Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 05	October 07 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SVG Air Flight 207[edit]

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

Fails WP:EVENT. Runway excursions are very common. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, fails WP:EVENT. DMySon (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nominator, run of the mill accident JW 1961^Talk 08:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE per nom. Yeah, runway excursions are very common. So common that it failed to qualify WP:EVENT. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 09:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I must say that this is a very common incident. However, probably it does pass WP:GNG since rather widespread coverage is taking place. This is just my opinion. KlientNo.1 (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noted above not particularly noteworthy for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this was a minor incident that could perhaps be mentioned in another article about planes going off runways, but not as a stand-alone article.TH1980 (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added the info from this page to the SVG Air main page, since it appears this will be deleted in short order. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep /Nom Withdrawn. Consensus is clear that this is a content/cleanup isssue that can be dealt with editorially. Star Mississippi 00:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Mamary[edit]

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

Here v. PROD as it has been deleted and recreated (ages ago, not a process issue. Courtesy @DragonflySixtyseven:). This article is sourced primarily from Mr. Mamary's own book which explains the tone. It's also likely copy/pasted from somewhere off line. I could clean it up, but a BEFORE identified no secondary, reliable sources that discuss him or his work in depth. this appears to be his best cited work, which isn't high enough to meet WP:PROF and I don't see any other path to notability. Star Mississippi 22:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 22:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 22:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 22:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very weak keep, and stubify~~ Weak keep, and cut down The subject appears to have been somewhat influential in the idea of outcome-based education in the 1970s-1990s, mostly before the internet era. Sources are accordingly somewhat more difficult to find. I'm not seeing enough impact for a pass of WP:NPROF here. However, as far as WP:BASIC goes, there's a profile at Education Week [1] (though listed in the opinion section); there's an interview in Educational Leadership [2] and a bit of other coverage in ASCD publications. A local paper obituary [3] can fill in basic bio details. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaking !vote per better sources found below. Stubify is no longer the right word, but there's plenty of unsourced and/or promotionally-worded material to cut out. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He seems to have had a lot of influence with other school superintendents. I added a nice resolution that the New York State Senate passed after his death. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cheryl Taylor Desmond's book about how the Johnson City school district transformed itself has a great deal of material on Albert Mamary. See here for example. I have added the book to the Further reading section. I will say it took awhile to find this. It often isn't easy locating material about educators. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick question to StarryGrandma and Eastmain: it looks to me that the book is used twice, separately as a reference and once as an EL/further reading. Is that intentional? Not dissagreeing with with its inclusion, I'm unclear how it's meant to be used Star Mississippi 20:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Desmond's book is only in the Further reading section. It has not yet been used as a reference. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies, I misread. Star Mississippi 20:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator (software)[edit]

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

I am unable to find evidence that this was a notable piece of software. A BEFORE only turns up evidence that it existed, which is not in question. Was deleted via PROD in 2008 and subsequently recreated (courtesy @Maxim and UnitedStatesian:) so I figured better here ~~than~~ at AfD than PROD. Star Mississippi 21:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 21:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 21:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete The give away clue is on the page itself: "Operating system: 2000, XP, Vista". A few people still remember Windows Vista, but that is why you could not find anyone using it. Grover Cleveland may have been a user, but the software is obsolete now. Ode+Joy (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:N. (though not sure why I got the ping, since I am nowhere in the article history). UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- UnitedStatesian, sorry that it wasn't clear. You were the one to PROD it in July 2008. Star Mississippi 01:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, the "deleted history" of myth and legend: a mystery invisible to mere mortal Wikipedians such as I. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find this in lots of lists of multimedia software tools, but very little actual coverage that would denote notability. The best I was able to find was this first look capsule item in PC Mag. This is well short of what is needed to establish inclusion as an article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfslair MMA Academy[edit]

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

The gym is no longer operating. There's not much in depth coverage of the gym itself. Articles on it tend to be more about the fighters and in interview format. Imcdc (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep - the ESPN article is clearly significant coverage in a reliable source. I also turn up some Liverpool Echo articles that relate to disputes the gym had. The fact that it is no longer operating is not relevant - organizations do not lose notability by going out of business. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree the ESPN/Sherdog article is good coverage. However, I don't think the other articles are and WP:GNG requires multiple significant articles. I found articles about people joining and leaving the team, but that seems like WP:NOTINHERITED to me. I'll wait to see if others can find additional coverage. Papaursa (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it's worth noting that the ESPN article was originally done for Sherdog, as evidenced by the fact that Sherdog is mentioned 3 times (picture credit, "broke down the coaching lineup for Sherdog.com", and the fact the author is a Sherdog contributor). That means that 3 references are from the same source and one doesn't mention Wolfslair at all because it's a link to one of the coaches' gym. The article is largely an interview which lessens its independence value. In addition, my own search didn't find other coverage that I would classify as anything but routine and/or relying on the notability of members. Papaursa (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having one (ESPN) independent, reliable source is not enough to pass WP:NCORP as the other sources are either not independent (the gym own web site) or articles about the fighters instead talking indept or in details about the gym. For a the gym to meets the notability guidelines (either GNG or NCORP) we need significant coverage of independent reliable source whereby the sources talk about the subject in length and inadept. Cassiopeia talk 23:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gitcoin[edit]

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

If the notability equals three references, the subject of the article screams for draftifying first. — Kochas 20:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. — Kochas 20:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Kochas 20:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Kochas 20:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how relevant this is to the deletion discussion but there's an article on the Forbes website about it. Piglop (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify: I would have draftified because of the obvious COI, but since we are at AfD now, I can !vote delete too. There's some coverage on CoinTelegraph, and it seems previous discussions at WP:RSN were leaning towards considering it non-reliable. MarioGom (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Yet another crypto spam piece about a non-notable platform founded within the past few years. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 07:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Cohen[edit]

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

Not really my field, so I may be judging wrong, but she seems to have had minor roles only, and the references are not substantial 3rd party reliable published sources, but press releases or blogs or mere notices DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the sources are not reliable. Whether she is notable for an article based on roles is a different story. Trillfendi (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of the credits attributed here are true and correct. I can personally attest to the relationship status and all credits listed on IMDb. That these credits are unsupported is spurious. It is a curious request, as there is no embellishment to what are legitimate proven facts, therefore indisputable and verifiable by simply checking IMDb- a universally recognized authoritative database regarding film and television production and performance. It is my hope that this petition is initiated by one unfamiliar with the industry and not someone possessing a personal bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fordtrent (talk • contribs) 06:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not establish GNG and the subject's acting credits appear to be minor roles. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Minnich[edit]

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

Associate professor failing WP:NPROF, who got his "15 minutes of fame" for his testimony in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. All cited sources are primary sources (his own testimony) or trivial mentions. Being a "Fellow" at the Discovery Institute (an organization promoting pseudoscience version of creationism) and signing a public statement from the Discovery Institute are facts that have no relevance to the field of microbiology and don't constitute a credible claim of notability. Coverage of Minnich seems to be all about the Kizmiller trial, not biographical, and the Kitzmiller trial already has its own article, as is appropriate for WP:1EVENT. He does publish scholarly papers that are cited as would be expected of a professor in his position; nothing out of the ordinary. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination and the discussion from a few months ago here. XOR'easter (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per points summed up by Anachronist and per my own research which rendered the same conclusion. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per others and my comment on the linked thread regarding his Scopus citations. JoelleJay (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the Scopus metrics for Minnich and his 58 coauthors with 10+ papers:

Total citations: average: 3287, median: 1738, Minnich: 1194. Total papers: avg: 70, med: 40, M: 40. h-index: avg: 25, med: 20, M: 21. Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 427, med: 249, M: 103. 2nd: avg: 253, med: 165, M: 81. 3rd: avg: 157, med: 109, M: 81. 4th: avg: 134, med: 94, M: 79. 5th: avg: 117, med: 81, M: 65.

I'm still not convinced his citation record is beyond that of a typical microbio professor. JoelleJay (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any additional coverage of this individual, and (as Anachronist has convincingly argued) nothing in the current article meets either WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Generalrelative (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but stub down. He has a borderline case for WP:PROF#C1 through his seven publications with over 100 citations each, two of which are in PNAS (also, he appears to be full professor now, not associate professor, and in a different department; our coverage of his academic affiliations was seven years out of date). I agree that the Kitzmiller and Iraq Survey activities do not add to his notability; I removed them from the article as I felt the sourcing was too primary for WP:BLP. If we cover him at all, it should be for where there is a case for notability, as a working academic in his specialty, not for his side activities with the Discovery Institute. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rather Weak keep~~ but I am not sure that the case for WP:Prof#C1 is all that strong as he has a large number of coauthors on his papers in a high citation field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The citations show the type of ordinary production from a person working in their field, not some-one who's making a "significant impact on their scholarly discipline". The nomination is correct in describing his involvement in the Discovery Institute as not notable on WP:1E grounds. There is not other evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. KidAd • SPEAK 23:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not substantial enough to bother to retain or create a redirect; just another testimony in a notable lawsuit. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Streamup[edit]

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

Permastub showing no evidence of notability. Sole reference is a blog. The previous AFD was withdrawn on the basis of this Variety article, which is a single passing mention and definitely not sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH; a WP:BEFORE shows only press releases. Would need solid RS coverage to demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH to keep. David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability, and that passing mention is certainly not enough. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obscure website seeking publicity via Wikipedia. Ode+Joy (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only in-depth source I could find was this Mashable article. It's a pretty low-quality source and WP:MULTSOURCES are required to satisfy WP:ORG. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any couple of kids can put up a web site with videos. the SEC database shows no company of that name, so no idea if it is still six employees. Seems way too soon. W Nowicki (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomMahdiar86 (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Miraee[edit]

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

Subject does not meet notability criteria and only superficially appears to do so at a glance because of extreme WP:REFBOMBing. Exacerbating this, every aspect of this biography indicates COI at best or an undisclosed financial stake at worst:

