could possibly meet GNG but most of the references are simply churnalism that I see. Maybe I missed something? --CNMall41 (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of India is not completely non-RS, it can be used for general, non-contentious info like entertainment. See WP:TOI. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or in worst case scenario draftify it. Personally I see no reason for deleting, because it is well-sourced regardless of whether it is a 'big movie' or not. Yes, it could be delayed again, but some other major productions around the world get delayed as well; that alone is not ground for deleting. And as another user pointed out, given that there are some well-known Indian actors among the cast, deleting it could potentially create an opportunity for socks/system abusers to recreate the article again and again, albeit with much less quality. Keivan.fTalk 18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on preponement. This is a major/popular Indian film not sure why it was deleted. DareshMohan (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given the scale of the film and it's coverage an article is appropriate at this time. Sure it could be redirected/merged to Cop Universe, but once principal photography has begun and is covered in reliable sources, there really isn't any pressing reason to do so. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While numerically there appears to be a majority for 'keep' here, a number of the keep opinions express arguments which aren't particularly strong in policy. A couple also suggest draft or merge/redirect as alternatives. Relisting to establish a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draft: until more solid news is released, I can't see much now that warrants keeping it in mainspace. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons already given above. It's not just announced as being in development, it's actually actively filming with a set release date later this year. Even if it ends up getting pushed back, that is not a reason to delete the page. Plenty of other forthcoming films have pages prior to release. As it stands, this page already has a substantial section detailing the production with plenty of sources. There is no reason to delete it. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, fails WP:NFILM. Or it should be moved to Draft for its improvement. Macbeejack ☎ 08:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very comprehensive and insightful. Your comments are indeed appreciated. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:46, 31 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 23:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jurijs Baranovs[edit]

Jurijs Baranovs (edit | talk | history | 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:GNG. The best example of coverage cited thus far is this coverage in Latvian, but it does not make a case for GNG in itself; I was unable to find additional independent coverage other than interviews, database entries, and trivial mentions in match writeups, having searched in English/Latvian and also Russian. signed, Rosguill talk 16:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, Latvia, and Russia. signed, Rosguill talk 16:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Coverage on the subject seems to be limited in online searches, however there may well be coverage in offline or difficult to access non-English language sources, but for now weak delete. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 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 23:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Rendón[edit]

Bruno Rendón (edit | talk | history | 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:GNG. Coverage is limited to affiliated press, and even then is light on biographical detail. I was unable to find additional coverage searching online and on Newspapers.com signed, Rosguill talk 16:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:31, 31 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 23:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyad Dadashov[edit]

Sayyad Dadashov (edit | talk | history | 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:GNG, and we don't appear to have an SNG for Taekwondo or general martial arts, so it's not clear whether a silver medal at the European Games should establish notability. Coverage online in English and Azerbaijani is limited to brief mentions in writeups of Azerbaijani athletes' performance, but does not have significant biographical coverage of the subject. signed, Rosguill talk 16:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Azerbaijan. signed, Rosguill talk 16:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's a lack of significant independent coverage. Success at the junior level has never been considered WP notable for martial artists. As an adult he has competed at one European championship and two world championships, but he didn't even win a single match at any of them. Papaursa (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 00:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naang Naang[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, although this is hampered by the relative inaccessibility of Burmese sources. Still, we have virtually nothing to go on here: the one secondary source cited is a blog of dubious reliability and further refers to Naang Naang not as a women but as a female-fronted shan rock group. signed, Rosguill talk 16:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drafty for now – While she may be notable, there is a lack of sources due to being a Shan language singer. The time of her popularity predates the media era, making information only available in printed newspapers. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any online sources in very few Shan language media, a situation comparable to the lack of media in the Tibet region. Despite this, I have alerted this AfD to editors in the Shan Wikipedia. Therefore, I opt to vote for the draft rather than deletion.1.47.14.130 (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft- As the author of this article I support this move, the Shan resources are hard to track down and getting would from Shan Wiki would be much helpful. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 17:44, 4 February 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 23:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nighat Abbass[edit]

Nighat Abbass (edit | talk | history | 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 politician, fails WP:NPOL. Routine coverage of plea by the subject on the Uniform Civil Code in India and other slams to other notable subject like Kangana Ranaut, see [5] and Arvind Kejriwal, see [6] -- QuadriSyedSahab(T · C 15:07, 31 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brands Hatch race winners[edit]

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

Do we need another list of winners when many of these articles about races taking place there have their own list or is part of it, thus making this completely unnecessary. Many others are not necessary to the most ardent fans such as feeder series. Unnecessary WP:FANCRUFT list that is only good for the most obsessive motorsport fans, also WP:LC and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Also, not notable enough to pass WP:LISTN. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge and redirect to Crawley Town F.C. as the most sensible option from the replies. The history is preserved so relevant content can be copied over.‎. David Gerard (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WAGMI United[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Single event news. scope_creepTalk 14:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Unsure, I was looking for a redirect, is WAGMI United the company setup just for Crawley Town? Then I would simply just redirect to there. Because all indication from the primary source, [7] It's just appears to be the company name setup to manage the club. That's why I suggest a redirect. Govvy (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not even sure what this is. May become more notable in time but not the case now. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Crawley Town F.C. This company is just the ownership consortium of Crawley that also sells NFTs that grant the right to weigh in on team management (what could [has] gone wrong?); it's not independently notable as a company. Based on the sources cited here, a new section can be written in the Crawley article about its new ownership and how terrible it is. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:31, 3 February 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. Per WP:V, "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations." In application of this core policy, this AfD must be closed as "delete" irrespective of any local consensus to the contrary. As has been pointed out, this unsourced content has been challenged by being tagged as needing sources since 2010. 14 years is far more than enough time to sources. Because this has not been done, not even during this AfD, the content must now be deleted. This does not prevent a sourced recreation of the article. Sandstein 16:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Location-based authentication[edit]

Location-based authentication (edit | talk | history | 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 establish that this meets WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, and unreferenced for longer, so hopefully we can get this resolved. Boleyn (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment It gets lots of Gbook hits but the article is so bad that it could just as well be TNTed. Mangoe (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Owen× ☎ 14:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is a bizarre word salad. Llajwa (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag for issues if needed. It's a valid concept in the context of multi-factor authentication, and there is plenty written about it, but the article in its state is in pretty bad shape, and I wouldn't object to a redirect back to Multi-factor authentication#Location without any restrictions against recreating it at a future point. I'm not sure how much of the current article can be salvaged. But really, the whole point of a wiki is so someone that comes along in the future could take a look at something like this and say, "I could do better than that" and make those changes themselves. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - per RecycledPixels, this is a valid concept in MFA. Not opposed to a redirect as well. Sohom (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Consensus lean towards keep. SIGCOV is met. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Blake-Beard[edit]

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

Successful but I wasn't sure it was enough to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 13:21, 31 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 14:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Svatantra Microfin[edit]

Svatantra Microfin (edit | talk | history | 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, promotional, running mentions only User4edits (talk) 13:06, 31 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. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koriki Choshu[edit]

Koriki Choshu (edit | talk | history | 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's borderline, but I couldn't find sources to be sure it meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 13:05, 31 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 14:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BHG Financial[edit]

BHG Financial (edit | talk | history | 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 business. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Nothing clearing WP:CORPDEPTH. Massively bombarded with routine announcements, regurgitated PR, listings and trivial "best" type pieces. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per reasons provided by nom Llajwa (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 31 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 11:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad Mathieu[edit]

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

Potentially fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. References are atrocious. Been on WP since 2011 and never been effectively references. Currently satisfies WP:V. scope_creepTalk 11:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revised and hopefully improved article, re-checked facts and existence of all publications. Kombi3 (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the additional sources added to the article do not make a case for WP:GNG, and one of them appears to be a total red herring that doesn't mention Mathieu or his bands ([8]). signed, Rosguill talk 20:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Releasing some 30 albums over four decades does seem like a noteworthy accomplishment for a recording artist like Mathieu, at least among musicians. How does one - reference-wise - properly make a case for that? (don't bite a baby;) Kombi3 (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - may one, before perspicacious judgment is performed, at least ask for some more time for research. There should definitely be more printed sources out there that - partly being from the pre-internet era - are a harder to retrieve 213.160.14.18 (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I was unable to find any significant coverage in WP:LIBRARY, Google Books, archive.org, or newspapers.com. Jfire (talk) 05:50, 1 February 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. ✗plicit 14:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Kingsmill (actor)[edit]

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

Successful career, but I couldn't establish he meets notability as an author or an actor. Boleyn (talk) 12:40, 31 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 Emma Bonino. Editors interested in merging sourced material from this page's edit history to Emma Bonino are encouraged to do so. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Peace Without Justice[edit]

AfDs for this article:
No Peace Without Justice (edit | talk | history | 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 and there are some sources, but not the level of independent, reliable sources to show it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years.

1st AfD closed as no consensus due to low participation. Given how long this has been in CAT:NN I think we really need to decide what the consensus is here. Boleyn (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be the inclusionist in me talking, but I think the nomination mischaracterises the available coverage: there are many reliable, independent sources that more-than-mention the organisation. Here are some of the sources that came up from a quick search, a few in well-established Italian newspapers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
Despite this coverage, my quick searches lead me to believe that the organisation is mostly discussed in the context either of Qatargate (search results) or its founder, Emma Bonino. Nonetheless, searching around the NGO's areas of activity (e.g., FGM) does return some results. So, while I think there is probably just about enough in the sources to meet WP:GNG and justify a standalone article on the NGO, sadly, I suspect no editor will be interested in rewriting this article: Qatargate has an outdated tag, Emma Bonino didn't link to the organisation until a few seconds ago (and that article says nothing about Qatargate), and the organisation's website seems to be down, which makes me wonder if things were wrapped up after Qatargate. The present article is uncited and likely WP:OR, with a previous editor declaring a WP:COI on the talk page. So a redirect to Qatargate or Emma Bonino, without prejudice to the page's recreation as a standalone article should an interested editor take part, strikes me as most appropriate. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the thought of IgnatiusofLondon above, but I do not think a redirect is justified in this case. I would suggest a Merge with Emma Bonino, adding a small paragraph describing her connections with the association and a couple senteces on what the association does. Most of the current page content does not need to be kept, as it looks mostly promotional and unsourced. --Broc (talk) 13:08, 5 February 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 14:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of retired numbers[edit]

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

Previously a contested PROD; this list is an bloated WP:EXAMPLEFARM full of unsourced examples that have been left unaddressed since 2017.

Legendary sportspeople will somehow retire and their numbers will be retired, inevitably. So are going to be surprised at all by their inclusion on this list?

WP:LC, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTN also applies.

We got list of their inclusion to their halls of fame for their favourite sportspeople, most of those listed, so why should we need a WP:FANCRUFT list of examples for the most diehard fans? SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:28, 31 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 11:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tremendum Pictures[edit]

Tremendum Pictures (edit | talk | history | 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 Hollywood Reporter article used as a ref doesn't seem to mention Tremendum. I can't find enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NCORP. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I don't see much coverage of the company itself to meet WP:NCORP, which can be tough to meet. Everything I see is mostly a mention that one of their projects is linked to them, nothing about the company. -2pou (talk) 21:24, 1 February 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. No clear consensus after 3 weeks of discussions and relistings. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd Hirschbichler[edit]

Bernd Hirschbichler (edit | talk | history | 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 Austrian football referee, unimproved since tagging for notability three months ago. Between the unsourced sections there is a lot of routine coverage in match reports and primary sources with nothing to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific assessment of the available sources would probably be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the de.wiki article isn’t well-founded at all. It has essentially the same refs as the en.wiki article - dead links to various things that don’t look like RIS, online databases of match reports that just list players and results with a name check for the referee. The only two reasonably substantive sources on de.wiki are (a) the same as source 12 on en.wiki (a short paragraph citing him) and (b) de.wiki source 3 which is a profile of him which is a blog post from the head ref welcoming him and thanking him. That is definitely not enough to build a biography article on. There is a complete lack of in-depth coverage in independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 13:55, 31 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 11:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banjax[edit]

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

They don't appear to meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. There is some coverage, but I am not sure it is significant enough. It was found non-notable and deleted at AfD in 2006, when our standards for inclusion were considerably lower. Boleyn (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Seems to have WP:THREE even though they are not Internet accessible. An interesting group, and the information may not be accessible elsewhere. Llajwa (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:07, 31 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. ✗plicit 11:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fergus James[edit]

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

Notability not shown, indicated, no reliable sources. Speedy delete? BoraVoro (talk) 10:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added sources and references i think he is definitely notable enough having 5 songs with 1,000,000+ streams on Spotify and 2 with 5,000,000+. FFelxii (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain to me which part of WP:RSPYT you don't understand? TarnishedPathtalk 13:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen many other articles do similar things where they link the YouTube page for the song on artists so I thought i was allowed. For example the Andy Bull page uses YouTube videos as references in the same way sorry for any misunderstanding. FFelxii (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have a read of the link. YouTube sources can be used, but not in the way you did. If Fergus's notability is going to be established then it needs to be done with secondary sources. TarnishedPathtalk 13:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube sources can be used. They can even be used like that, because those links WP:Verify that he really did sing a song of that name, etc. But a link to a webpage (YouTube or otherwise) that was posted by a person/band/business can never demonstrate Wikipedia:Notability of that same person/band/business. So while those links were okay, they were not pointful for the purpose of determining whether to keep the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing, thank you for the correction. TarnishedPathtalk 09:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (weak). The external links added to the article are all a bit problematic in one way or another. Some are lacking in depth, some are interviews (not ideal as a source), some are not quite independent of the subject and the one I'd bet on [9] is unfortunately paywalled. However, we do have the title "Armidale boy Fergus James to support Ed Sheeran on Australian tour " and the date (2018) which show that James has been on the radar for quite some time. (Also, opening for Ed Sheeran is a big deal). I also found this which provides somewhat significant coverage. This and this lack depth but it's still coverage. This is a more recent interview. All in all, I think we have (though barely) enough to pass WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Thank you for providing some sources that can help keep the page. FFelxii (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in view of the sources identified above by Pichpich. I haven't done a full search yet but I did find a bio at AllMusic here which states that his first hit single charted which i'll look into, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've just added a bunch of references. Not all have in-depth coverage, but some do. One in particular is a live review of one of his performances in Melbourne at The Workers Club. I'd say that there is enough to pass WP:GNG. TarnishedPathtalk 10:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on sources added.
    BoraVoro, did anyone ever tell you about WP:NEXIST? This is probably not obvious – the telephone game by which we oversimplify and overstate the rules to make newbies do what we want with as little effort as possible on our part causes real problems over time – but we don't actually have any guideline or policy that endorses "Notability not shown" as a valid reason for deletion; instead, we have a rule that says that what matters is whether reliable sources are in the real world (libraries, bookstores, the internet) and explicitly not whether those sources are already WP:Glossary#cited in the article. If a WP:BEFORE search (which you didn't mention doing, but I hope you did) is not very helpful, then please consider a {{notability}} tag or WP:BLPPROD instead of an AFD. (I'd have chosen BLPPROD myself.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    very good point, thank you! BoraVoro (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found a charting ref for a single. I don't know if this is what the AllMusic bio's writer referred to.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please don't bomb the article with a dozen Youtube links again. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Geschichte (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:GNG. LKBT (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment More information under his full name/alternative name.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:01, 6 February 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. ✗plicit 11:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vixen (RV)[edit]

Vixen (RV) (edit | talk | history | 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 establish that this meets WP:N, or a good WP:ATD. The manufacturer is also non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There would seem to be little WP policy here. In theory all articles need to meet WP:GNG, which of course this doesn't because there are no secondary sources available. But there are alot of similar articles that don't have secondary sources either. There is a real need for Wikipedia define notability better.James.folsom (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I searched on models, rather thav Vixen RV, more sources turn up. Popular Sciene, CarScoops, AutoEvolution, and others. I think that there is enough interest out there to support notability. - Bilby (talk) 10:09, 6 February 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. Owen× ☎ 00:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xilei Zhao[edit]

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

Assistant prof with some early career awards, don't see how WP:NPROF is met. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think WP:GNG is met either. WP:TOOSOON at best. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the person is notable as she has done major contribution in safety and evacuation field using Machine Learning and GPS. She is one of the most influential woman scientist on this subject. Please do not underestimate this person profile or discriminate it. Safetystuff (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to this new editor. You will have to supply some reliable sources to support your view. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I have added in the original page on the evacuation investigations led by Zhao: Kincade Fire and Marshall Fire. These investigation were funded by NIST and the Natural Hazards Center.
I believe that argument this person is not worthy of Wikipedia because she is early career is form of discrimination (Ageism). I do not know how this form of discrimination aligns with the Wikipedia mission and policies. Safetystuff (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Receiving grant funding for one's work is not in itself considered sufficient for WP:PROF or other measures of notability on Wikipedia. Please read WP:PROF carefully. Qflib (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the interview and media articles with Zhao. She was interviewed lately by Fox news (just to give an example). This should answer on whether she is notable. Safetystuff (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding her dissertation, maybe 'embed' (wrap the text in an anchor tag and give it an href value set to) a URL where it can be read (loaded in-browser), downloaded, etc. e.g: "[10]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324521690_Multi-Scale_Community_Resilience_Modeling_for_Natural_and_Manmade_Hazards" (signing up for a researchgate(DOT)net account is free for anyone looking to read the dissertation of interest along with other literature in which she has been noted amongst the respective set of citations). Research Gate currently attributes 88 pieces of literature (i'm assuming these are all scientific in nature as the constituent articles in the sub-set i've perused prior to writing this have been as such but did not and won't look through all 88) to have been worked on (experimentation-design-process through documentation/write-up) in-part or whole by Xilei Zhao.
I legitimately stumbled upon this article through a rabbit-hole starting with a page about the "Ryanodine receptor", saw it marked for deletion and decided to google the dissertation name listed in said article but not linked. This is to say I don't have any opinion regarding instantiating its persistence or otherwise but I think it is surely possible to, utilizing the aforementioned 88 indexed articles (there might be more; not within the scope of my cursory look into this), create a more evidentiary based (set of) 'argument(s)' (crafted into the article's content) that might better substantiate 'notability' criteria. Anxiolydiot (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to 1 edit editor. Do you have any connection with the subject that you should declare? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:52, 5 February 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 11:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Ladd[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability under WP:GNG. Even ignoring his recent work (a channel with 4.5m subscribers failing to get 100k views per video, and his last upload was 5 months ago), the article made it clear for almost 2 years that there's a lack of secondary sources in the article, and the lack of a biography, personal life, or even the bare minimum acknowledgement of his pedophilia scandal indicates that there's very few reputable secondary sources covering him, thus failing the notability guideline. Redolta📱 Contribs 09:00, 31 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 Antauro Humala. Consensus for redirect, as GNG and SIGCOV not met and a need of stand alone article is not justified. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANTAURO[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. Coverage for this nascent political party seems to be all about Antauro Humala and not about the political party itself. scope_creepTalk 16:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Antauro Humala due to lack of significant coverage of the party itself. signed, Rosguill talk 16:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Peru. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I concur with the nom - there's not enough coverage of the party to warrant an article. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The party is relevant, polling at a significant amount, and will only get more coverage as the election approaches. Zellfire999 (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are not valid reasons to keep an article. Either the subject passes our notability policies, or they don't. This subject, at this time, does not. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:32, 18 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) 02:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't provide a valid reason either why it should be kept. scope_creepTalk 15:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A notable political force in the region. --Loewstisch (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Loewstisch: Have you references to prove it. I would sincerely like to know for sure, because at the moment I don't. To me it looks like a fringe party that has never held power and that make them non-notable, i.e. they are just another organisation. I would like to be sure, because if it results in a no-consensus !vote, I'll likely send it back to Afd in a couple of weeks. scope_creepTalk 14:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The keep !votes in this discussion really haven't provided any compelling reason for this to be a separate article. I checked Google News again this morning, and while there were a fair number of articles specifically about Antauro Humala, including one since the opening of this AfD ([11]), none of them devote significant coverage to the party ANTAURO as a distinct entity from Humala's political career. signed, Rosguill talk 14:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Rosguill: That makes it bit clearer. I think now I would need to see definitive proof per WP:THREE that its absolutely notable. Currently it seems to be almost nothing there, nothing. scope_creepTalk 14:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The result seems to be a valid redirect by the look of it. No compelling evidence of notablity has been offered in the almost four weeks has passed. scope_creepTalk 14:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paulina Constancia[edit]

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

Delete This page has been flagged for notability for a decade, and I still don't believe that it has been established. I would like to see this page improved and am going to try to make some edits myself, but it has too many deep issues at the moment. PickleG13 (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 05:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This is about all I find [12], not enough for a !keep. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's other coverage, such as this from 1997. That Phuket one looks good to me as well. Nfitz (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets WP:BIO with sources presented above. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per new additions, seems proven to be a notable topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:16, 6 February 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bronisław Gostomski[edit]

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

No evidence of this meeting WP:NBIO. A priest who died in a high-profile crash. Pl Wikipedia article is a bit longer but also has nothing suggesting notability (just an obituary). A posthumous award of Order of Polonia Restituta, likely mass-awarded to everyone who died in said tragic event (~90 people) is not enough. WP:ATD-R would be to redirect this to List of casualties of the Smolensk air disaster. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: based on the explanations above and the "award" given to him (I'm not sure that's the correct term). We have enough for a brief article Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, due to being awarded posthumously with Polonia Restituta and the title of Chaplain of His Holiness before death.Marcelus (talk) 13:18, 6 February 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. Qualifies ANYBIO amd BASIC. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mariusz Handzlik[edit]