Article is predominantly written and scrupulously maintained by an SPA – Aminloveis – that coincidentally has full rights to a headshot of the subject and previously in 2014 uploaded their illustrative works as File:Best of Ali Miraee.jpg.
Article is WP:REFBOMBed to hell and full of near-suffocating puffery.
Article is written like a drawn-out résumé. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete There is no doubt that user Aminloveis has only one purpose: to promote this person. So the whole page is an attempt at marketing. That said, if he has really won that many international awards, should probably get a page. But the current attempt by Aminloveis is just too obvious. Ode+Joy (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I recognize that having or not having a Wikipedia article isn't necessarily indicative of notability, there's only a single contest listed there that has one – in which the subject came in third place. The rest are regular external links to those contests' websites. I think it's questionable how prestigious these awards are, and it certainly doesn't qualify for WP:ANYBIO criteria 1. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Awards are suspicious, like the World Humor Awards, which on their website are described as a sweepstakes for humorists and doesn't appear significant. Jollzar450 (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Fulton[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO. There has been a news article on the subject, in a local paper, but it's a bit of a puff-piece. The other sources in the article are all primary - links to Companies House and the like. — THIS IS TREY MATURIN 18:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete ^{with fire} utterly non-notable vanity spam. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Entrepreneur/CEO paid spam. HᴇʀᴘᴇᴛᴏGᴇɴᴇꜱɪꜱ (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well done, to this young man, but one article in the Newsletter isn't enough coverage from reliable secondary sources. Note that the Ballymena Times is just a mirror of the Newsletter. Fiachra10003 (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

H. Richardson[edit]

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

While I usually support keeping articles that meet an SNG, I believe this should be deleted. He is a one game cricketer in the 1860s who has an unknown first name. That is all that's known about him, and all I could find, meaning he fails GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers per WP:ATD. I'll drop a note on User:Sammyrice's talkpage who might be able to find out more about the subject, just incase there's a treasure-trove of sources out there! Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect WP:NCRICKET (which I hate) has two parts of note "Have appeared as a player in at least one cricket match that is judged to have been played at the highest international or domestic level". But in this case it may not yet pass the second part of the rule "qualification of a given match is dependent on its inclusion in a substantial source." There is a Richardson (no first name) in Papers Past (someone might like to have a better look).[4] Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers a valid WP:ATD for someone that's only played 1 match, but we're limited for information on. If our NZ cricket editor can find some more on him ping me and I'll update my vote. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as all the above, unless someone can unearth a bunch of stuff. Given where he went to school there's a faint chance he may turn up in the one of the amateur sides around the Kent area, but the name isn't familiar. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John T. Madden[edit]

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

An SPA claiming to be the subject contacted me on my talk page and requested deletion. Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE I'm nominating the article. The subject is a long time MSU college band director who was accused of sending inappropriate texts to a student in 2015 and 2016 and was suspended for a week. He resigned after the suspension was publicized by student journalists. This is poorly sourced, except for WP:BLP1E info related to the case, which keeps getting added and deleted. I don't see anything about inherent notability with college band directors, so this may fail WP:GNG, although we do have a Category:University and college band directors. At the core, Wikipedia shouldn't be weaponized to right (perceived) great wrongs, but we'll see what consensus is. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I forgot that there was an earlier deletion discussion three years ago. I'm not sure anything has changed since then. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no problem deleting this article per lack of notability. And activity. - DVdm (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not receiving enough reliable sources coverage beyond WP:BLP1E to justify declining the wishes of the subject for the deletion of the article, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass any notability guidelines.Misasory (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and doesn't meet notability guidelines. Sources in the article are not reliable, independent, and secondary. Can't find any meaningful content through the ol' Google machine. Per the subject's request and lack of notability, should be deleted. -Pax Verbum 04:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My opinion in 2018 was to delete: "Does not pass WP:PERPETRATOR, at most borderline for WP:PROF, and per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE." I don't see anything new here to change my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Pilcher[edit]

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

Just a minor celebrity hairstylist. 2A02:C7F:2431:CA00:8D71:A57D:6F61:379E (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep from WP:ANYBIO; won Primetime Emmy Award. However this was a joint award, and winners of this award often don't have articles. Blythwood (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete Sorry about the death, but in reality there are very few noteworthy elements. Sorry. Ode+Joy (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as winning a prime-time emmy and being nominated for an oscar is very noteworthy as confirmed in reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are multiple valid references on this page. - EclecticEnnui (talk) 07:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prominently accoladed individual with significant press coverage, speaks notable to me. Rusted AutoParts 17:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great interview (Harpersbazaar).His tragic COVID death (doubly vaccinated) was also mentioned in Germany (https://www.tvmovie.de/news/bridgerton-star-marc-pilcher-an-corona-gestorben-120953) Thomasgl (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Emmy-winner and Oscar-nominated tomburbine (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Known not because of one incident,(death by covid)but also by lifetime achievement(Emmy-winner,referrence Harperbazzer interview which is interesting)Paperworkorange (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - prominent, award-winning person. Giant Snowman 12:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep winner of notable award or being nominated + reliable sources such as CNN can establish notability. Brayan ocaner (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Original nominator made the AfD in the wrong namespace. I've moved the nomination back to the proper namespace at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Pilcher (2nd nomination). Discussion may continue there. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Pilcher[edit]

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

Keep: This is an Emmy-winning and Oscar-nominated hairstylist.

I’m sorry did you create a deletion discussion and vote keep? Rusted AutoParts 00:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. Somebody else wants to delete it.

Who though? I don’t see a discussion on the talk page nor edit summaries of anyone alluding to it and like I said you were the one to create this discussion thread. So I’m really lost. Rusted AutoParts 01:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close, per WP:SKCRIT. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nabil Aït Fergane[edit]

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

Notability, can't find any serious reliable sources. Toastskat (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Toastskat (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Toastskat (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete No major coverage, and no noteworthy refs. Deletion is a forgone conclusion. Ode+Joy (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, how was the WP:BEFORE in French and Arabic sources about a player that meets WP:NFOOTBALL by a very large margin? Geschichte (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current FPL player. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very much exceeds WP:NFOOTBALL with 106 appearances in a fully-professional league (even the league underneath this one is fully professional). Why, User:Ode+Joy a foregone conclusion for a person who easily meets WP:N? Nfitz (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 106 appearances in a WP:FPL per Soccerway means he passes NFOOTBALL JW 1961^Talk 15:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable, nominator should be trouted for not complying with BEFORE. Giant Snowman 12:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly passes WP:NFOOTY Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aílton (footballer, born 1980)[edit]

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

Notability, can't find any serious reliable sources. Toastskat (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toastskat (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Toastskat (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep after improvement. Geschichte (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after good work by Geschichte. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per above. I don't think I've ever seen an AFD for an article that exists in 22 other languages before! Nfitz (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources show that the subject easily passes WP:NFOOTBALL JW 1961^Talk 15:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after good work by Geschichte passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable, nominator should be trouted for not complying with BEFORE. Giant Snowman 12:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, played professional football, even if it wasn't in the top tier. SecretlyQuebecois (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Agbo[edit]

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

Notability, can't find any reliable sources online. Toastskat (talk) 17:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator --Toastskat (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to meet WP:NFOOTBALL by quite a large margin. Is the footballfacts.ru specifically unreliable? Soccerway's profile is incomplete. Geschichte (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets NFOOTY. footballfacts.ru is reliable. All of his Ukrainian stats check out with his Ukraine Football Federation database profile. Given his career locations, he has more mentions online in Russian-language sources then English ones. --BlameRuiner (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geschichte and BlameRuiner. Easily meets NFOOTY. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets Nfootball. See also sources in the Russian version of this article. Nfitz (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NFOOTBALL see appearances JW 1961^Talk 15:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable, nominator should be trouted for not complying with BEFORE. Giant Snowman 12:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One opinion in favour of deletion, the nominator, who has now been block for sock-puppetry. Closing a bit early per WP:DENY (non-admin closure). St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Dubey[edit]

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

Dubey did one notable work but it seems to be an example of WP:BLP1E. He is known only for one event. Also, there has been mass activism regarding stubble-cleaning for farmers so singling him out is questionable. Receiving Diana Award may satisfy WP:ANYBIO which is under the umbrella of Additional Criteria and not Primary Criteria of WP:BIO. Di xiku 15:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Di xiku 15:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is coverage on more than one event. See the petition for excessive use of plastic in Times of India [5], his plea on subtle burning in CNA (TV network) [6] and Scroll.in [7]. There is also mention of a tree plantation campaign under a general biography description at Verve (Indian magazine) [8]. And then there is news on Diana awards itself which is another event in itself [9]. There is also WP:SUSTAINED about his pleas on stubble burning and plastic use which is basically his work. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Koubaa[edit]

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

Reference are mix of profiles and annoucement of directorship. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tunisia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep according to the bellow source:
L’expert tunisien Khaled Koubaa rejoint officiellement Facebook
6 Khaled Koubaa, élu membre du conseil d’administration de l’ICANN
NEWSKhaled Koubaa, le premier recruté par Google en Tunisie

and other source which covering him to pass the GNG. ZEP55 (talk) 16:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are profiles and interviews. They are WP:PRIMARY. None of them can establish notability. Where is the secondary sources, per WP:SECONDARY? One the references on the page, is an internal worldbank page, where the public is not allowed access. That indicated it has been create UPE or a paid editor. scope_creep^Talk 17:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User is a WP:SPA. scope_creep^Talk 17:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agree, the sources in the article are not reliable and they are profile, however they can verify his works. my mean is the sources which I found and mentioned here or the sources available in the internet can be help to keep his article. the paid editor is really funny thing when he have profiles on ICANN and U.S. Department of State. ZEP55 (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is not politician nor a senior civil servant in the US Government and being listed on the U.S. Department of State, doesn't automatically make you notable. The coverage you have provided, is profiles that he has written. scope_creep^Talk 10:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agree with you profiles worths nothing in WP, but that profiles created by government and not by himself, USA always creating this type of profiles for successful people. ZEP55 (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi scope_creep, I'm quite shocked about the paid editing accusation just because now the worldbank article is no longer accessible. When I wrote the article the link was available and by doing a search on the web.archive you will be able to see a copy of it (here). I will fix this in the article.Yamen (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the person is not only a notable personality in Tunisia (several local medias articles about him and about his career) but also internationally as a board member of the ICANN and other important positions. I can add more sources to the article if you think it's needed. Yamen (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamen I do think adding sources that are non-interviews with independent significant coverage is necessary. If you can locate them, please add them. I will wait to give an opinion until then.4meter4 (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment new sources have been added by Yamen since nomination. I have no opinion on them at this time. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lets examine the sources:

Ref 1 is an annoucement of a job. The information was confirmed by the person himself on his Facebook account, i.e. his next employer!