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

No evidence of this meeting WP:NBIO. Non-notable minor bureaucrat/politician (Undersecretary of State in the Office of the President of the Republic of Poland) who died in a high-profile crash. Pl Wikipedia article is a bit longer but also has nothing suggesting notability (obits, plus minor coverage related to a minor scandal he was involved in shortly before his death). A posthumous award of Order of Polonia Restituta, likely mass-awarded to everyone who died in said tragic event (~90 people) is not enough. WP:ATD-R would be to redirect this to List of casualties of the Smolensk air disaster. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Poland. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is true that all those killed in the crash were given the order. However, he was appointed Commander of the Order of Polonia Restituta rather than one of the lower grades, which probably qualifies for WP:ANYBIO #1, although the lower grades probably don't. We would certainly consider the equivalent grades in the British honours system to meet ANYBIO (and have done so many times). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But context is relevant: getting an award for being in the wrong place/time (dying int he aforementioned incident) is just a nice tweak to WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you considered that maybe these people would have been up for the honour in life anyway, but died before they could receive it? For the lower levels I would agree with you, just "recognition" for dying in a notable incident (a bit weird, in my opinion, but often done in some countries; France tends to hand out the Légion d'honneur for things like this, for instance), but not the higher levels. There's a reason these people were not made a knight or officer, but received a higher honour. And it's not just seniority, as some senior people did receive one of the lower grades. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If they are notable for other reasons, we need other sources to say so. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. If I'm reading the source on the PlWiki article correctly, this individual also seems to have been awarded the Portuguese Order of Merit in 2009 (before his death), and there's also some coverage of him in 2009 in Wiadomosci regarding alleged collaboration with the Communist regime. On the scholarly/diplomatic side, he appears to be mentioned by name on multiple occasions in a speech by the President of Estonia, he led a Delegation between Poland and Turkey, met with Syrian officials on behalf of the Poles, and performed other diplomatic functions. There some coverage of his analysis on the Partnership for Peace that I can find, and he appears to have been awarded the Freedom House's Palmer Prize (see list). Aside from all that, there's a fairly in-depth article from 1996 in The Jewish Voice about his work regarding Polish-Jewish reconciliation (as well as a few JTA pieces that also refer to this). And of course there's also the flurry of coverage around the time of his death; many of these sources are in the PlWiki article already, and WP:SIGCOV is easily met. What this all makes clear is that we have a case here where it's clearly not WP:1E, and where we have significant coverage by multiple independent RS.
    WP:NOTMEMORIAL states 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. But this person easily meets WP:ANYBIO#1 for the Polish and Portuguese state honors, and also meets WP:NBASIC, so NOTMEMORIAL is not violated. On top of that, I think there's substantial enough coverage that an article can be written about him in a standalone fashion, so I see no need to redirect or merge. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify‎. Moved to draft per consensus. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pyreneism[edit]

Pyreneism (edit | talk | history | 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 a thing, just [Alpinism] by a different name. Article is also mostly composed of random quotes - not really encyclopedic. Article even states "The specialists may talk of pyreneism, himalaism, andenism, it refers to the same action of climbing mountains by their faces, by their ridges or by combining both." LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify - This article seems to be google-translated from the Spanish or Catalan original. The syntax is garbled and almost incomprehensible. But it does seem to be an article about the term and concept "Pyreneism" as used in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, rather than about mountaineering the Pyrenees generally - i.e. it's about the self-conscious culture and literary tradition around the practice rather than the practice generally. The sources seem good if slightly tending to WP:OR. BUT we can't have an article that is completely incoherent to read. The prose and syntax are a disaster. This really needs to be rewritten sentence by sentence in draft space before returning to the main space. Llajwa (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also support this. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the above Draftify Its not ready for main space, AfC can judge the other issues once the article is actually ready for publishing.  // Timothy :: talk  18:16, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draft: as suggested seems fine. Seems to be a claim to notability, based on the 100 yr history of the thing described here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 31 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. While this isn't a G5, there is no one arguing in favor of its retention. Star Mississippi 14:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary Consulate of Romania in Žilina[edit]

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

Honorary consulates typically aren’t notable, and this one seems to be no exception. It’s brand-new, and the coverage is either official or from Servare et Manere, the outfit of the consul himself, Marek Sobola. (Incidentally, both of those articles deserve scrutiny for rampant self-promotion.) Biruitorul Talk 07:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although honorary consulates are honorary diplomatic missions, in many countries they fully replace regular and official diplomatic missions of sending states.
If it bothers you to mention the person of the honorary consul in the body of the article, feel free to delete this information if you consider it unnecessary or even self-promo (this is certainly not the intention of this article!). However, the article itself about the honorary consulate, as about the diplomatic mission, is completely fine in my opinion. Similar to other articles on wikipedia dedicated to the honorary consulate of any of the UN countries.
Romania has no consulates in Slovakia (except for this one in Žilina), and there are also none in the neighboring Czech Republic. Therefore, in my opinion, the meaning of the consulate for the wiki article is fine. But yes, it may not match your opinion. That's okay too... HeritageOcean (talk) 08:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to be clear, “other articles on wikipedia dedicated to the honorary consulate of any of the UN countries” aren’t really a thing. Yes, all of two articles about individual honorary consulates exist — but given that Germany alone has 35 honorary consulates in the United States alone, it’s clear that the practice is not to have articles on them, and that exceptions should be based on satisfying WP:GNG. — Biruitorul Talk 12:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But the United States is not comparable to Europe. On the one hand, because of their size, and on the other hand, almost all countries have proper diplomatic representation (embassies or high commissions) in Washington DC, or in the New York Mission at the UN. Maybe even general consulates, as is typical for e.g. for Chicago or San Francisco. It is not possible for countries to have an embassy in every state. These tasks are often undertaken by honorary consulates. They also have an important position in Europe. But if you think it's not, that's of course a fully respected opinion. I don't want to diminish it in any way. But I also have good arguments for an article to be written for the honorary consulate of Romania in Žilina. It's a point of view. And of course, it can be different... HeritageOcean (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romania has nine honorary consulates in Spain, eight in Britain, five in Italy and three in Sweden. It’s a pretty routine thing. It’s not going to have many in Czechia or Slovakia because there isn’t a large diaspora there. Notability is demonstrated via multiple independent sources, which has yet to happen. — Biruitorul Talk 18:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider it necessary to delete this article, do so. You have higher competence than me and I can't influence it in any way. I wish you all the best. HeritageOcean (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.
Logs: 2024-01 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Anica. I don't see any coherent, P&G-based objection to the proposed merger. Owen× ☎ 00:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ance (given name)[edit]

Ance (given name) (edit | talk | history | 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. This name fails WP:NNAME and WP:GNG. Hardly any information or reliable sources found online. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Useful and referenced with several bearers of the name who could potentially be the subject of future articles. Expandvand improve articles; do not delete them. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Two of the redlinks were recently created and were immediately draftified for lack of sources demonstrating notability. Even so, it can always be recreated if articles about people with the name come along in the future. And what if an article can't be expanded? Like I said, I can hardly find reliable sources online. Being referenced doesn't mean much if the sources don't demonstrate notability. "Useful" is quite an arbitrary description. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There really is no good reason to delete instead of improving it or deleting it so someone else will have to come along and recreate it. The point of an encyclopedia is to expand knowledge, not to remove it from view. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Yes, to expand knowledge on encyclopedic subjects. I will try to convince you once again to read WP:NOTEVERYTHING, especially WP:NOTDICT. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This, as far as I can tell, is encyclopedic and has the potential to be improved. If it is not inherently wrong or unreferenced, an article should not be deleted. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply What's inherently wrong is that it's not notable. I can't find any reliable sources that contain information not already in the article. If you think it can be improved, why don't you do it? Your beliefs essentially go against the essence of Wikipedia, and all of your arguments have been ignoring rules. If you don't like the rules, you can try to change them elsewhere; they are valid as they stand. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I did elsewhere, I'll call attention to WP:IAR, a policy which also exists, and associated policies. I'd say that some of the policies mentioned here are getting in the way of maintaining a quality encyclopedia and are increasing the bureaucracy and probably having the effect of discouraging editing on what is supposed to be a free encyclopedia created by collaborative volunteers. There are likely ways to improve this article without deleting it altogether. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Notability is bureaucratic? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is pretty arbitrary as is, admittedly, my perception that it is notable and useful. If it’s factually wrong, of course it should be corrected or improved, amended, etc. . If someone just doesn’t think it fits the guidelines (which have never been set in stone), maybe someone should take a closer look at whether that guideline is actually useful. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply There may be some room for arbitrary-ness, yes, but I think these articles pretty blatantly fail the guidelines. I guess you're right that they've never been set in stone, but these ones have been used and widely accepted for some years now. AfDs aren't a roundabout way to challenged guidelines/policies either. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:IAR and its related policies are also policies like the ones you’re quoting here and they are intended to keep legalism from getting in the way of creating or maintaining an encyclopedia. I assume we agree that articles that are unreferenced or are factually incorrect should be deleted if the information can’t be corrected and linked to reliable sources. We might disagree over what constitutes a reliable source as we do on notability, but that’s the standard I would say is set in stone. The information must be accurate. As far as I can discern, this article and the others you want to delete are indeed accurate and can probably be improved upon, which makes deleting them inappropriate under a reasonable standard. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Yes, we agree on the second part. Accuracy is set in stone, yes, but as is notability. Notability may be a bit more subjective and flexible, but it is a cornerstone of Wikipedia and current guidelines are generally community consensus. They could change in the future but that possibility doesn't make it appropriate to keep them now. On a side note, I feel like this page is getting butchered by the length of this debate. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Wilson. "At a glance". Yes, but commonness doesn't necessarily demonstrate notability. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IAR is also one of the foundational rules here and I would say deleting an article that could potentially be improved will get in the way of maintaining a quality encyclopedia. This is important enough to get right, regardless of the length of the debate. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Yes, I agree that IAR is an important rule, but I don't find it any less arbitrary than notability; in fact, it is probably more so. As I've said before, improving an article is only an option if the subject is notable, which these subjects, when comparing them to criteria laid out by the project and approved by the community, I do not believe meet those guidelines. I am not a deletionist nor an inclusionist; I simply look at the rules and attempt to get people to enforce them, I do not discriminate against users, and I know hardliners who would have wanted many more of your articles deleted, but I do not. Wikipedia just isn't a collection of indiscriminate information, trivia or definitions. As I see it, we're at a deadlock. You wouldn't want an article made on every name in existence, would you? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I believe it would be a wonderful idea if the linked entries on the page will established individually as articles on En wiki.Alayyop (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would, but this is not the case. Geschichte (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, um, can someone maybe strike this down as a vote from a sockpuppet? User:Liz, maybe? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting whoever is reviewing this know that this vote should be discounted as it is from a now-blocked sockpuppet. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Anica, of which this is a regional variation (see Stuart Wilson (2015). Simply the Best Baby Name Book. p. 55. ISBN 1447265971.). There are a wide variety of names derived from diminutives of the classic Greek name Anna, including this one as well as Ancia, Anka, Anika, and Anicka. Information about these names can be presented in a single place, and, importantly, does not require the presence of a notable person with the name for the name itself to be notable. BD2412 T 03:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @WilsonP NYC and Geschichte: Would the proposed merge satisfy your concerns? BD2412 T 03:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you proposing that all related names be merged? That would be a hard pass from me, as it would be more messy and verge on failing WP:SYNTH - just look at Anika which jumbles together names of different origin. Geschichte (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am proposing that these two articles, for which a source identifies a common name origin, be merged. This is rather the opposite of the situation with "Anika". BD2412 T 14:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you proposing something like what happened with Antė? My only concern is that it would be strange to just list this one variant without any notable people under the name, and there is not much information to merge here. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC) AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think much more information is needed. It is obviously a name in use, with a sourceable etymology connecting it to another name sharing that etymology. If not merged, I would opt to keep rather than delete altogether. The presence of notable people sharing an attested name should be of no more significance than the presence or absence of notable people living in an attested town. BD2412 T 03:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't necessarily agree with that last sentence but I don't feel like getting into all that right now so I could endorse a merge if we listed relevant cognates and variants, such as those aforementioned. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                • @BD2412. You were the one who brought up Anika. And are you sure that "Simply the Best Baby Name Book" is an ideal source? The name sounds somewhat frivolous. Geschichte (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @Geschichte: I thought that as well, but in the introduction to the book, the author describes a meticulous and scientific process of examining names, and cites the work of other experts, so I am satisfied that despite the marketing-ready title, the work is sound. BD2412 T 19:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn’t be opposed to this, though I kind of agree with Geschichte, but I’m not sure that Anika is the best analogy. Anything is better than it being kept at this point, as it seems like this AfD may go towards no consensus. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it would be kind of awkward to just have Ance there unless we added more variants. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Relisting comment: There are a lot of options being put forward here, and I'm not seeing a consensus yet. Also, as a courtesy note, there is no need to bold the word "reply" each time one replies to someone else; the line indentation serves the purpose of indicating which comments were being replied to.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Characters of the Tekken series#Lei Wulong. ✗plicit 11:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lei Wulong[edit]

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

Outside of one good reference, which is used in a quote box no less, the rest of the sources are honestly terrible, and I haven't been able to find anything else for the character. Even checking sources like Scholar just brings up a few small mentions but nothing with meat on them. This fails notability unfortunately. Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:25, 31 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. SIGCOV established. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saemaul Sports Hall[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NGEO, no sources showing this meets WP:N with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from WP:IS WP:RS. BEFORE found listings and name mentions in mill news, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV for the subject.  // Timothy :: talk  06:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Sports, Olympics, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but the article needs to be rescoped. The Eng article fails to mention it, but I think the article title is only the first in a series of changes the building went under. It was sold to KBS, then used as a sports building under various names, remodeled, and has since 2015 gone by the name "KBS Arena Hall" (different from KBS Hall), and is now a concert hall. [13][14][15][16] toobigtokale (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the Korean article has 2 good Korean language sources that explain the renovation/updated use in 2015: [17], [18]. I imagine more may exist in Korean language too. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion on the sources presented in this discussion in light of WP:SIGCOV would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be clear, all of the sources I linked previously are substantial discussions of the subject of the article. toobigtokale (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability is whether there are sources, not about the state of the article - my sense is the sources presented here show notability. SportingFlyer T·C 15:35, 3 February 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. In AfD for three weeks and two relists. No consensus or helpful comments. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Grupo Sexo[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable band that does not meet relevant notability guidelines (WP:BAND). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify - the page was recently created - it has zero RS support for notability, but sources are likely out there for the interested editors to find. Llajwa (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion around the extent that this article's subject is covered by extant sources would be helpful in attaining a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:19, 31 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 Lily (film). Discussion about renaming the target, if needed, can continue on the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 00:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sivam M[edit]

Sivam M (edit | talk | history | 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 yet notable per WP:FILMMAKER. A WP:BEFORE search for his name in English and Telugu only turns up routine coverage of the film, which claims to be the first children's film released nationally in India. Wikishovel (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-->Changing to Delete now that the page about the film exists, and considering the name is not correct (which would have led to double redirect, I think). Simpler solution. When he has other films, Sivam (director) can be created.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 18:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The film is banking on the term pan Indian release for marketing purposes. With one film under his belt, he is not notable as of now. DareshMohan (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the film was/is notable, that could be OK. But you seem to believe it’s not. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to page for the film Lily if someone creates that - but at this stage of his career he does not seem to be notable enough for his own page yet (and the sources here clearly don't support one). Llajwa (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For information. I rebooted the draft today. See draft’s talk page also, with input from DareshMohan.... maybe a merge of both can be okayish..... if someone wants to move it to Main, it’s a click away. And then yes, redirect?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little concerned that Lily will not meet the requirements for notability, given that it seems like it hasn't had much success. Llajwa (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Success, apparently no. But it received coverage for its planned pan Indian release (even if so far, it's not pan at all). Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Llajwa: @Mushy Yank: The Lily (film) film has 2 notable reviews. DareshMohan (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The film article presently exists at Lily (film); more discussion around whether or not the proposed redirect is reasonable would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting might be a problem as the current name of the page is wrong. See above. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:55, 31 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. Discussion about a possible merger can continue on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 00:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

French ship Bordelais[edit]

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

Include the two ships to Bordelais. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As a set index page. WP:SHIPMOS: If there has been more than one ship with the same name, create a ship index page for the generic ship name. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A merge with Bordelais doesn't hurt. In fact, for readers who search for Bordelais, it would save them a click. Geschichte (talk) 09:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion on policies and guidelines as they pertain to keeping this an independent SIA or merging it to a broader page would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:17, 31 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. Sandstein 19:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Constitutional Commission[edit]

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

Article has no references, with few non-primary sources when googling this topic (one of which being this article), therefore does not meet WP:NOTABILITY with the article providing little value even ignoring this. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When searching, keep in mind that a lot of the results are for a completely different Scottish Constitutional Constitution set up by the Scottish Parliament, which is far more notable than this one. This potential confusion is another reason why this article should be deleted. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Afd is not cleanup and the fact it has no reference is not a reason to sent it to Afd. It is established structural legal body in Scotland and is completely notable. scope_creepTalk 15:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article does not refer to the legal body, just a non-notable think tank! SoThisIsPeter (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Think-tanks tend to be notable and Afd is not cleanup. scope_creepTalk 16:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this one isn't notable? The problem with the lack of any references here is that there are no reliable, independent sources to be found to demonstrate notability, and the content is not otherwise useful. It is not an article that can be cleaned up without using primary sources. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right-oh. I will take a look and see if ferret out WP:THREE references for it. So far its been assumptions and actual fact-facting has been missing. It could be dross. It is on my watchlist now. scope_creepTalk 17:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion on the extent of coverage by extant sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the generic name does make searching difficult, but I was unable to find any independent in-depth coverage in Scottish or UK sources. A couple of passing mentions, but nothing more. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:28, 7 February 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. Unopposed after 3 weeks. Sandstein 19:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Handball at the 2015 African Games – Men's tournament squads[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Handball at the 2015 African Games – Men's tournament squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last AfD over a year ago was no consensus. Relisting to gain some sort of consensus. Fails WP:NLIST. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN, lacks secondary sourcing. Let'srun (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:38, 31 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 14:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Joshua Ngene (PhD)[edit]

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

Article reads like an advertisement. There are many parts of it that are uncited as well. Also, article is an orphan, and nothing links to Dominic Joshua Ngene as well, which is what the article should be titled anyway. ‍ Relativity 02:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ‍ Relativity 02:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: From Google, his name pops up here [22], which doesn't fill me with hope. He does not appear to be notable, and the flowery language doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PhD with zero hits in Gscholar, appears to be marketing/promo article. I was expecting something based on the level of "success" the article portrays. Oaktree b (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not delve into that to avoid sounding like one promoting or advertising him for any reason, however, it might interest you to note that he got an honorary doctoral degree from The university of Ecotes University, Benin. His focus may not be 100% on scholarly inputs, but majorly for his contribution to life in the field of philanthropy or just other contribution to his society. Brandheadway (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont agree with you to the extent that, He obviously wanted to make a difference, but his experience was not deep enough to handle the kind of business he ventured into, a lot of even older and very experienced investment Bankers run into problems, a quick search on google will show you the long list of business decisions that went bunkers. they thought they were doing the right thing, but they were SINCERELY WRONG! The culture of total knock down of mistakes in the quest to create business success is not good. I think while it is expedient to bring to book any behavoiur that is against set business standards, we should also try to strike a balance between encouraging the youths to venture into the risky world of entrepreneurship/business. Brandheadway (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it wasn't nominated for AfD, I likely would've tagged it for WP:G11. When the sections of the article include "Innovative Fintech Entrepreneurship", "Thought Leadership and Mentorship", and "Work-Life Balance and Values", and when the sources read like a press release, I'm inclined to believe that the subject lacks any real notability. It's also worth noting upon a quick Google search, the only coverage (minimal) that comes up revolve around the subject of the article allegedly committing fraud & the aforementioned press releases. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 03:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be in order you kindly read the article again. its been reviewed and you may not find it advertorial in any way. most comments there are sourced, and you can peruse the link. thanks. Brandheadway (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: G11 should work Justiyaya 03:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found this story, is this the same fellow? Liz Read! Talk! 06:46, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's him since various sources mentioned he was just 21 years. Otuọcha (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nominator. Obvious advertising. Otuọcha (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The content may have been misconstrued as a promotional piece, however, you may go through it again, i believe its been addressed to suit the original purpose of educating and informing the younger generation to see that success in entrepreneurship is still possible if you are focussed enough, yes you might encounter challenges, but with right mindset and societal encouragement, you can succeed as a young business individual, no matter what challenges you may face. your age and background should not be a deterrence. failure is a good opportunity to start all over again. dont give up. thats the intention, thats the motivation behind this piece of article Brandheadway (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    so it is PROMO, thank you for clearing that up. Oaktree b (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is blatantly promotional (with lines including Dr. Joshua’s entrepreneurial spirit ignited during his early career, where he gained invaluable experience within established financial institutions and With a storied career that has reshaped the investment landscape and enriched the lives of many, Dr. Joshua continues to chart new territories in fintech innovation and philanthropy) for every single section, and should have been tagged for G11. So I would vote Speedy Delete (it can still be tagged as G11, though I won't do it here since not all opinions in this AfD are for speedy deletion). VickKiang (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its been reviewed to address the misinterpretation of the purpose of the content. kindly read again. Brandheadway (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nominator. Blatant advertising and non-neutral use of language. The first two sentences (minus the "opening paragraph") alone show this blatantly. Sadustu Tau (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The username of the person who created the article (Brandheadway) is also the name of a Nigerian marketing agency, which leads me to believe the user was created solely to advertise and promote certain people. Possibly even a conflict of interest. Sadustu Tau (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your insinuation is very very discouraging, it is misleading. You are wrong.
    If i understand correctly, the primary motive behind wikipedia concept, The idea behind Wikipedia is to create a freely accessible, collaboratively edited encyclopedia that contains information on a wide range of topics. Wikipedia aims to be a comprehensive and neutral source of information that is freely available to anyone with an internet connection.
    It does not BAR certain professionals from editing or creating contents, the content created should be viewed for what it stands for, every content created should be weighed on the scale of the information loaded and the sources of such info, lets not discourage editirs and prospective editors with our negative , discouraging insinuations.
    Lets not discourage certain professionals from enjoying what gives them fulfilment in life, by way of value and motivation to the youths.
    when you insinuate that a particular professional is assumed to be PROMOTING some certain individuals, you already shut down the motivation to write articles or add to what wikipedia represents. you may please go back and read the article again, its been reviewed.
    wikipedia is not gender bias, neither is it profession bias, please let's not discourage people from contributing. contents should be appraised on the source. I WILL NOT COLLECT A DIME TO PROMOTE ANYONE ON WIKIPEDIA. Thank you. Brandheadway (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be promotional without exchange of financial instruments or anything of value. Building a brand or even using this to game the SEO results is considered promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: and the photo's been tagged as a likely copyvio, copied from Instagram. Another red flag. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, kindly re-read the article again, thank you. Brandheadway (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content may have been misconstrued as a promotional piece, however, you may go through it again, i believe its been addressed to suit the original purpose of educating and informing the younger generation to see that success in entrepreneurship is still possible if you are focussed enough, yes you might encounter challenges, but with right mindset and societal encouragement, you can succeed as a young business individual, no matter what challenges you may face. your age and background should not be a deterrence. failure is a good opportunity to start all over again. dont give up. thats the intention, thats the motivation behind this piece of article. Brandheadway (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not advertorial or promotional in anyway. kindly go through the article again, a major part of it has been reviewed to remove that misdirection. Again, I think a part of us should encourage youths who see the likes of Elon musk, Mark Zuckerberg etc and want to be like them, Yes, they may go about the dream a wrong way, but if they are remorseful and willing to be corrected, they should be encouraged. NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT IS EXPECTED OR GIVEN FOR THIS ARTICLE. Brandheadway (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content may have been misconstrued as a promotional piece, however, you may go through it again, i believe its been addressed to suit the original purpose of educating and informing the younger generation to see that success in entrepreneurship is still possible if you are focussed enough, yes you might encounter challenges, but with right mindset and societal encouragement, you can succeed as a young business individual, no matter what challenges you may face. your age and background should not be a deterrence. failure is a good opportunity to start all over again. dont give up. thats the intention, thats the motivation behind this piece of article Brandheadway (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not helping with the flowery language, the allegations of fake diplomas and not really much of substance. Oaktree b (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The problem here is that this is blatant promo puffery and would need to be G11ed and recreated possibly through AfC, so that our veteran reviewers would give an eye. BEFORE suggests that this passes GNG, but can't be kept in this current state because it is blatant advertorial. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This almost reads as someone who defrauded people and is trying to hide that fact. I have concerns with the "spin" being put on what is otherwise not very flattering coverage of the individual. At the very least, TNT this and send to AfC, if not outright deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 21:43, 5 February 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 consensus, SIGCOV and notability present. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devon Archer[edit]