Ref 2 from the worldbank is a profile, probably written by himself.

Ref 3 Khaled Koubaa, the first person recruited by Google in Tunisia The info is taken from social media.

Ref 4 The same profile from the Worldbank ref. The Internet strikes a personal chord with Khaled: he met his wife online, and subsequently saw his daughter for the first time online. Written by him and used in the worldbank profile. Can you believe that.

Ref 5 Another profile.

Ref 6 Another profile.

Ref 7 Another profile. An image.

Ref 8 An annoucement from a press-release.

The rest are the same. I'm not going to waste time on them. All the references are primary. They are routine annoucements of positions of work. Ref 11 is a standard court/ministry report of a meeting with a senior government official. It is primary as well. They are all junk. Not one of them is a secondary source. Ssveral have been written by himself. If the editor wasn't a cofounder of the Tunisia User Group, I would have assumed he was a UPE, as the references are so poor. The subject is a middleman, doing his job. He is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 14:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While not overwhelming, the sources added by Yamen are enough to demonstrate notabilty under WP:NBIO. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Marginally passes WP:NBIO per the sources added by Yamen.4meter4 (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Hartman (politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman fails WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Being a one-time candidate for a now-abolished office in the mid-1990s does not satisfy WP:NPOL KidAd • SPEAK 19:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I think the sum of coverage for various endeavours just scrapes over the line for notability. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are good reliable sources, including the Chronicle newspaper feature. However, more would be better to establish notability, as the article is weak without sources to back up the information added. Multi7001 (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a politician, because he was never elected to anything. As a business person, he was well below average. I do not see this as notable. Fails WP:N. Ode+Joy (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or any specific biographical criterion. Given the sources available, the subject does not appear notable as either a businessperson or a failed political candidate. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Shipyard District. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Shipyard District, Inc.[edit]

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

poorly defined district in a city-- non-notable DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some of this could be merged into the main Green Bay article - not the name of individuals, but an explanation of what the loss of the shipyard and other transitions mean for local businesses and how they are responding, both within the boundaries of this district and elsewhere. The festival might also be worth mentioning, particularly if it was a success and is likely to be repeated. What the article doesn't say is that The Shipyard District, Inc. appears to be a business improvement area that taxes local businesses to pay for amenities like better benches and street lighting as well as the festival -- not a new idea, but I guess it's new in Green Bay. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete There is no major coverage because it was founded in 2021. Some material may move to the Green Bay page, but by and large this is still an obscure zone. If it prospers and gets lots of mentions the next 2-3 years, let them rebuild the page. Ode+Joy (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Shipyard District and refocus - there has been plenty of coverage of the location (which is a populated place and so is notable per WP:GEOLAND anyway), its redevelopment, and various associated events. The organisation responsible for the redevelopment and management (a private organisation, not a statutory body) is not notable, in my view. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ping DGG, Eastmain and Ode+Joy just to ask if they see sense in that alternative. I'm happy to do the work to refocus the article; we have a similar situation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port of Poulsbo and the work there was not too difficult. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to manage the move, please go for it. I have no objection, and you have my support. Ode+Joy (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Shipyard District and recast as neighborhood/redevelopment area.Djflem (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We are usually fairly restrictive about named districts within cities--the idea is to not include those that have no existence outside the real estate industry. I'd have to see the refs. You can always try. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - can now safely be moved per WP:HEY following Djflem's outstanding work. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Djflem's great work. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 02:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loffice[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC) Tagged for multiple issues (orphan, not neutral sources) since 2012. I am not satisfied with the sourcing either: the first is more about co-working in Hungary than Loffice itself (they have a mention in it of course, but still), the second is the homepage of the organization, and it doesn't even have a "sajtó" (press) link on it, the third is a blog, the fourth one is an invitation to some club, and the fifth one is a blog again, and it is about a conference. I did not find much reliable sources during a google search either, the results were mainly databases and trivial mentions. COI also applies, as this was the creator's only edit before he vanished into thin air. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete A small, still obscure business entity, seeking attention. No major coverage, not notable. Ode+Joy (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:ORG. Most sources I can find are blogs or are just passing mentions. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 09:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:SIGCOV about that, just passing mentions.Misasory (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Novak Velimirov Mrdak[edit]

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

Hoax? Completely unverifiable, not in two sources provided as far as I can tell. The "reference", a Serbian wiki article, is unsourced. Google gives extremely few results (Latin and Cyrillic searches done), none of them usable. Fram (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It fails WP:V and could well be either a hoax or extensive WP:OR. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I should not have accepted it; I should have seen the original had no references. . I'm quite frustrated by the many attempts to put in wp what appear to be translations of articles from the Serbia or serbocroatian WP that we cannot in practice verify. I've asked repeatedly for help at the relevant wikiprojects without any results. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, nothing found in Google. Oaktree b (talk) 01:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is in big question here. Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G5, BolsaOObsequios). It should be noted that the nominator shows the same abuse pattern as the creator of the article. Yaxı Hökmdarz is also blocked for spamming. MER-C 17:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Fleming[edit]

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

Major Cited Sources are mere interviews. The rest are reviews. WP:RS are lacking. Also WP:SIGCOV is not met. Viia o Lanti (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. Couldn't find General notability standards in this. Saw mainly Interviews. Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 20:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet evading a block. Sockpuppets have no standing on this wiki so I ignore their argument. As for the rest, while I note concern about sourcing, I see consensus to keep the article. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PAN Foundation[edit]

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

sources are basically primary. WP:GNG is clearing not met. Viia o Lanti (talk) 10:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Relies nearly on self-published sources. Does not demonstrate much that it meets WP:GNG for inclusion. Multi7001 (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your concerns. As the author of the article, I'd rather it not get deleted, and I feel it does meet notability standards. Similar to how any film in the Internet Movie Database is probably notable enough to have a page, I feel anything in Forbes top 100 list of charities should get a page.

However, in case that's not persuasive, I added a bunch of sources. Justice.gov would probably be the most reliable source, with Businesswire and the American Journal of Managed Care coming in second. Not sure how notable Yahoo news or InfoMedNews are, but I included them just in case. Cheers! Ph03n1x77 (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ph03n1x77, the Forbes 100 article is a good, reliable source. And so is the DOJ news release. However, after taking a second look, and disregarding the PR and self-published sources, the subject may actually be notable but more references are still needed. I changed the consensus as a result. The article should be a keep but a cleanup tag indicating that the subject may not meet the criteria for GNG should be added in its place for the time being. Multi7001 (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There seems to have ignorance of the ~~WP:EXIST~~WP:NEXIST quideline in the nomination, with a possibly inaqduate WP:BEFORE. Sources identified by Ph03n1x77 incl Justice.gov The book Physcological Aspects of Cancer (Carr, Steel,pp392-393) probably meets RS but don't have access to the book. Seems absolute daftness to be trying to delete the page for a significant charity, though that is not to say I am concerned about the operation of some "charities" and if they are run more for the benefit advertising sales bonus than the core objective of the charity, though there is no indication that is the case here. -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC) & Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest-living state leaders[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Redundant of Lists of state leaders by age, arbitrary inclusion criteria for a list of this size, trivial cross-categorization. Dronebogus (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom. It fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY since the article is an unencyclopedic trivial cross-categorization of age and holding political office. The article is WP:OR that has a section with possible age ranges of individuals, and also fails WP:LISTN, since I was able to find no evidence independent reliable sources actually list any of these people in this manner. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian presidents by longevity what matters is what the person did when they were in office, not what they did and how long they lived after retirement. There are many of these trivial "list of oldest oldies" pages all over Wikipedia now, and they just do not want to die. Maybe we need a page about the longest Afd surviving articles. These would qualify for sure. Ode+Joy (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Their age is mentioned in the news media when they run for office, that a notable aspect. A valid navigational list. Dream Focus 10:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But many things about state leaders are mentioned in the news. My concern is going down the trivia path. If we go that way, then how about other things mentioned n the news, e.g. number of girl friends? Would that be interesting? Encyclopedic? What is certain is that if that list is built Nano Malefico would come first, followed somewhat distantly by Slick Willie. Of course Hilary would not qualify because she was never head of state, and has had very few girl friends for all we know. But seriously an encyclopedia should not include these types of things. Ode+Joy (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT and to what end? List of longest-living Olympians? List of longest-living millionaires? List of longest-living artists? List of longest-living zoo animals? List of longest-living members of Al-Queda? I mean, I'm genuinely asking, to what end? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can see Your point, but I politely disagree. You are asking: "to what end?" Of course, this is just my opinion, but I think the fine line would be "if all subjects on the list are notable according to the Wiki standards". For example, all Olympic competitors would be notable and I don't see a problem with such a list being created on the Wikipedia (it already exists here: [10] ). On the other hand, millionaires, artists, terrorists/guerilla fighters are not notable by default and those lists would be useful only in specific cases, such as oldest Olympians, Academy Award winners, Nobel prize winners, etc. Contrary to articles such as "oldest surviving [insert]", lists like this would never become empty. StjepanHR (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, those lists were examples. But by your logic then we need to create List of longest-living Olympians, List of longest-living Academy Award winners, List of longest-living Nobel prize winners, etc. I'm using WP:NOT as my base for rationale here, to delete this list. Again, where do we draw the line? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PerpetuityGrat: We draw the line through these lists, and cross them out. I looked up the term junk and WP:Junk came up. It is an apt description of these lists. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - as steted in the first discussion on the proposed removal of this page, this is a topic that has enough media (and even scientific) appeal. StjepanHR (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ignoring the keeps (which, unlike what the last one claims to be, are pathetically weak), which are essentially WP:ILIKEIT (and, in the previous AfD, assertions without evidence that it meets LISTN or some other criteria), this is fundamentally unencyclopedic: it is WP:NOTSTATS trivia based on a trivial cross-categorisation of two unrelated characteristic (WP:NOTDIR), that of "state leader" and "age at death", based on a compilation which I can't seem to be able to find in anything but Wikipedia mirrors, thus also making it also WP:OR by definition as something first published on Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If for no other reason then the potential dispute over how to present Elizabeth II's entry. Assuming she lives long enough to make the list. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Longest serving yes, longest living, no. Chau Sen Cocsal Chhum is the record holder. He was the prime minister of Cambodia for two lousy months, then lived for another 46 years. What does the one have to do with the other? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is really very interesting for the reader and much work has been done on it, with credible sources validating the quoted ages. The existence of the page helps study on political leaders and can serve as a redirection page for the visitors of wikipedia to see the whole pages of these political leaders. User:Megap222
- So, it's interesting so we should keep it? Not really a solid argument. Sleeper? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A trivial cross-categorization that really has no reliable sources actually discussing the topic. There may be sources that discuss the specific ages of some of the individual members, but there are none that actually demonstrate why the overall topic of how long state leaders live is notable. Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:LISTN, is a non-notable cross-categorisation and WP:TRIVIA. Not one source in the article, a WP:BEFORE doesn't reveal anything and no one in the discussion has provided anything discussing this cross-category. Ultimately this is just trying to tie together an inherently notable thing (being a state leader) with something not inherently notable (longevity). Sources do speak about the oldest current state leaders or state leaders who were remarkably elderly while in office but not this topic. Not notable and not even interesting. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it’s clearly an endless source of fascination to gerontology obsessives for reasons they can state in only the vaguest of terms, but that’s not the point. Dronebogus (talk) 02:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these gerontological lists are interesting (to me) albeit completely unencyclopedic. But I am struggling with the interest in things like Constantine Kollias being somewhere between 70th-90th longest lived state leader. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lists of state leaders by age/keep through history Information is useful, we should preserve the data through the history for the people interested in looking up this subject even if the article isn't worth it to keep. --Thebirdlover (talk) 03:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of state leaders by age is an even worse page for WP:OR by the looks of it.Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Just on the numbers, this was overwhelmingly for keep. There were two principle policy arguments for deletion. The first is TRIVIA, but ultimately it is a matter of opiniion what counts as trivia and the majority clearly did not agree. The second rationale was NOTDIR (bullet #6). To some extent, whether or not a cross-categorisation is non-encyclopedic is also a matter of opinion, but the guideline also gives an exception unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. To demonstrate that, sources are required. One suitable source (from the Guardian) was offered in the discussion. One is a bit light, but in the absence of a strong argument that no further sources are likely to be forthcoming the NOTDIR rationale is also not strong enough to close against the majority. Note that the template of past AFDs was not posted (and this was mentioned) during the debate. It was posted by me immediately prior to the close. SpinningSpark 19:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest living state leaders[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of oldest living state leaders