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

Potentially notable but as a WP:BLP currently fails WP:SIGCOV. The refs in the first two ref blocks are all Hunter Biden. Mostly passing mentions. scope_creepTalk 16:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is WP:PRIMARY. Do you at least WP:THREE secondary sources which show he is notable, per Wikipedia standards, not the Trump news circus. scope_creepTalk 15:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is an NBC News story WP:PRIMARY? Something sourced directly from SCOTUS would be primary. What is this special "Trump news circus" criteria? BLP subject's activities defrauding the Oglala Sioux have nothing to do with Trump. His role on the board of directors of Burisma, longtime business partnership with Hunter Biden, and BHR Partners stake have received substantial significant coverage in American and foreign news media. These are among the more than three secondary sources referenced in the article that establish notability.--FeralOink (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If he's only notable for the connection to BHR Partners, with nothing about him as a person, he should be covered in the BHR article. Oaktree b (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is covered in the BHR article. He is covered in the Biden conspiracy article. He is covered in the Burisma article. He is covered in multiple other articles, all in the context of being a prominent businessman. He was also involved in CEFC China Energy which was China's largest energy company before it went out of business. FeralOink (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If he's already covered in the BHR article here, let's redirect this there and be done with it, was the point I was trying to make. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see the argument for deleting this - the page cites articles about him in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Associated Press etc. How is he not notable? Llajwa (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Problem is they're all articles about a "criminal", describing this person. I don't think he meets CRIME, and we don't have enough otherwise to build an article about a business person. Oaktree b (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We certainly do have enough to merit an article about a prominent business person here. He is one of four of the first Americans to be a partner in China's largest state-sponsored venture capital firm; he is one of the first Americans to have worked for a major money center bank in postwar Vietnam. He is the longtime business partner of the son of the President of the United States. He was on the board of directors of Burisma in the Ukraine. He has been convicted of defrauding a Native American tribe. This is sufficient to build an article about him. All of these statements are properly cited and sourced in the article. FeralOink (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Circular references about this person, using articles about Hunter Biden. Citation 17 is the only article about this person... Anything I find is about a fraud trial, which might be notable, but that's all I find. I don't see enough to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What are "circular references"? I need a definition as I have never seen that term used regarding Wikipedia articles. Subject is notable for multiple state and federal trials and conviction for defrauding a Native American tribe and being required to pay them over $40 million in restitution. He is notable for being a board member of Burisma and the person who recommended Hunter Biden to be appointed to the Burisma board. He is notable due to his recent four hours of testimony to the House Oversight Committee. Multiple WP:NPOV and WP:RS articles are cited in the BLP for which he is the main subject. It is untrue that only Citation 17 is about this person. Do I need to list them here? Also, there are over a dozen Wikipedia articles which link to this person. This article has garnered over 18,000 views in the past month. FeralOink (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    circular references: "Mentioned in articles about other people that talk about him in relation to the other person." Yes, please list the sources that are directly about this individual and not about Hunter. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I would like to see at least three secondary sources that not in the main context of Hunter Biden, that genuinely about this man. scope_creepTalk 15:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I plan to go through the first 2 references and have a look at them in the next couple of days. scope_creepTalk 15:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend perusing references 17 through 27 if you want to see articles specifically about him AND that feature his name in the article title, as Oaktree b had mentioned his concern about that. FeralOink (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will do the whole 27 references. scope_creepTalk 16:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Prominent business person. Multiple top-class references satisfying WP:SIGCOV. --Andreas JN466 01:00, 8 February 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 without prejudice to the creation of a list on this topic with a more consistent inclusion criterion. Owen× ☎ 00:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of bizarre buildings[edit]

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

Essentially a WP:OR collection of " buildings which are likely to be considered odd, strange or weird to the average observer. " Fram (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Lists. Fram (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's a pleasing enough list, but I could compile a completely different one, of equal "validity". Dunmore Pineapple, anyone? The problem is that the Category - Most bizarre buildings - is essentially meaningless. Though I'm sure one could find a volume The World's 100 weirdest buildings, or some such, if one looked. But it still wouldn't have any scholarly basis. KJP1 (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep venerable list article created by the Colonel himself - even a Delete voter concedes it's "pleasing". I'd concede that technically, the article may violate WP:OR, unless someone spends a good deal of time improving it with sources. But I dont think stopping articles like this was why our OR policy was created - on balance, seems better to keep the article due to it's pleasing and interesting nature. In my view, we can trust editorial discretion to judge whether to classify buildings as bizarre - a much easier task than balancing competing POVs from WP:RSs to comply with due weight on a controversial topic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While I agree that this is an interesting list, I'm not sure if the current version meets WP:NLIST. There are sources for a few entries, and there is also some coverage in reliable sources, like Architectural Digest, Country Living, and Architecture and Design. However, for the most part this list seems to have been randomly curated, and the inclusion criteria for "bizarreness" is so vague as to be nearly meaningless. For example, several of Gehry's works are listed as "bizarre" just because his style tends toward curving facades. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a reasonable take. I see the Colonel is currently adding sources to the article. If you were to re-check the article in a few days, you might see suffient sources for WP:NLIST compliance, & possibly Fram's OR concern may be allayed too. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Bizarre, eccentric, funky, odd, strange, quirky, weird or simply unconventional or unusual" is too hazy, fuzzy, indeterminate, ill-defined and subjective a criterion. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CF and others. WP:LISTCRIT says, "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources.". While, yes, you can point to a source and say "omg, this dude called this building weird! it goes on the list!", the very nature of such a tortured, artificial way that this list is trying to maintain inclusion criteria speaks to its fuzzy nature of exactly what should be on it. Most any sort of object is going to have unusual examples. We could just as easily come up with List of unusual cars, or animals, or sports, or just about anything. But none of these would be good lists. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yesterday this was a different list article. It now has very clear definition for inclusion: a reliable source calling it bizarre or a similar word. It now has 28 reliable sources in the article. Reliable sources cover these buildings for being unusual. All but one of the buildings listed have their own Wikipedia article, making it a valid navigational list as well. Dream Focus 16:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some reliable sources with lists of bizarre buildings. Far more things appeared in a simple, quick search, but this is enough to prove it is notable.
    Dream Focus 16:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Listicles......don't......count.
    And in any case, as I said immediately above, the inclusion criteria are not clear. They're fuzzy, tortured, and unnatural. There are no reliable sources for calling something unusual or bizarre. Why are friggin' Business Insider and Country Living reliable sources for determining the bizarreness of buildings? Even the Architectural Digest one is still an iffy listicle. It's just one author's opinion. This isn't a list of bizarre buildings -- it's a list of buildings that have been called bizarre by someone. What kind of list is that? What if another author disagreed? How would we ever know? Who would ever go out of their way to call something not bizarre? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no rule against what you call "listicles", counting towards notability. Reliable sources are covering unusual looking buildings, that's all that matters. And if you search for "list of unusual" you'll find many Wikipedia articles exist for such things. You can find some of them also at Category:Lists of things considered unusual. The article should be renamed List of unusual buildings to match the existing naming convention. Dream Focus 17:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Listicles are low-quality churn meant to drive clicks. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because there are some articles that should also probably be deleted doesn't mean this one shouldn't be deleted. And no, it should be renamed to "List of buildings that have been called unusual, bizaare, odd, strange, ...". Because it's not a list of unusual buildings; it's a list of buildings that have been called unusual. It's an inherently subjective label with no clear definition. I'll re-quote the especially important bit from LISTCRIT, "Selection criteria [...] should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." (emphasis mine). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the list inclusion criteria seem clear and reasonable to me. FWIW, novelty architecture and Storybook architecture are part of the the subset of what you might call "bizarre buildings," which as a classification clearly exhibits overall colorful, asymmetrical, and/or personalized attributes that distinguish them from say neoclassical architecture or brutalist architecture or International Style architecture. I see a lot of Gaudi, Gehry, and "utopian ecovillage" (Matrimandir, Habitat 67) on this list, suggesting that "bizarre" by another name is a form of romantic or otherwise ideological architecture, meaning that it can be clearly defined, if nothing else by what it is not, i.e. hyperrationalized, solely functional design. jengod (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The notion that somehow AD and these other journals are somehow reliable arbiters of what is and is not bizarre is at best strained. AD in particular has pushed Brutalist blockhouses and other structures that the average person in the day thought were quite bizarre. Conversely there are surely plenty of oddities of which the architectural authorities are unaware. And besides, as I am wont to say, in the 21st century, nothing is actually weird anymore, not with (to pick one name) Frank Gehry as someone who routinely competes for projects and from time to time gets to build one. Besides the subjectivity, the subject is profoundly unencyclopedic. Mangoe (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nothing is actually weird anymore, but criteria should include overall cultural impact; eg. some architectural awards or something like that..(?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnmbnmbnm (talk • contribs) 08:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - preferably as a "List of lists". This article has existed for 10 years, has very few entries when it could easily have many more. The lead has its guidelines but there is always a subjective element to measuring the degree of unusualness. Several of the current entries are not even close to bizarre (i.e. very unusual), rather simply colorful facades (Hundertwasser). Then there are many hundreds if not thousands of bizarrely-shaped buildings not yet included. To reduce the subjectivity aspect, multiple list articles by category with unique criteria would be a better approach, leaving this article as a "List of lists": List of zoomorphic buildings, ...deconstructionist buildings, ...follies (already a basic list there), ...novelty architecture, ... fairytale buildings, ...buildings using nonstandard construction materials (coral, bottles), etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:88:8100:C270:105E:7825:C360:164E (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about keep but move to something along the lines of List of unusual buildings? Along the lines of other lists of unusual things e. g. List of unusual deaths, List of unusual minor planets or List of unusual dismissals in international cricket? --Ouro (blah blah) 10:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 03:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and move to List of unusual buildings. Dream Focus has demonstrated that reliable sources treat the concept as a set or group, and clear inclusion criteria have now been established. WP:NLIST is met. Jfire (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retitle per above. I think that we are often too quick to condemn stuff for being fun; in this case it's not really clear that the subject is inherently encyclopedic, just that it's kind of silly. Being silly is serious business! We should take it seriously. jp×g🗯️ 00:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm all for fun Wikipedia articles and such, but an article like this is just too objective for us to keep. There would be a lot of discussion on whether or not a building is "bizarre", some editors would say that a certain building isn't bizarre that's on the list and other editors would want a certain building to be put on the list. Maybe it's possible to rename this to something where we can work with this? ‍ Relativity 02:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The title aside, it would be nice to reach a consensus about whether the article meets our policies and guidelines for lists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Reeks of WP:OR, with no definable criteria for inclusion. Let'srun (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having a partially subjective inclusion criteria doesn't mean it's a bad concept. The article is full of sources that note that it's notable when a building looks weird, and each source can only give a subjective opinion to say a building is weird. No different than any other object whose notability comes largely from what people think about it. Compare with other lists that have subjective entries: List of films considered the worst, List of photographs considered the most important or the aforementioned List of unusual deaths. (More examples:[23]) Contrast with List of most-liked tweets which is a measurement standard not available for most concepts. Wizmut (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The list does not follow any objective criteria, it is made solely based on opinions without any further basis. Svartner (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but with the possibility of keeping in some form - the problem here is that even with the narrowed standard, it's not enough of a defining list. But I think it may be possible to define this somehow. SportingFlyer T·C 15:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is based on a mishmash of sources with completely different inclusion criteria for what is "unusual". Some sources cover a single building that they happen to characterize as distinct in some way; others are listicles on a subset of "unusual buildings" within one US state, or in Europe, or of a particular type (e.g. skyscrapers); some entries are gardens, some are art installations, some are whole temple complexes, some are treehouses... There is just no coherent theme here, it seems like just about any notable structure would qualify if some RS (including itself...) said it looked strange and an editor agreed. That is not a reasonable NLIST criterion, that's just Atlas Obscura clickbait. JoelleJay (talk) 03:26, 4 February 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. Sandstein 19:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Gillespie (producer)[edit]