Articles for deletion/List of the oldest living state leaders

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

Trivial, mundane cross-categorization between old people and living current and former heads of state, most of whom are obviously long out of office. Notability also isn’t temporary so once these people die most of them probably won’t hold any meaningful longevity record. Dronebogus (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Three reasons to keep this article, with respect to previously deleted ones:

This list will never get empty like the WW2 veterans list. As a state leader dies his place is taken by another one, so the article will last forever.
Every entry on this article is adequately sourced, demonstrating the person in question is living. Finding sources and updating articles is quite difficult, especially for foreign languages, so this list often serves as a useful tool.
The argument is of wide interest, well beyond Wikipedia community. To demonstrate it, it got coverage from The Guardian in 2018.

Regards, --Folengo (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I’m going to guess by “argument” you mean “topic”, but in any case that’d be better reasoning to keep an article on the oldest currently serving world leaders and not just any old timer who happened to have been a leader at some point. Dronebogus (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, "topic", thanks. No, the Guardian article was also about former state leaders, as it mentions Do Muoi and Babiker Awadalla. This indicates wide interest in the topic. If necessary I could find many other articles about this exact topic (retired state leaders), even from BBC outlets. I just chose the Guardian as it was the most representative from an universally respected newspaper.--79.24.120.109 (talk) 12:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, that's me above, obviously! --Folengo (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Reporter wrote an article on this very list back in 2017. Clearly a subject that attracts public interest.--Folengo (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! I can't understand why people are so keen lately to get rid of all of these lists they are interesting and timeless. The exact order will change but there will always be an oldest living state leader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:76AA:F758:586E:9DA3:4BC0:81A5 (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:INTERESTING Dronebogus (talk) 14:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really don’t think it should be deleted. I think the article should stay. A big Keep for me. The article is very interesting and I always love to check it daily. I don’t get why all the oldest living lists keep getting deleted… 99.17.5.70 (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A lot of longevity articles are winding up on the chopping block lately, regardless of their encyclopedic nature or not. Just as an article should not necessarily be kept because countless people like, enjoy, and use it, an article should also not necessarily be deleted because someone doesn't like it. Bkatcher (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom. It fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY since the article is an unencyclopedic trivial cross-categorization of age and holding political office. The article is WP:OR that has a section with possible age ranges of individuals and a section for people who may or may not be state leaders. It also fails WP:LISTN, since I was able to find no evidence independent reliable sources actully list any of these people this way. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me if I don't understand correctly, but a trivial cross-categorization would be in my opinion to cross two wiki categories and list common members. In this case the categories would be "State leaders" and... "old people"? That's not such category, and can not exist as it completely subjective matter. So actually the purpose of this list is far from trivial. Age ranges for individuals are due to the fact only birth year without month/day is sometimes available for certain individuals. The page limits to source the information found by users, we don't add anything. And there is no mistake here, nor it undermines tha page validity and correctness. Finally, the Greek Reporte article I linked above does the exact same listing we do, only it is from 2017 and most people on that list are dead, but they were listed this exact way.--Folengo (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since, as the page mentions, several of the individuals' exact birthdates are unknown, plus the talk page mentions some individuals where it's unconfirmed if they're alive or dead, there is a strong chance that the page doesn't accurately represent what it purports to.2601:241:300:B610:F1DB:CD2C:6C69:7B40 (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Invalid argument. The dubious cases are explicitly excluded from the list. Renewal6 (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that there are some dubious items might suggest that list isn't accurate, as it admits that there are other people that might rank higher, so the list saying, for example that Bill Hayden is the 99th oldest living state leader isn't certain, as Abdul Rauf al-Kasm and Than Shwe might be older. Maybe if the article was title something like "Oldest living verifiable state leaders", then that would be better. 2601:241:300:B610:A042:9EA:D2EE:3995 (talk) 02:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Once you have to tack on like 50 different adjectives to an article title it almost always becomes an arbitrarily defined mess of WP:SYNTH. Dronebogus (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I accept your objection, but I don't think it is a valid deletion argument, it rather supports Keep, but improve . The ranks in the table simply depend on the available sources and on the condition that two birthdates are uncertain, so we don't assert per original research: "Bill Hayden is the verified 99th oldest living state leader in the world." The two uncertain birthdates do not affect the encyclopedic notability of the whole article. Renewal6 (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The provided references in this article suffice to prove that reliable sources don't treat former state leaders like ordinary old people who happened to be state leaders decades ago, as the nominator suggests. Renewal6 (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've made many contributions to this list article & even held an RFC concerning one of its entries. Don't want to throw all that out the window. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- GoodDay, I respect you, but you should really know better than to cite your personal devotion to an article as a reason to keep it. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument. Dronebogus (talk) 10:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of these aren't on the List of longest-living state leaders and wouldn't fit since both list have set the list at only 100 entries. Both list are perfectly valid navigational lists. Dream Focus 10:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This list also serves as a checklist for Living People Biographies (BLP). Users go periodically through it and check the (more obscure) names to find out if they died, which is not trivial, especially for foreign languages. If you believe this is only theoretical, I'll bring you an example: former Yemeni PM Abdul Latif Dayfallah had been dead for a year (with many Arabic obituaries) with no one noticing. For a year his page reported false information (and false, as sources existed stating the opposite) he was still alive. I found out and corrected it going through this very list. I do not exclude this could happen agai, so I repeat the list can be a useful tool. --Folengo (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a directory... and to what end? List of oldest living writers? List of oldest living members of royal families? List of oldest living actors? List of oldest living criminals? List of oldest living LGBTQ activists? Reasons to keep seem focused around the interesting factor... don't think that just because things are interesting means there has to be a list on WP. It's why the List of youngest state leaders is just a redirect and not an actual list. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just not true that keep voters focus on the article as being merely interesting. Secondly, every day the youngest man in the world is born, but this fact is obviously not reported by the media as opposed to longevity-related deaths. Renewal6 (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Slippery slope argument right there, which openly constitutes a fallacy and is therefore an invalid argument. And be very careful, as List of presidents of the United States is in fact something you'd find in a directory and may be deleted too. See how fallacies are double edged weapons?--Folengo (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I’m sorry but that’s a completely… well, absurd reducto ad absurdum. WP:DIRECTORY specifically describes “Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations” as inappropriate for WP, not “anything one might find in a directory”. Dronebogus (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Folengo's comments about that being a slippery slope argument. We have articles that list Oscar, Tony and Emmy Award winners – that does not mean that will lead to articles which cover the 1000s of other minor awards which exist for acting worldwide. Simply because there is limited interest, and they're not notable unlike the bigger awards. Also, I will add that something like List of oldest actors would never be a valid nor sound article because whilst there isn't an infinite amount of actors, it's still near impossible to measure effectively. World leaders are very limited in number, and well documented – thus practical to measure. --Jkaharper (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok going to provide something counter to my comment, if we allow list like List of breweries in Indiana... something so absurdly unencyclopedic, then there should be no issue approving this. Full disclosure, I believe this list and the Indiana list really shouldn't exist, but oh well. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Wasn't this article nominated for deletion a few years ago and the consensus was to keep? Per @Folengo: because this list will continuously exist and contains reliable sources. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Unlike List of notable surviving World War II veterans, this list is very well sourced. The article attracts a lot of contributions from editors and a quick Google confirms that the topic of oldest living or oldest lived state leaders is an area of interest for both media and academia, thus I consider it encyclopaedic, and not just a "trivial thing" as someone argues above. One of the other arguments given is that their overall longevity isn't relevant to their period in office. So what? Thousands of articles exist on the basis of personal attributes and the usefulness of noting it. For example, we have List of African-American actors, List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people and List of vegetarians. What is the relationship between being a black bisexual vegetarian and being a psychologist? Dubious at best, but other aspects of peoples' lives, including their longevity are still a point of interest and notability. --Jkaharper (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Vegetarianism is a lifestyle choice usually connected to philosophical ideals, meaning it’s not as irrelevant as it initially seems. The list of LGB people is notable since the LGBTQ are a minority from birth and not just a biological stage in life most people inevitably go through; and the African American actors list, while more debatable, seems notable for similar reasons. Better comparisons would be “list of old people” or “list of old actors”. Dronebogus (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very weak argument. To me List of vegetarians seems a trivia collection about random people who casually happen to be vegetarian. It says nothing on their philosophy of life. One can be vegetarian for an infinite number of reasons, surely we can't get conclusions about someone, like: "Oh, he is vegetarian! That means he loves animals!". No, he's a vegetarian, full stop. That's all you know when reading that list. Every other thing is a mere supposition.

Also "state leader" is not a biological stage in life most people inevitably go through, you seems to suggest it is uncommon to be LGBT (by birth? What theory is this? Never mind) while it is utterly common to be state leaders. And it quite sounds ludicrous..--Folengo (talk) 12:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I’ll admit I was mostly playing devil’s advocate with the vegetarian thing, I honestly agree with you and think the information is more suited to a category. My argument was more that it’s just extremely common to eventually be old so it’s not super remarkable that lots of current and former world leaders are elderly. African Americans and LGBTQ people are also discriminated against so it’s more notable when there’s a cross-categorization of them. And yes I believe it’s generally agreed that a large part of sexual orientation and gender identity is genetic or formed very early in life, and that LGBTQ people are less common than heterosexual/cisgender people. Dronebogus (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Won't discuss further on LGBT matters, those are open questions between scholars, we are surely not qualified enough. Actually I find interesting state leaders live commonly way longer than the general population of respective states, as they usually have access to better medical care and so on. Searching on the web you will find many articles and even peer-reviewed papers on how Chinese ruling class life expectancy is almost 20 years more than Chinese general life expectancy. This is only to point out state leaders are not "common people" at all.--Folengo (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Then why not start an article on “longevity of leadership classes” or whatever and not a list that tells you none of that? Dronebogus (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: here's the previous discussion for deletion and the consensus was to keep. OP should have at least mentioned this, it seems it was completely neglected.--Folengo (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus can change, Folengo. Dronebogus (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, the nomination is legitimate. But a thing like this is not secondary and should have been pointed out immediately.--Folengo (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Normally Twinkle automatically lists whether or not this is a 2nd, 3rd etc. nomination but sometimes it doesn’t. I guess I’ll try to do that myself in such cases in the future. Dronebogus (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination's reasons to delete ("trivial, mundane...") are erroneous and not policy-based. We've already had a discussion, as ably noted by Folengo, which demonstrates that WP:BEFORE has not been followed and that WP:DELAFD applies, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Other applicable policies such as WP:ATD, WP:BITE and WP:PRESERVE also indicate that deletion is not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty sure WP:TRIVIA and WP:MILL are also applicable. And “don’t bite the newbies” means “don’t be a jerk to newcomers”, not “coddle newcomers”. Dronebogus (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pretty sure that WP:TRIVIA doesn't mean what Dronebogus thinks it means. As well as reading that, they should also read WP:BLUDGEON. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I actually meant something more like WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This article is largely just raw data with no explanation why the cross-categorization is notable. Dronebogus (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I will repeat my post from List of longest-living state leaders deletition page ([11]) - this is a topic that has enough media (and even scientific) appeal. Considering the similar lists in general, I think the fine line would be "if all subjects on the list are notable according to the Wiki standards". StjepanHR (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a lot of users are citing “it’s in the news” as evidence for keeping. But as Ode+Joy argued over on the AfD for List of longest-living state leaders, “[…] many things about state leaders are mentioned in the news. My concern is going down the trivia path. If we go that way, then how about other things mentioned n the news, e.g. number of girl friends? Would that be interesting? Encyclopedic?” Dronebogus (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ehm... bring me a Guardian or BBC article about state leaders by number of girlfriends. Good luck.--Folengo (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not our task to valuate the scientific importance of "the news". A list of state leaders by number of girlfriends would affect the privacy of the included persons in a non-encyclopedic way, even if it was discussed by reliable sources, thus the comparison with this article is inappropriate. Renewal6 (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep In my humble opinion, lists are important part of what makes wikipedia, wikipedia. Moguy (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Your personal opinion is perfectly fine, but saying what basically amounts to “it’s good because it just is” really isn’t a great argument for keeping this article. Dronebogus (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed, you want to keep it because it makes WP WP... is there a real policy or guideline you can refer to for your reason to keep it? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My line of thought is generally in line with what was said during the previous deletion nomination, not so much during this one, but the article is not without issues. I think the other article and this one would be better if merged and possibly reduced a bit and have a stronger stance on some of these questionable entries. --Killuminator (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not an argument, just a worthless assertion such as "Keep. Essential." Renewal6 (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Short doesn’t equal meaningless. Wikipedia isn’t a place for trivia, but you don’t have to write that out to get your point across. Dronebogus (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though it is overall trivial, it is still a notable subject. TheRollBoss001 (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That’s kind of an oxymoron. Trivial information generally is not notable due to its arbitrary, meaningless nature. Dronebogus (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to WP:TRIVIA as well as the inherent WP:V issues with this kind of cross-categorisation. I am also extremely dubious about list articles that require lengthy introductions giving extensive arbitrary rules for inclusion in the list. I believe this criteria demonstrates it fails WP:LISTN and stumbles into WP:OR. Why stop at 100 people? Why not go all the way up to 200? Or why not stop at 50? Surely no sources discuss Bill Hayden as being one of the world's oldest heads of state (as there are 98 ahead of him). This cut-off is just at the whims of editors not backed up by sources. Heads of government, state and de facto leaders are all thrown in together- why? Do any sources give this kind of definition for this category? Was Bill Hayden even head of state? What qualifies as "significant international recognition"? I can see Tang Fei of Taiwan is on this list. This list with its quite random criteria for inclusion is just WP:SYNTH and WP:INTERESTING. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Again. Why should the mere assertion that this article contains trivial content be more convincing than the assertion that it contains essential content?
- I am convinced that the inclusion criteria for this article are more or less self-evident, I wasn't able to find "extensive arbitrary rules" in conflict with WP:LISTN.
- The rankings in the table depend on the available sources, not on WP:OR.
- In many countries, the head of state and the head of government are one and the same person. Subsuming them is thus not arbitrary WP:SYNTH, but perfectly reasonable.
- Neither the political status of Taiwan nor the Australian head of state dispute do affect the encyclopedic notability in any way. Why do you think an AfD discussion on this article is the proper place to discuss these topics? Renewal6 (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The criteria for inclusion are arbitrary, e.g. "Leaders are not included if no reliable secondary sources have confirmed that the leader is alive within the last 10 years." Also, why are both current and former leaders lumped together? Lists of state leaders by age has the top 10 currently in office, but also contains various other lists that are just as bad as this one. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – must be news to you then that bios of individuals aged 90+ are moved to the Possibly Living People category if no sources from the last 10 years confirm that they're living. That's not "arbitrary criteria". That's standard enforcement of Wiki policy. Also, why shouldn't both current and former be included together? It would be an incomplete list and not accurately reflect the name of the article if you chose either/or. If someone is seeking information on who the oldest living state leaders are, they may be interested in current serving, formerly serving or both collectively. The colour-coding in the tables perfectly distinguishes former from current, so I don't even understand why you think this is an issue at all. --Jkaharper (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. That may be a Wikipedia category "policy", but that's got nothing to do with this list. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain your concrete objection to this inclusion criterion. In your opinion, Wikipedia policies are arbitrary and can be ignored? Renewal6 (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this "policy"? Even if it did exist, which I strongly doubt, it would only apply to categories, not lists. Apples, meet oranges. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Possibly living people. Your strong doubt doesn't seem to be based on evidence. Secondly, you did not explain anything. Please refrain from assuming arbitrariness without having previously taken into consideration improvability as per WP:AGF. Renewal6 (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You call text on a maintenance category page "evidence"? Try reading WP:POLICY. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Wikipedia policies that interfere with the retention of lists like this one are bad ideas and should be subjected to constant criticism until they are changed. 96.250.80.27 (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Yes it definitely more trivia based but this article 100% should be kept just for reasons in the article and it's fascinating sometimes to see whose living, whose dead and whose the oldest --ThatBaileyLad (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- With all respect, that argument makes absolutely no sense. It just sounds like you’re rambling. Dronebogus (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, that's my opinion if you don't like it too bad lol. --ThatBaileyLad (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well my opinion may not matter, but if it fails to impress the closing admin then their opinion will certainly matter. Dronebogus (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This will likely close as no consensus but if we could get every trivial list deleted then it would be worth it. desmay (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Desmay if you think it’s trivial garbage why not just vote delete? Dronebogus (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am swayed by the arguments that this list will not expire and is well sourced, so I don't believe it fails notability. I also do not think it is trivial, which may be the real issue here. I don't think there is an objective, set way to say what is trivial and what is not. The closest you can get is discussions based on consensus like this one. Rhino131 (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, this might be interesting, and there might be reliable sources for the age of X and Y leader; or for the trivia of which one is the oldest. However, WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTDIR are both very good reasons to delete this: not only is this not information which goes in an encyclopedia (which is not a statistical database, but a summary of knowledge); but it is also exactly the opposite of a "summary of knowledge", since it doesn't summarise any knowledge, it just makes a trivial cross-categorisation based on two entirely unrelated characteristics ("state leaders" and "age" - the impact of either on the other is pretty much non-existent). In addition, many editors above note serious issues of WP:OR, either in the way this list was compiled or on the fact that some of the information is of dubious verifiability (i.e. it does not provide useful and accurate information to the reader). The arguments to keep, on the other hand, are entirely unpersuasive and consist mostly of personal opinion ("this is interesting") or special pleading/begging for mercy ("don't throw this out of the window"; "other longevity articles are being deleted, keep this one, please!!", ...) or pointing to the fact this was already discussed (yes, lots of things were already discussed. If nobody ever revisited those, we'd still be in the stone age, which seems an apt metaphor for the act of stonewalling). The reliable sources in the article are only useful to support that X person included in the list was living as of date Y, so they're not useful for supporting the notion that this is actually a notable topic (and even if it possibly was, the fact that this is such an obvious example of WP:NOT would still be a strong argument to get rid of this). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