Mark Gillespie (producer) (edit | talk | history | 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 referencing is mainly about the corporation with passing mentions only of Gillespie. One contains no mention of him at all. Those offering significant coverage are repetitive and not reliable sources. If he truly passes WP:BIO references must be found to verify that. Since none are here it appears to be a puff piece about him, bloated by the corporation's material. While a certain amount of corporate information is needed to illustrate any personal notability, I see insufficient to verify any and far too much about the corporation for this to be a biography. Fails WP:BIO and WP:V 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hi, Thanks for taking the time to contribute here.
In entertainment this is a complicated issue because while the individual is often credited (in film credits or on an album) that individuals business dealings, which often represents their notable work, are wrapped-up in a corporation. For example, on the Scooter Braun page, a much larger page for a similar type of notable person many references talk about his company Ithaca Holdings, not Scooter himself. At other times, Scooter and his notable actions are mentioned in passing when the article is about some other personal drama not related to the content of the page.
Normally I would suggest creating a page for the company instead here, but as in my above example, there is no page for Ithaca Holdings. When making edits an effort is being made to get closer to the Scooter Braun page in terms of tone and style.
However your point is well taken and i'd be happy to look at making additional edits here that anchor the perspective on Gillespie without slipping into too many mentions of the company.
Could we name which sources we're not considering reliable? happy to remove those as needed but i'm having trouble identifying which are causing the most trouble.
I still think this person meets WP:BIO and their impact on the music industry is notable. as this discussion continues I will do additional research and identify improvements that can be made JaredUram (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I think we have to interpret that commentary as an opinion that the article be kept.
I should point out that WP:BURDEN for referencing is on the editors wishing to keep the article. Further, a welter of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not make for a persuasive policy based argument. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Trivial mentions of this person. All I find are name drops, no articles about them. Oaktree b (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    most hits are from "Music Business Worldwide", which feels very PR. Oaktree b (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for these notes. I am acting on this feedback and believe keeping the page has merit. I will submit re-writes to address. JaredUram (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep has publications from Music Business Worldwide, Variety and other notable sources. He has also managed Frank Ocean which they are tons of sources which discuss him at large.Chaosbrigader64 (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:17, 31 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. Sandstein 16:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trupti Toradmal[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. She has not played any significant roles. The provided sources consist mainly of gossip and interviews. I couldn't find any GNG-worthy sources in BEFORE search. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:36, 16 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) 13:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Thee seems to be more than a few passing mentions about this person [24] and [25] for example. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b The first source, published by the DNA WebTeam, doesn't have any specific author mentioned. Given that articles from Desk Teams are often part of press releases, it should not be considered a reliable source. The second source is an interview, which is a primary source. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She's not yet notable in her industry - she has a long career ahead of her and can be written up when she makes her mark. Llajwa (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As above. Not yet notable. IMDB can track her if she ever makes a mark. MisterWizzy (talk) 04:59, 4 February 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. Owen× ☎ 23:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics – Boys' javelin throw[edit]

2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics – Boys' javelin throw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only independent sourcing are a few sources mentioning the win of Botha (and of the four sources in the article, one is a Wordpress blog about Mandela day, and one is the Italian Athletics Federation, not an independent source but responsible for sending athletes to the championships), no actual coverage of the event as a whole, no WP:SUSTAINED coverage either. Fram (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The sources only mention the win of Botha, no actual coverage of the event as a whole – The nature of individual athletics events is that coverage will focus on the winners or athletes at the events, as the event itself is a more abstract concept. The articles aren't solely about the winner though, they usually do talk about other placings or the competition itself even if the headline only mentions the winner.
  2. The only independent sourcing are those simply mentioning Botha – I don't agree with this, for example here are some fully independent sources covering mainly athletes other than Botha: "682 Atletismo Español Agosto 2015 by atletismo español - Issuu". issuu.com (in Spanish). Atletismo Español. 2015-08-06. p. 58. Retrieved 2024-01-16., ERR (2015-07-18). "Eesti odaviskaja piirdus noorte MM-il eelvõistlusega". Eesti Rahvusringhääling (in Estonian). Retrieved 2024-01-16.
  3. There are only four sources in the article – I have since fixed this, and I expanded the article to include eight sources (not including the results source).
  4. There is no WP:SUSTAINED coverage – I don't agree with this, for example Paul Botha was still being described as a "world youth champion" in reference to this event almost two years later in Javelin Throw Magazine. World championships are the highest level of competition in the sport, and in athletics journalism references are frequently made to past championships and events.
So for these reasons, I am voting to keep, and I'll continue to improve the article in the mean time. --Habst (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Atletismo Espanol is published by the RFEA, so is not independent. Eesti contains a routine, trivial results report, not SIGCOV.
4. SUSTAINED requires sustained SIGCOV of an event. Mentions do not count. JoelleJay (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for the challenge because I think debate like this improves Wikipedia, I'm sorry for missing it yesterday. I think I addressed point #2 at this anchor: #RFEA. Regarding #4, I just read the page WP:SUSTAINED and "SIGCOV" is never mentioned, so I don't think that is the Wikipedia consensus on that guideline. As the article is a results list primarily, I don't think that matters anyways, per Category:List-Class Athletics articles and WP:NLIST which says that lists provided as navigation aids can be kept using different criteria, which I have outlined below. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "World championships are the highest level of competition in the sport" - true, but World youth championships are not. It is an intermediary step in a career. Most of these people never amounted to athletes on the highest level as adults. Geschichte (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geschichte, thank you for responding and I do fully agree with your comment that World U18 Championships are not as important as the senior World Athletics Championships. My comment wasn't meant to say to the contrary -- only to say that both can have sustained coverage, and on the merits of this specific competition the article should be kept. As you say, most Olympic medalists have success on the youth level before the senior level, which is partly why it is important to cover these championships.
    In my case, I was writing an article for an athlete (Manu Quijera) who was 4th in this event, and his 4th-place showing was a significant part of his career. Because the main championships page only shows the top 3 medalists, he was not linked from that page which necessitated the creation of this article. Given that this event was an important part of his career according to the sources, I thought there should be some sort of backlink from "2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics" to Manu Quijera, and currently creating results pages is the established way to do that. --Habst (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While writing Toni Keränen, I found this article: "Toni Keränen threw farther than the world champion". Yleisurheilu.fi (in Finnish). 2015-07-21. Even though he didn't compete at the championships, I thought it was interesting that an entire article was written about a performance in relation to this event. To me this is further evidence of WP:EVENTCRIT point #2 because it shows that the result had international significance even among non-competitors, and the result was analyzed after the fact. If I can find other sources like this, I might make a "reactions" section of the article as well. --Habst (talk) 04:34, 20 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) 13:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Finland probably didn't compete in the championships. Norway skipped the 2017 edition (as did numerous other nations), and also had a history of doing so. Check this out and search for World Youth Championships. You will see that Norway also opted out of the 1999, 2001 and 2003 edition and sent a very limited number to the 2005 and 2007 editions. All this tells us that the World Youth Champnships struggled with its standing in the world of athletics. That being said, I don't have a strong opinion about the 2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics – Boys' javelin throw page. Geschichte (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geschichte, thank you for the interesting statistics. I remember when the World Youth Championships were cancelled in 2017, and thinking that it kind of made sense in part due to all the age cheating that was in the news at the time. I believe the U.S. also passed on the final edition, though it was no doubt the most notable U18 athletics competition in the world during its existence despite these omissions. For the record, individual event articles are common practice at even regional competitions like the Asian Games and Asian Athletics Champs, as well as the World U20 Championships and of course the Worlds and Olympics.
    In my opinion, we should decide on the presence of event articles based on their own merits, and I think I've shown above that WP:EVENTCRIT is satisfied. Another perspective would be that results articles would fall under WP:NLIST, that is, fulfilling a recognized navigatory aid as viewers move between events at the 2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics, or using it as an index of the articles for performers at that event. In that case, it might be kept regardless of notability, as it serves as an aid to the bigger parent article which already has its own notability. --Habst (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Zero significant independent secondary coverage. NSPORT is explicit that governing sports orgs do not contribute to notability. Source 0 (worldathletics.org): pure stats, non-independent Red XN. 1 (News24 1): written by someone paid to attend by IAAF and accommodated by the Colombian Athletics Federation, non-independent and not comprehensive coverage of the event anyway Red XN. 2 (ERR): trivial results report, not SIGCOV Red XN. 3 (News24 2): same author as #1 Red XN. 4 (FIDAL): non-independent athletics org Red XN. 5 (Cape Town in Color blog): WordPress blog, SPS and obviously not RS Red XN. 6 (Netwerk24): can't access, but seems to be coverage of Botha rather than the event. 7 (Atletismo Espanol): published by the Royal Spanish Athletics Federation, a non-independent governing org Red XN. 8 (UZ Athletics): Uzbekistan athletics org, non-independent Red XN. 9 (yleisurheilu.fi): Finnish Sports Association, non-independent Red XN. 10 (IOC): IOC profile, non-independent Red XN.
JoelleJay (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for responding because I think rigorous debate and your challenge makes Wikipedia better, even when I do not agree.
I want to respond to all the points you made, so I will do it by list:
1. News24: written by someone paid to attend by IAAF  – This is false, per the article: His accommodation was paid for by the Colombian athletics federation.. He was of course allowed to attend by the IAAF, just as with any event held on private property, journalists can't simply trespass without permission. But he was never paid by the IAAF. The Colombian Athletics Federation had no role in organizing the World Youth Championships (much less the javelin throw) and the source is thus independent.
2. Per WP:NBASIC (that applies to biographies but the same principle applies to events), sources can be combined to demonstrate notability. Eesti Rahvusringhääling is an established newspaper that is completely independent of the article subject, and the fact that they chose to cover this specific event in a dedicated fashion, rather than simply recapping the entire meet and only dedicating one section to the boys' javelin, demonstrates the notability of the event.
3. Per #1, the assertion that the author was "paid to attend by the IAAF" is plainly false.
4. FIDAL is independent of the subject (boy's javelin throw at the 2015 World Youth Champs), because it had no role in organizing or promoting the event – as an organization, it is completely separate. Just because an organization is dedicated to athletics, does not mean we can't use its reporting on athletics-related subjects. For example, Track & Field News and Athletics Weekly are "athletics organizations", but nobody would doubt that their coverage of the World Championships is independent in the same way that ESPN is independent of many of the major sports events they cover.
5. The Cape Town in Color blog can be used to demonstrate notability because it is from a non-athletics-related organization and chose, again, to dedicate significant portions of coverage on this specific event at these specific championships. Also, it is written by a subject matter expert, and this article is not a BLP, therefore it is suitable for inclusion in the article.
6. seems to be coverage of Botha rather than the event – This is incorrect, the article covers the other competitors in the event in addition to Botha. Of course, the article is focused on the winner, as nearly all sports competition coverage does. But the event as a whole is covered.
7. The Royal Spanish Athletics Federation is independent of the subject, the 2015 World Youth Championships boys' javelin throw. This is because it had no role in hosting or promoting the subject. The fact that it may be funded by a government doesn't mean it isn't independent, it depends on the specific case – just as the BBC News could be used as a source even though they are funded by a government.
8. Per #7, athletics federations (there are hundreds of them) are independent. They would not be independent about matters of governance related to their own organization, but on matters of global athletics competition, they are independent.
9. Per #7, the Finnish Sports Association had no role in organizing or promoting the event; it is independent.
10. The IOC biography was used to demonstrate the event's effect on the career of one of the competitors. The IOC actually does not host or organize the World Youth Championships; World Athletics does – so I'm not sure how it isn't an independent source of the subject anyways.
Thank you, --Habst (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The travel and entrance fees of IAAF media affiliates to the event would of course be covered "courtesy the IAAF". Why else do you think they would disclose this in a disclaimer alongside their other funding? de Villiers works/ed for the IAAF, as do many, many other authors of athletics news stories.
The CAF/RFEA is not independent of the athletes it sponsors or, obviously, the events its athletes and the organization itself participate in. This should be clear from the NSPORT guidance. Even if it somehow wasn't, both are IAAF member federations so are automatically disqualified through that avenue as well.
Routine content does not contribute to notability. The Estonian article was a results update centered on an Estonian athlete that had exactly 1 out of 4 sentences not on that athlete.
Since you seem to have access to the Netwerk24 article, please paste it here or provide an archive link. JoelleJay (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for your challenge because I believe it improves Wikipedia.
The travel and entrance fees of IAAF media affiliates to the event would of course be covered "courtesy the IAAF" – This isn't what I was responding to, I was responding to the assertion above that the News24 article was written by someone paid to attend by IAAF. This is plainly false, and it was not stated in the article. Of course, the press does not have to pay for a ticket because they have a press pass, this is how media works at nearly all major events from concerts to festivals to sporting events. There is no evidence, however, that de Villier's travel was covered by World Athletics, and for what it's worth I would be very surprised to learn that is the case based on what I know about world athletics championships. Either way, being granted a press pass as a journalist in no way constitutes being "paid to attend by the IAAF", otherwise we would have to consider all press pass coverage invalid for Wikipedia. Based on the LinkedIn profile you linked, it seems like de Villers only briefly contracted for World Athletics and was never employed by them, and his work for them started after the 2015 World Youth Championships. I think that his work for News24 in relation to this subject is independent.