- You are basically saying that you don't like the provided sources ("trivia of which one is the oldest"). Is that a valid deletion argument?
- The fact that this list is limited to 100 entries suffices to refute your objection that no knowledge is summarized here.
- In which way does "the fact that some of the information is of dubious verifiability" affect the encylopedic value of the whole article? Every Wikipedia article is more or less of dubious verifiability, as it can "only" depend on the available sources.
- The reliable sources in the article are useful at showing that there's media coverage about former state leaders in their 80s and 90s and beyond, long after they left their office, thus confirming that being a state leader remains a defining trait, the opposite of a "trivial cross-categorization". They are not just random alive-confirmations.
- Your personal opinion that longevity and statesmanship are "entirely unrelated" is obviously neither shared by many sources nor by the majority of the voters at this AfD discussion.
- Why should it not be appropriate to point out to the reader that this topic was already discussed? A consensus can always change, but should only change, if new arguments are provided. The arguments in the previous AfD discussion were not just essentially the same (trivia, table rankings based on WP:OR), they are even weakened by the deletion discussion on List of longest-living state leaders, as it was argued that the existence of the latter article would make this list here redundant.
- Finally, I totally disagree with your evaluation that the keep voters in general focus on the addressed topics (personal opinion, etc.). Renewal6 (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - How can you "totally disagree?" Half of the keeps for this article are in fact focused on personal opinion and WP:ILIKEIT. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with you. That is why I wrote "in general". Renewal6 (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) No. 2: the fact that the list is limited to some number of entries does not mean that it actually summarises something, or that what it summarises is knowledge, as opposed to merely being a collection of statistical information.; No. 3: inaccurate information should not be presented to the reader if it can be helped; and this list, due to its very nature, is not prone to being accurate and is a drain to maintain; No. 4 and 5: that state leaders get coverage when they are old does not mean that their age is a relevant part of their notability. The number of persons that are old and that get no coverage clearly shows that the reason old state leaders are getting covered is not because of their age but because of their status as former state leaders, a status which is entirely independent of them being alive. It is not my "personal opinion": there is no link between the fact of being a state leader and one's age. Queen Elizabeth II is state leader and is 95 yrs old; Louis XIV was state leader from the age of 5; Joe Biden has been state leader from the age of 78; Emmanuel Macron has been state leader from the age of 40. There is clearly no relation between "age" and "being a state leader". No. 6 pointing out that something similar has been already discussed is ok, but that is not an argument for or against deleting this. No. 7 You're free to disagree as much as you want, but comments like "I can't understand why people are so keen lately to get rid of all of these lists they are interesting and timeless." and "I've made many contributions to this list article & even held an RFC concerning one of its entries. Don't want to throw all that out the window." are self explanatory. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Renewal6: I disagree, and I've expanded on this in the collapsed section above. However, what is more important here is that you're clearly bludgeoning the process, and I'm going to strongly suggest that this has to stop. People have seen your arguments, re-stating them 50 different times is not going to make them any more convincing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Each of your two comments are more extensive than my reply [View history]. Thus, I leave it to the intelligent reader to assess who's really bludgeoning the process. Renewal6 (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being long-winded when answering a comment under one's own is not bludgeon. Challenging every single person who has argued in favour of deletion since one first participated in the AfD, on the other hand... But whatever, if you can drop the stick I don't particularly care enough about this to engage further. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bludgeoning has been on both sides, exactly as vague or puerile arguments. I wouldn't reduce all the keep arguments to mere whining, some good points have been brought by various posters. Renewal actually answered some points you raised, I don't think that's hostile attitude. Re the "consensus change" thing I agree with him: no further arguments for deletion have been presented this time in respect to rthe previous discussion. This could set a bad precedent, as articles could be periodically nominated until the desired outcome is obtained. Slippery slope? Maybe, maybe not. Anyway I repeat the fact that The Guardian dedicated an article to this very team shows it is much more than a "trivial cross-categorization". Regards, --Folengo (talk) 05:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - By “team” I’m assuming you either meant “term” or “group” since I don’t think there’s a League of Geriatric Leaders out there. Dronebogus (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Dronebogus: Meaningless reply that does not strengthen the arguments put forward in favour of delete. This discussion page already contains 22 comments from your side, far more than any other editor. Renewal6 (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I wasn’t trying to, I was just trying to correct someone’s vocabulary. Dronebogus (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: What about List of the oldest living people? No one questions its notability. List of living centenarians? Clearly notable. List of the oldest living state leaders? Notable as well. The first concerns the oldest living, period. The second is the oldest living, with Wikipedia articles and known independent of longevity. The third is the oldest living who have ruled a country during some point in their lifetimes. You say that notability is not temporary? Well, every time someone on here dies, a younger leader steps in to take his/her place. How about that for "not temporary?" 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE is not a particularly good argument, especially when your sole argument for this is a mere assertion that "its clearly notable"; which does not address the other concerns. "oldest living who have ruled a country during some point in their lifetimes" further shows how the two characteristics are indeed certainly not correlated. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm… you do realize WP:OSE is on a page called “arguments to avoid during AfD”, right? Dronebogus (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - And Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments says these "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. In my argument, I presented two other notable articles about oldest living people. Therefore, Dronebogus it is valid. I presented two very similar articles that would almost certainly survive AfD if nominated, as I said above. This is simply a subgroup of List of the oldest living people. And let me say that I've nominated three longevity articles for deletion, and succeeded on two, so I know what's notable and what isn't. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it’s “just a subgroup of list oldest living people” then it’s a WP:FORK and should be deleted. Dronebogus (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Beside that, Dronebogus, replying to every single comment against your opinion is the definition of bludgeoning the process.--Folengo (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have not replied to every single comment. Dronebogus (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually it's not a fork, Dronebogus. It's a subarticle, and subarticles are not forks (see WP:SUBARTICLE). 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Trivial, arbitrary cross-categorization that fails WP:NOT. The arguments that there are sources verifying the information isn't very convincing because they are pretty much all just sources confirming the individual ages of specific individuals on the list, and not that actually discuss the overall topic of "Oldest Living State Leaders", which means that this fails WP:LISTN. Nearly all of the "Keep" votes above are based on WP:ITSUSEFUL arguments, which are not policy based arguments. Rorshacma (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I linked at least two articles from reputable newspapers that "discuss the overall topic of "Oldest Living State Leaders". Did you miss them?--Folengo (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Former Greek prime minister Konstantinos Mitsotakis is the fourth oldest living state leader, according to Wikipedia." ([12]) is not an acceptable source either for reliability (since it is clearly WP:CIRCULAR) or for notability. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian piece is on several current world leaders who are in their 80's and 90's, not all current and former world leaders, which is what this list is about. Aside from mentioning two specific individuals who are no longer in office that are over 100, it does not discuss the actual topic of this list. It could be a source used for, say Lists of state leaders by age, but doesn't cover the actual breadth of what this specific list is supposed to be about. The problems with the second article were already explained by RandomCanadian above - its an article that very specifically states it was using Wikipedia as its source, making it a WP:CIRCULAR source. Rorshacma (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The Guardian journalist actually asked himself "Who are the oldest living state leaders?" and found Do Muoi and Babiker Awadalla as an answer. That's two names, here there are 100, but the principle is exactly the same. Re The Greek Reporter, the article may be circular but it shows interest from an important journal in this very article.--Folengo (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither of those claims actually have anything to do with the article failing WP:LISTN. An article mentioning two specific names out of the 100 that this article is about is not a discussion of the "grouping or set in general", and it doesn't matter why the Greek Reporter used Wikipedia as a source - it being a WP:CIRCULAR source means it is completely invalid as a reliable source per WP:V. Rorshacma (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, so an article entitled "World leaders in their 80s and 90s – from Akihito to Malaysia's new PM" is NOT aboyt "World leaders in their 80s and 90s". I say it is completely on this matter and that's pretty much dried and cut. Only things you could reply to this is "Point taken". Any other argument seems utterly out of place.--Folengo (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful list that won't expire.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Many articles can be construed as useful. Why not include unlimited information, lists and categories because they're useful?^[sarcasm] This is an encyclopedia, not a website to include "useful" information. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, so you're saying we should only have articles that aren't useful or contain no information?^[sarcasm] Shouldn't an encyclopedic article have both? Sometimes it seems like people are justifying deletion because people say the information is useful, interesting, and frequently consulted. Bkatcher (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I'm saying that the sole reason to keep an article, because it's a "useful list" in this case, is wholly inadequate. I think you assumed too much with your bullet. But nonetheless, most of the keeps are based on what you called out: utility, interesting, etc, not the deletes. The keeps have totally ignored WP:UTIL and WP:INTERESTING, and the user who we've both replied to here should really check out WP:USEFUL. --13:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
      - "The keeps have totally[sic!] ignored WP:UTIL and WP:INTERESTING". Blatant exaggeration. Many delete voters should check out WP:USELESS ("Trivia.") and WP:RUBBISH ("if you think it’s trivial garbage why not just vote delete?"). Nota bene: It's not bludgeoning to reply to a comment that clearly addressed all keep voters. Renewal6 (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Consensus at AFD recently has overwhelmingly supported not utilizing lists of "living..."; largely because such lists are constantly changing as people age and die and maintaining accuracy and verifiability is a difficult and on-going task. Many editors consider such lists not encyclopedic (because they are inherently unstable) and in contradiction to policy at WP:LISTN. I share that view which I consider now to be the standard modus operandi/precedent at AFD within the application of NLIST in these type of list discussions.4meter4 (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You simply copy-pasted your comment from WP:Articles for deletion/List of longest-living United States senators. Thus, you're basically ignoring all the arguments put forward at this discussion by lumping together all lists of living people. Renewal6 (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I did because it is a strong consistent policy based rationale that is convincing when it comes to approaching list articles about living people in relation to WP:NLIST. I did not ignore the comments made here, I just don’t find them convincing in relation to policy. Being consistent is a good thing.4meter4 (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Consistency based on false assumptions may be better than inconsistency, but it's still a bad thing. Renewal6 (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I haven’t made any false assumptions. Might I suggest you read WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLE. Your attitude towards me and other editors who have different opinions than you at this discussion is overly hostile, and could potentially intimidate editors with other views from commenting here. In other words, calm it down and stop badgering every person who has an opposing opinion or an admin may be needed to step in order to protect the integrity of this AFD. 4meter4 (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I protected the integrity of this AfD discussion by pointing out to the reader that you had inserted an unlabelled copy and paste comment. Considering your assumptions (every list of living people should be deleted because of recent overwhelming consensus at some discussions; consistency is a good thing independent of the circumstances) to be false, is obviously neither hostile attitude nor a violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:BATTLE. In which way should my arguments be more "intimidating" than your appeal to an apparent overwhelming consensus? Renewal6 (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I would consider your response just now continuing in the vein of incivility and battleground behavior. I shouldn’t have to acknowledge a copy paste when it’s my own words from another discussion that I am reusing. Making a commonly made argument in identical language across nominations is a common place thing to do at AFD. Making an issue out of it is frankly a bad faith move on your part. Regardless, I’ve participated or observed about a dozen of these living people list AFDs recently, all resulting in deletion with the rationale I gave above so I disagree that I am making a false assertion on recent precedent.4meter4 (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        If you think it's battleground behaviour to defend myself against your strong accusations, I'm genuinely convinced that the reader won't benefit from a further discussion between us two on this topic. Hence, I suggest we both agree to disagree and stop it at this point. Renewal6 (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I'm already horrified to see that we have lost the List of longest-living state leaders. I don't know why Dronebogus has it in for those who love longevity-based lists (I was among the substantial fraction of supporters of the oldest-House-member list recently) but the more of them Wikipedia has the better off it is! 96.250.80.27 (talk) 04:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It’s nothing personal, I just happen to see lists that aren’t in line with policy and nominate them for deletion because Wikipedia has to maintain some kind of standards lest it devolve into an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information or otherwise something other than an encyclopedia. You’re welcome to start your own gerontology wiki on a site like Fandom if you never want the possibility of this happening. Dronebogus (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. As Andrew and others noted above, the reasons proposed for deletion are not policy and indicate neglect of WP:BEFORE. The page should be kept because WP:5P, WP:LISTN, WP:PRESERVE, WP:NOTE, WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC, WP:CAT, among others. Thus, on principal, that means it does not pass WP:DP and should never have been directly sent to AfD. Instead, the correct procedure (re: WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM) would be to either fix the problem yourself (WP:BEBOLD) or simply tag the areas that need improvement so that other editors can help fix them.

As an aside, the same deletionists used this exact page's existence t argue for the deltion of the list of longest-serving non-royal leaders-- talk about circular! So when they come down to the last list on WP, they will axe it simply because there are no other lists on WP. This aggression is reminiscent of the portal controversy last year, where suddenly any portal could be guillotined simply because WP:IDONTLIKE. Next time, please do due diligence and WP:BEFORE first. -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and to rebut a few specific points:

They say it fails WP:LISTN just because there is no outside source where the entire list can be found. In fact, if such an outside article existed, this list would violate WP:PLAGFORM. So you're presenting a catch-22 by saying the information cannot be found in a single source elsewhere. Moreover, not only is the information verifiable through each link, there are several outside sources that are indeed referenced.

They say it's WP:OR and WP:SYN -- the article does not reach any conclusions, so by definition cannot be WP:SYN or WP:OR

WP:NOT -- since when are lists outlawed in an encyclopedia? In fact, we should be encouraging people to present data in more digestible ways than mere text these days. If people are willing to maintain a list like this, it absolutely is WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC. I mean, if a list of world leaders fails WP:NOTE then what hope for any other article on WP? -Tiredmeliorist (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- The paradoxical thing is that, in respect to the last AfD, no further argument for deletion was brought, whereas there are new arguments for keeping the page, mainly an article from the Guardian (I repeat, The Guardian!) on this very matter. So quite nonsensical discussion going on right here, with the pro-deletion side making everything to make the other side look bad and naive, due to a lot of inexperienced replies mainly by unregistered users. But solid arguments in favour of keeping were brought forward.--Folengo (talk) 07:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's the BBC article I was speaking about, reported by Khaosod as I can't find the original page. Another article on oldest living state leaders, which focuses on late Burmese PM Tun Tin. Yet another proof of interest in this "futile, trivial" topic.--Folengo (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you can cite highly respected news sources over and over, ~~and you, Tiredmeliorist et al can repeatedly make Ad Hominem attacks accusing delete voters of being biters/haters,~~ but the point is that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of meaningless temporary trivia and statistics and that will situationally trump the golden rules of verifiability and coverage by reliable sources. You could find a Guardian article about “what are the top Indian restaurants in Britain in 2021?” but that wouldn’t justify an article called “list of current most popular restaurants specialized in Indian cuisine in the UK”. Dronebogus (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "Attacking" the arguments of the deletionists at this page is not an ad-hominem-attack. The assertion "Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of meaningless temporary trivia and statistics" is worthless, as you did not provide an argument why this article should be "a collection of meaningless temporary trivia and statistics". If you think state leaders and the top Indian restaurants in Britain in 2021 are equally notable, it's obviously you that doesn't seem to understand what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Renewal6 (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~It’s ad hominem because you’re repeatedly citing WP:IDONTLIKEIT when most delete voters are trying to provide actual arguments, therefore assuming bad faith~~. I don’t think they’re equally notable. The problem is that the age of a leader, especially a former leader, is trivia since it has nothing to do with their leadership. Per Clarityfiend on the “longest living state leaders” AfD: “Chau Sen Cocsal Chhum is the record holder. He was the prime minister of Cambodia for two lousy months, then lived for another 46 years. What does the one have to do with the other?”. The fact that they’re currently living is what makes it temporary, since their longevity is generally only notable when put in that context and typically will not be notable once they die— guessing about whether or not it might end up being so is WP:CRYSTAL. Dronebogus (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Folengo also made the accusation that “[…]the pro-deletion side [is] making everything to make the other side look bad and naive”, an ad hominem attack that is also implying an assumption of bad faith. Dronebogus (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Disagreeing on the basis of arguments within the limits of this discussion topic has nothing to do with assuming bad faith. The delete side repeatedly cited WP:INTERESTING and lumped together all keep voters, that's not a personal attack either. Secondly, your argument that the longevity of, e.g., Queen Elizabeth will be a non-notable topic after her death is entirely unconvincing. Renewal6 (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well I did say “generally”. Dronebogus (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you guys both need to learn what an ad hominem attack actually is. No one has engaged in ad hominem attacks here, so please stop using that term or trying to debase another editor by invoking that term. Both of you should stop this. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - You’re right. Dronebogus (talk) 05:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Various points to reply at.
)There are no personal attacks here. It is just a way to make the other side look bad as I said before. You, Dronebogus, actually were warned for this. This time it is not even debatable there are no personal attacks. We all agree on this. Plus, it is paradoxical you say the "keep" side made personal attacks because they said the "delete" side insisted on WP:IDONTLIKEIT policies when actually the same "delete" side spent half discussion dispelling the keep comments as WP:ILIKEIT. Not consistent at all, but I guess you have retracted it now.
)Regarding the sources I brought forward, first you (as the delete side in general, this is not a personal attack) first complain there are no reputable sources on this topic, so it is baseless Gerontology trivia, then when those sources are brought forward, you go "I don't care about those sources! They could write anything they like!". Not consistent at all! And also thinking Guardian or BBC could deliberately dedicate pages to futile topics would accuse them to be non reliable sources or collections of trivia. Which obviously is not the case.
)Tiredmeliorist comment was based on policies, long and articulated. What you did reply to him was he was making "personal attacks" which really leaves me perplexed and once again seems a cheap reply. That comment has not been addressed, like many others on the keep side here. Just pointin this out. The whole "personal attack" thing this time was a big own goal, but I think you already realized and regretted it.--Folengo (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I get your legitimate points, but would prefer you didn’t bludgeon me with the process for things I’ve already retracted. Dronebogus (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That diff link also doesn’t exactly make you look good, considering you were being blatantly uncivil and I’ve already explained to the warning editor that I just overreacted, which you can see at the bottom of User talk:Jclemens/Archive 14. Dronebogus (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Well sourced and useful. Nwhyte (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:USEFUL and maybe explain why it’s even useful. Dronebogus (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The problem with this deletion nomination is that it is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the rationales for deletion have failed to provide any evidence nor a strong argument on how this list is actually unencyclopedic or violates policies/guidelines. Using this same deletion rationale, every other list article of this same nature, like List of presidents of the United States by age (and every equivalent article for other world leaders), should also be deleted. And the whole invoking WP:NOTTRIVIA is also extremely petulant considering the massive amount of sourcing (108 references) that is being used as the basis for this article. This is not just one of those list articles that someone just one day created because it floated their boat, this list is backed by tons of verifiable sources and is not just hundreds of paragraphs of one's own original research. If one is going to nominate an article for deletion because it actually goes against what Wikipedia is about or violates policies/guidelines to where deletion is the only option (issues that can not be fixed by editing, by all means, nominate for deletion, but just because one does not like something or just because something does not float ones boat, does not mean nominate it for deletion and abuse the deletion process.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF isn’t a good argument when half of those “list of leaders by age” lists actually have been cut (though now I assume you’re probably going to contest every single one at deletion review). Dronebogus (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Dronebogus: Just trying to change people's minds with your comments is borderline WP:AADD 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was thinking the same thing Dronebogus. You've said your piece; let others say theirs. You don't always have to have the last word. Bkatcher (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well sourced, and in my opinion the notability of the topic is testified by its coverage in several WP:RS per Felango and others. Vanteloop (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Folengo and Vanteloop. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ehm... it's Folengo.--Folengo (talk) 06:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ooops, fixed. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I like this article very much, it may be trivial, but for someone who is interested in (world) politics, this is a great page. Picsovina (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Lagahit[edit]

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

He has appeared only as a minor roles in a number of series and films. His non-major role in Squid Game couldn't make him notable. So, he doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Htanaungg (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As far as I'm aware, all of his roles in South Korean dramas are minor non-importance role, with no significant to the drama's storyline. Same for his appearance in Squid Game. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly sourced, the reference just show his appearance on Squid Game. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks evidence of a significant role. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some sources are either unreliable or just trivial (made probably just for the sake of Pinoy pride). —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nom is correct. Doesn't pass WP:NACTOR. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only minor roles in Korean dramas so far.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 13:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 07:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --ERAMnc 01:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. No significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nomination. I'm happy to reconsider if extra sources are found. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches are finding no real in-depth coverage of the organization itself. Barring something better, it fails WP:NORG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NORG. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Movement for a People's Party[edit]