The CAF/RFEA is not independent of the athletes it sponsors – This would be true if the athletes that CAF/RFEA sponsors were hand-picked by the organizations based on the personal biases of administration officials. This isn't how it works in athletics, the purpose of Royal Spanish Athletics Federation (for example) is simply to promote and govern the sport of athletics in Spain. They would not be independent in matters relating to the organization itself, but they are independent of the subject when the subject is "boys' javelin throw at the 2017 World Youth Championships" because they had no role in organizing that event and no stake in its success.
In regards to the Estonian newspaper, it is just one of the eleven sources used in the article, it is a WP:RS, and its coverage of both the Estonian athlete and of the event in general is useful even if brief. The purpose of linking it wasn't about the article's length but to show that the subject is notable because there is dedicated coverage of it, even separate and apart from coverage of the 2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics as a whole. The event only happens once every two years, and in most cases coverage of the event cannot be planned because it is subject to the performances achieved at the event, which cannot be predicted.
Here is a section of the Netwerk24 article that pertains to the javelin throw:

Paul Botha, spiesgooier van die Hoërskool Rustenburg, en Werner Visser, diskusgooier van die ­Hoërskool Zwartkop in Pretoria, is verantwoordelik vir dié twee goue medaljes.

Botha het die spies met sy tweede gooi 78.49 m ver geslinger om die goud met die beste poging van sy loopbaan tot dusver te verower. Die ander Suid-Afrikaner in die eindronde van die spiesgooi, Hercules van Vuuren van die Bethlehem Voortrekker Hoërskool, moes met die vyfde plek ­tevrede wees. Hy het die spies 76.04 m ver laat grondvat.

Translated to English, it discusses not just Botha's throw but also Hercules van Vuuren, the other South African.
Furthermore, I believe our entire conversation about the independent coverage of the event is entirely moot because its primary purpose is a list; per WP:NLIST Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. This list of competitors provides a clear navigational aid to the athletics coverage on Wikipedia – as noted above, the original reason I created it was to provide a backlink from Manu Quijera to the competition that was a major part of his career, and event result list articles are the established practice on Wikipedia to do so. In addition, the redlink list is useful for others who may want to create new articles in the future.
Thank you, --Habst (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IAAF member federations are part of the IAAF. It does not matter whether athletes are "hand-picked". Governing sports orgs are not independent when it comes to coverage of their athletes, which obviously extends to events they are involved in (because of course an org whose primary function is to promote its assets would facilitate ample coverage of its assets). Accommodations provided by the IAAF directly or via the Member Federation serving as the Local Organising Committee (in this case CAF) constitute a financial relationship. There is also no indication that de Villiers' employment relationship with IAAF was not in place for this competition, as he makes similar IAAF disclosure statements for other IAAF events he covered 2015-on.[26][27]
As I said before, the Estonian article contains one sentence of coverage on other competitors. That is trivial.
This article is not a list or a table, it is an article on an event that contains some tables. Even if it was a list, NLIST does not say all lists fulfill navigational etc. purposes; the contents in this article would certainly constitute a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization; and its utility as a navigational aid is clearly undercut by most of the entries not having their own pages. If someone's main source of coverage is from an appearance that was not significant enough to warrant coverage on any other wikipedia pages, maybe that is saying something about their notability. JoelleJay (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for your response.
IAAF member federations are part of the IAAF – This isn't true, according to the "member federations" page, World Athletics federations are merely "affiliated with" and not part of the larger organization. I think the question we should be asking when it comes to independence is, does the author or publisher have any role in organizing the event? In the case of this source, one of the 11 used in the article, I think the answer is "no": "SA javelin duo impress". News24. Retrieved 2024-01-16.
Likewise, governing sports organizations are independent when it comes to events that athletes from their nation (not "their athletes", as the athletes are not employed by the governing organizations) compete in. To make this two-degree leap is like saying that Elvis Presley wouldn't be an independent source on Kevin Bacon, because they are two degrees apart.
The "accomodations" link you provided is for a totally separate competition, four years after the 2015 World Youth Championships took place. Also, on that page there's no indication to me that the hotel would be paid for by the IAAF, only that they would assist in being booked in the athlete hotel which would make sense for a journalist. To me, it really seems like a reach veering in to Pepe Silvia thinking, that there are so many degrees of connection required to say there is a "conflict of interest", in just one of the 11 sources provided. If you want, you can ask de Villiers himself if his work is independent of the subject of this article or to what degree he has a financial relationship with the IAAF, which is not even the subject of this article.
The Estonian article is the shortest of all the linked coverage, but it is useful as a reference and to be combined with other coverage, which is a valid way to assess notability.
These types of results articles are actually very often considered list-class, even if they have prose describing the event, as here are many examples of similar articles marked as Lists: Category:List-Class Athletics articles. This includes even the men's javelin throw at the same year's world championships, which is the closest possible article to this one. If you think that all of those articles are not lists, it would be against current Wikipedia practice and you would have to change that consensus first.
Which cross-categorization in this article is non-encyclopaedic? Javelin throwers and the 2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics seems like a reasonable categorization to make, as the two categories are inherently associated (one competes in the other). But I wouldn't say that this list is a cross-categorization at all, really, the main purpose of it is to be a navigational aid for Wikipedia coverage of the world championships.

Looking at WP:NOTCATALOG, 1. Ample contextual information is provided, 2. The topics are not loosely associated, 3. I don't think "cross-categorization" really applies to this article per above, 4. It's not a genealogical entry, 5. It's not a program guide, and 6. It has no commercial value and wouldn't be helpful for a business.
Of the 34 competitors in this list, 7 of them are currently blue links, and there are four inter-language links, i.e. athletes on other wikis that don't have an English article yet, so that is usually a very helpful pointer to article creators and I can see that many of the other red links are potential articles as well. This proves that the article serves an important purpose for editors, as well as being a helpful navigation aid for readers looking at who participated or was significant in a competition. Also, this event is not the "main source of coverage" for Manu Quijera, but it does represent one major starting point in his career, so it would be very useful to have a backlink from the event back to his page along with all of the other athlete pages.
Thank you, --Habst (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your idea of what constitutes "independence" in the wiki-notability sense is intractably at odds with our guidelines. If you still do not understand--or refuse to acknowledge--the purpose of excluding governing sports bodies from the topics with which they are involved, then bring that up at NSPORT, not here. And of course the Member Federations are members of IAAF, what a ridiculous assertion. The term "affiliated to" does not just mean "loosely associated with", it has a precise legal meaning with regards to the subordinated relationship between the orgs and their governance. In this case the Members comprise the IAAF Congress, elect the IAAF council and executive board, and function as the highest authority in the IAAF. IAAF Rules state . The purposes of World Athletics include to:
1.1.1. encourage and support the development, organisation and delivery of Athletics
worldwide through its Area Associations and Member Federations (Article 4.1(g)
of the Constitution); and,
1.1.2. support and assist Area Associations and Member Federations to promote and
develop Athletics (Article 4.1(h) of the Constitution).
1.2. The Member Federations are the Members of World Athletics (Article 6.1 of the
Constitution) and as such, they enjoy rights and have obligations to World Athletics under the Constitution (Articles 8 and 9 of the Constitution). Members are not some random association from a particular country, they are required to be the sole national governing body for athletics in their country and are responsible for all athletes therein. Members are obligated to "compete in at least one International Competition or one Area Championships in the period between meetings of Ordinary Congress” and to organise in each calendar year at least one national senior championships. Member Federations are not independent of the IAAF.
The purpose of the accommodations link was to demonstrate the type of form used by the press for receiving accreditation and accommodation. They use the same boilerplate form for all IAAF competitions, I didn't bother to track down the exact one. And anyway, we know de Villiers' accommodations were paid for by the LOC for the games, which is as close as you can get to the org actually running the event. JoelleJay (talk) 03:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for your response because I do think these issues are important to work out.
I looked at WP:NSPORT, the policy you referenced, and the only thing it says about governing sports bodies is, Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players. I don't think that applies to this article, because the subject of the article is not the players, it is the competition "Boys' javelin throw at the 2015 World Youth Championships". NSPORT doesn't say anything about member federations not being independent with respect to competitions, and I don't think that view is at odds with Wikipedia guidelines, let alone intractably so.
Also, the member federations are hardly the highest authority in the IAAF, in fact they are often at odds with World Athletics i.e. in the case of Russian Athletics Federation. For a similar situation with World Aquatics, a U.S. court found that "a reasonable trier of fact could find FINA and its member federations are separate economic actors", i.e. if member federations are separate economic actors, then it would stand to reason they are financially independent.
Per the 2019 World XC form, my reading is still that journalists can be situated in the athlete hotel, but they would still have to pay for their own travel and board. If journalists at World Athletics championships really do get free hotel and travel, please tell me where I can apply as one, because then I have been wasting a lot of money attending as a fan for naught...
I do think that this notability conversation ultimately does not matter as it pertains to this article though, because I think Wikipedia considers it a list per Category:List-Class Athletics articles and WP:NLIST. As a list, it does not necessarily need to meet the notability guidelines because it serves as a navigational aid to readers. Even if you discard all the member federation sources, which I don't think should be done, there is still fully independent newspaper coverage of the event.
Thank you, --Habst (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You think that the lack of independence in a sports org's coverage of its athletes somehow doesn't apply when that same coverage is used for something else (let alone an event the org was involved in)? That makes zero sense and suggests you still don't understand the purpose of this guideline.
The Member Federations comprise the majority of the IAAF and their Congress is explicitly called the "highest authority in the IAAF". This is per the IAAF Constitution and its rules book. It is perfectly acceptable to sanction one constituent, which is what the Members voted to do with RAF. Financial independence--which the Members certainly are not with regards to the parent structure, not least because they pay dues and receive support from the IAAF--is not the only criterion needed for wikipedia independence.
I literally sent you a media accreditation and accommodations application, you should know what it says. You can find the one for some upcoming competition yourself.
Very few lists don't need to meet notability criteria, so even if this was considered a list that is far from a guarantee that its navigational function is so overwhelmingly obvious that no sustained IRS SIGCOV of the topic as a whole is needed. Routine results announcements don't count for athletes because they fail NOT, which applies to all pages including this one. JoelleJay (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for responding. I think that a national athletics federation's coverage of athletes from the same country actually can be independent, depending on the details of the coverage. I don't think that WP:NSPORT disagrees with that, I think that the line Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players is in reference to players representing a specific athletics team as opposed to athletes competing independently that happen to reside in the same country as some World Athletics member federation. I think that I do understand the guidelines, I am trying to interpret them as objectively as I can.
The World Athletics Congress may be the highest authority of athletics as a whole, but that isn't exactly the same thing as the member federations – per source, there are 214 member federations and each only has three delegates, i.e. any member federation only has a 1/214th stake and influence in Congress, and probably less than that because the Congress has a board and President which would overrule the delegates. It is such a tiny role, that I would have a hard time saying that there is any independence issue, especially because World Athletics is not the subject of this article.
FINA members pay dues ("membership fees") per source, and yet that did not stop a U.S. court from ruling that a reasonable trier of fact could find FINA and its member federations are separate economic actors. So, I would agree that World Athletics member federations are financially independent from each other for the purposes of Wikipedia.
The 2019 World XC form linked above doesn't say anything about World Athletics paying for the hotel and flights for journalists that I can see, it seems to only reference "accommodating" them as in making sure they are in the athlete hotel. If what you say is true and disqualifying, the implication is then that any journalist coverage of global athletics championships cannot be used on Wikipedia, regardless of who the journalist is, because the journalists were "accommodated" in a way that is not clear at all to me. Do the World Athletics procedures for "accommodating" journalists differ significantly from the industry standard for large international events? I don't think they do, and I haven't seen any comparison that they do.
I think that there is IRS SIGCOV of the subject, as there are thousands of words about the event from over 10 different sources linked in the article. However I also think that the navigational function of this list is clear – it is linked clearly from the parent page in a consistent manner that has been done for hundreds of similar articles on Wikipedia, and it clearly lists the finishing order and participants in the event surrounded by helpful context about the competition. There is also significant technical advantage to keeping the article, as the red-links are useful starting points for future article creators. Regarding WP:NOT, I did read that policy (specifically WP:NOTCATALOG) and I read all of the numbered points. I don't think that this article applies to any of those numbered points, as I enumerated above at #NOTCATALOG.
Thank you, --Habst (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Governing sports organizations" means exactly what it says: they are not independent of players under their jurisdiction. Your "objective" interpretation both fails textually and in actual intent. I know this because I wrote that part of the guideline, after discussion at NSPORT that had unanimous agreement among 8 senior NSPORTS editors as well as a followup discussion that also had overwhelming support. This was the obvious outcome given what had been happening at athlete AfDs whenever editors gave heightened scrutiny to source independence[28][29][30]. Non-independence from governing orgs continues to result in uncontroversial deletions on that basis.[31][32]
Again, we know de Villiers was accommodated by the event organizer. Whether they pay for all journalists is irrelevant to this AfD.
NOT states that the examples given in each section are not exhaustive. Editors are assumed to be competent enough at inference and patterns to recognize instances that don't precisely match policy wording. And my invocation of NOT was re: NOTNEWS, where routine news coverage is discussed. The "list" having the bare-minimum technical characteristics of a page does not override its utter lack of navigational utility.
Please stop prefacing your comments with those obnoxious facially insincere "thank yous". JoelleJay (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Governing sports organizations – I greatly respect the work you have done for WP:NSPORT. At the same time, Wikipedia guidelines are not interpreted or enforced by any one person, even if that person was the original author of a guideline. Just as you linked examples of athlete biographies that were deleted for lack of sources, there are also examples of athlete biographies that were not deleted despite having no significant non-database sources linked, for example Kyohei Ushio or Abdou Manzo. As WP:NSPORT is a supplemental guideline, there is also always the possibility of an article meeting a core guideline like WP:GNG but not NSPORT anyways, such as in the case of Clive Sands. Of course, any source can sometimes be non-independent depending on context, but I don't think that national athletics federations are as a rule always non-independent of athletes who happen to live in the same country, especially if that athlete has never represented or associated with the federation.
we know de Villiers was accommodated by the event organizer – To be clear, the article in question only says, "Ockert attended the IAAF World Youth Championships courtesy of the IAAF. His accommodation was paid for by the Colombian athletics federation." That seems to say he was not accommodated by the IAAF but by the Colombian Athletics Federation instead. Also, I am not sure what this "accommodation" means, and I couldn't find any Wikipedia policies or guidelines saying that if a journalist is "accommodated" then his coverage is automatically deemed non-independent.
For WP:NOT, I did try to interpret meaning rather than wording in #NOTCATALOG. For WP:NOTNEWS, I will go through the numbered points to see if it applies:
1. Original reporting – I don't think this is original as the results are widely reported, 2. News reports – I don't think this list is a news report but an encylopedic record of competition results surrounded by context. I don't think the World Youth Championships are covered in a "routine" way, it only happens once every two years and the coverage is more often focused on the details of the specific events with commentary rather than using generic boilerplate. 3 Who's who – The subjects are covered in order of importance to the overall topic, with the medallists discussed most often and the other competitors being given less coverage. 4. Celebrity gossip and diary – Not applicable to this article.
I also do think that the list is navigationally useful – The reason why I created it was because I expected it to already exist, having read similar articles like the 2016 IAAF World U20 Championships. Many people use Wikipedia as a reference for athletics results at major championships, and the page is in line with existing articles to provide that service in an encyclopedic fashion.
With regard to your last comment – I wanted to say that I trust that your comments have all been 100% sincere, and I would hope that you would extend me the same good faith. I am sorry that my words were interpreted otherwise, and I would much rather discuss the article than editor behavior. --Habst (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. JoelleJay's source analysis is persuasive. The energy invested into this very niche article and this AfD is misplaced. The much more important parent articles, IAAF World Youth Championships in Athletics and 2015 World Youth Championships in Athletics, are in a catastrophic state. The time spent nitpicking borderline sources here would be better used to make them readable. Sandstein 19:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sandstein, I appreciate what you said and I'll make my response brief. Is the article niche? Yes, although that's not a valid reason for deletion. I would liken it to Guam at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics, which was kept despite the absurd specificity of the article. 'Importance' is all relative – to a certain few, this may be a very valuable article, which is enough of a reason to keep the article if it complies with Wikipedia policies. --Habst (talk) 21:49, 7 February 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 Speedily deleted under WP:A7 Mach61 (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Jayden Jordan[edit]

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

Autobiography, no secondary sources found to establish notability. Thriftycat Talk • Contribs 00:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, this iteration of the article only narrowly escapes another A7 speedy with the "famous album" claim. Unsourced autobiography. WindTempos (talk • contribs) 00:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and given the previous history (their last speedy was not even an hour ago), I'm not giving any benefit of doubt. Not sure if it even escapes A7 given the "credible" part of "credible claim". ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 00:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps my interpretation of "credible" is overly generous. Anyway, it looks like we're done here for now. WindTempos (talk • contribs) 00:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails ANYBIO, no sign of meeting any criteria of MUSICBIO 94rain Talk 00:42, 31 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Receiver of the Metropolitan Police[edit]

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

Beyond confirmation it exists, I don't see any significant coverage of the position and none found either in my searches. This has been tagged since 2008, with little to no improvements made. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and England. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Considering that many of them have articles can be useful per WP:LISTPURP-NAV. --PaulT2022 (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Extremely notable position with plenty of available sources. Mostly in print, obviously, given it was abolished in 2000 and lost a lot of its standing after 1968. But before that, equal in status to the Commissioner. Easily meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merits a full 29-page chapter in John Moylan's definitive 1929 Scotland Yard and the Metropolitan Police, plus sections in pretty much every other book about the history of the Met. As I said, relying on online sources for earlier topics is not the best idea. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Interesting article about a significant organisation with adequate WP:RS Lyndaship (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please address the offline sources mentioned above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, nothing wrong with off-line sources, and the article is now well-referenced. Additionally, since the majority of holders of this post are of themselves notable, this article would have been a valid navigational list even without sourcing. But it's much better as a properly referenced article. Elemimele (talk) 13:07, 31 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_31&oldid=1204966112"