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

Seems of negligible importance, with lack of significant third-party coverage available from a web search. SecretName101 (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Unlike the Yang gang party, this one has had quite significant coverage over the span of several months. Even a trip down recent Google news articles shows independent coverage. Curbon7 (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Curbon7: What search queries are you using? "Movement for a People's Party" hardly turns up any results about this party on either Google or Bing. SecretName101 (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- My main concern is that internet searches showed little coverage on this party. If I am wrong, and their is more broad coverage than I could find, than I am fine with retaining it. SecretName101 (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV of the subject. Multi7001 (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Same reasons as Curbon7 saying. Also the Party's Florida chapter is the first one to achieve ballot access. As seen here in this link. Chad The Goatman (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: More than enough in-depth sources to pass WP:ORG. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per everyone above. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per all above. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per all above. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough in-depth sources for establishing notability, passes WP:ORG.Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reluctantly. This article has always smacked of excited boosterism and overeager editing to make it seem bigger or further advanced than it was/is, but it appears to have actual coverage and hasn't just evaporated as I expected it would a couple of years ago. There's too much reliance on primary sources (MPP website), but I have to admit there appears to be enough other coverage to keep the article. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 06:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Chad The Goatman stated, because the party has officially attained ballot access in at least one state, there is enough of a reason to keep this article. Mannysoloway (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I cant see any problem with the article to be deleted·Misasory (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article suffers from a dearth of sources, which tracks with the dearth of Google search results. Right now, the works cited page is comprised predominantly of the MPP's own website (with many other sources being organizers' platforms), and Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be based primarily on primary sources. JebtheTree (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Your second sentence is irrelevant, as deletion is not clean-up. If sources exist, even if not used in the article, they are still valid for the establishment of notability. Curbon7 (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Burping. There is clear consensus that the topic should not have a standalone article. Consensus has not been reached on whether a redirect is reasonable, so someone may nominate it for RfD if so inclined. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wet burp[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an entertaining read, but alas not a topic warranting an article separate to burp. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a dictionary. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 09:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, possibly partially merge, to Burping. If well sourced, the phenomenon could be covered there as a WP:ATD. Sandstein 14:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Burp Belch. i do not agree with the WP:NOTDICT delete rationale when something can be supported with research, or given historical context or in this case medical research - saying all that, there is room in the target article for a selective merge or a WP:CHEAP redirect like in the case of Belch. Lightburst (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge agree with the merge as described above Oaktree b (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rexh17 (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Environmental movement. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental revolution[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not sure what to do with this Neologism -- its not really notable, as far as I can tell -- its not a current thing. It feels like it probably should be redirected somewhere, or nuked, or turned into a DAB page pointing at the different systems or ideas that could be indicitive of an environmental revolution. Sadads (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Sadads (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first sentence "The Environmental Revolution or Green Revolution is the ongoing process of switching from pollution-causing and climate-changing technology to efficient and clean technology" points to the fact that it is current and it is important. There is much evidence that unless we do make this shift, human life will become seriously bad or cease to exist. Note, I do not vote for Green Parties! --Bduke (talk) 02:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Bduke -- that their is a change in technologies doesn't mean that the concept itself is notable. It could be referring to any number of topics including for example, something like the energy transition, a green economy, the tactics of extinction rebellion, etc -- every source I am reading both on and off wiki uses the term "environmental revolution" in different ways -- some political, some economic. These are not the same concept, but rather rhetoric WP:Neologisms that are being applied to things. I edit in environmental topics almost exclusively, and I don't recognize the concept at all -- that is why I am suggesting that maybe we want to turn this into a redirect or a DAB page -- its a reasonable search term, but not a singular notable concept, Sadads (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig or redirect The cites are all quite old so perhaps this is a term which was coined but never really caught on? I might change my mind if more recent cites were added. By the way Bduke as you don't vote Green it seems you have no COI so could you possibly consider my edit request at Talk:Green Party (Turkey)? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While coined in the 1970s (see Prince Philip's The Environmental Revolution: Speeches on Conservation) the term is not dead, as a search in Google Books shows, for example, Spowers (2003) Rising Tides: A History of the Environmental Revolution and Visions for an Ecological Age; Suzuki, ‎Ueta, ‎& Mori (2012) Global Environmental Security: From Protection to Prevention; and Winston & Mintu-Wimsatt (2013) Environmental Marketing: Strategies, Practice, Theory, and Research. That does not mean that the article doesn't need work. For example the Green Revolution is generally regarded as distinct sub-part of the Environmental Revolution and both are part of the Environmental movement. Certainly some, including editors of this article, have conflated the concepts. There is much to be said for a clear statement of scope in the lead paragraph, which this article lacked at the time of this AfD. The "environmental revolution" seemed to be concerned with technology and social mores. Authors speak about the four waves of the "environmental revolution", and that might be a good way to structure the content of this article. --Bejnar (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at these works, all I am seeing is a turn of phrase being used by a handful of scholars for rhetorical effect on distinct and different works and spaces-- one refers to the window of time around Rachel Carson, one is focused on climate action, one is a series of speeches not commented on by anyone else in any serious way -- and most of them are pointing at different points in the history of the development of the environmental movement. It feels like a redirect to environmental movement might be more appropriate than anything else, based on the case you are making Sadads (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also @Bejnar the Green revolution is certainly not part of the environmental movement or the emergence of ecological thinking. Its a neoliberal capitalist system that exported a bunch of highly flawed agricultural practices to other parts of the world, wrecking havoc on ecoystems. The main value of the green revolution for most contexts was a more steady flow of grains in diets, while pushing a lot of farmers off their land, decreasing the quality of farmed food and creating a dependence on fossil fuels for additives such as pesticides and fertilizers-- you should read: Mann, Charles C. (January 2018). The Wizard and the Prophet: Two Remarkable Scientists and Their Dueling Visions to Shape Tomorrow's World. New York: Knopf. ISBN 978-0-307-96169-3. -- if you are interested in the distinction, Sadads (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For example, at first this article looks like it would be a good argument for the inclusion of the term, and then its never defined -- and the authors point to a bunch of other works that look at other well defined revolutions but never points to a work about the environmental revolution. Or for example, this article points at a Mexican version of such an environmental revolution, but its only documenting the dramatic rise of an environmental movement in Mexico in regulatory environments. I think the term originates in the Max Nicholson book: https://books.google.com.uy/books?id=2hmveYPsyEEC&q=%22environmental+revolution+%22&dq=%22environmental+revolution+%22&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y -- but future references rarely return back to that origin or concept as the definition. The more I research this, the more I am thinking that this is a neologism-focused disambiguation page, with potential room for developing an article on the Nicholson book, Sadads (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to environmentalism ? (not sure if these are exactly the same concepts) Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's clear from google books that the term is widely used and it therefore passes WP:SIGCOV. However, it's not a term used consistently and it seems to evolve along with current developments of the environmental movement. I am not convinced, given the volume of sources using the term, that an article isn't possible here. On the other hand, I am not convinced that an article is possible without WP:Original synthesis. Honestly, this would be a great topic for an academic to tackle and write on (i.e. a history of the use of the term "environmental revolution") as there is plenty of literature to inform a book/thesis. Lacking sources with perspective on the term from author to author, perhaps a redirect to environmental movement is the best solution. 4meter4 (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the above, I think at the miniumum, an article discussing the use of the term would be helpful for the user - but either way, its a term that has been used, with plenty of sources. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - If there's the least danger that a Wikipedia article might be a neologism, we need to identify a number of reliable sources that each clearly use the term the same way that the article lead does; the best practice is to use footnotes giving quotes from our sources allowing the reader to easily check the usage. This is clearly not possible for the article as it stands, since it misidentifies what is understood by the green revolution, namely the research-driven boost in agricultural yields in the 60s/70s. In my experience, these kinds of issues with what an article is about rarely get solved during AfD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to environmental movement. The fact that the phrase "environmental revolution" has been used a bunch of times doesn't seem relevant to me, if there's no meaningful distinction between a "revolution" and a "movement" oriented toward the same goal and composed of the same people. It seems like an artifact of phrasing. To give a concrete example of what I mean here, it would be easy to find sources that mentioned "Scottish independence advocates", "Scottish independence proponents", "Scottish independence supporters", "Scottish independence activists", et cetera; this doesn't mean that these are all distinct topics, or that Scottish independence is incapable of covering them all. Indeed, as has been pointed out above, it would border on WP:SYNTH by implying that a "proponent" and a "supporter" are two meaningfully separate things; in this case, it's not clear to me that people consider the "environmental revolution" to be something distinct from the "environmental movement". jp×g 01:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to environmental movement. Even then, I'd suggest it be protected so that this sort of synthesis is discouraged from being resurrected. There are, as pointed out above, reliable sources that use the term. But few describe it in detail, and fewer still describe it consistently. The reality is that the very idea that there is some broad and consistent consensus about the meaning of these two words put together is original research. The idea that this is some form of recognised anthropological milestone (akin to the Industrial Revolution or the Digital Revolution, as the article claims) is not supported by reliable sources. The article goes downhill from there, patching together disparate ideas in an unconvincing synthetic hodge-podge that lurches wildly from the Sierra Club to green technology, suggesting a cogent connection between ideas that appears nowhere but here on Wikipedia (which is why those sections are largely unsourced). St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to environmental movement for all the excellent reasons given above. PianoDan (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Winchester. ✗plicit 06:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Winchester Student Union[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Kept in 2007, but I am unable to find independent, secondary sourcing to meet ORG. A BEFORE turns up sources close to the university and the student union president speaking, but nothing in depth. The controversy and attention around the Greta Thunberg statue was a blip and is more about the university than the student union. Star Mississippi 13:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 13:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 13:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 13:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 22:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into University of Winchester as non notable; no substantial third party references. Waggers TALK 14:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into University of Winchester. I agree with the nomination. I spent a couple hours and found no independent sources which cover the subject in any substantial depth. Krillzyx (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (after size reduction) into a section in University of Winchester. Not notable by itself, but needs a mention there. Ode+Joy (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. --Bduke (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 06:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MissaSinfonia[edit]

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

Popular Mexican YouTuber who produces gaming and comedy videos. I'm not seeing sufficient in-depth coverage of him in a quick web search (WP:BEFORE), specifically in Spanish-language media. I only found some articles from La Neta ([13][14]), which does not look like a reliable source, and a 2018 entry from La Voz de Michoacán. Aranya (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete I was surprised this wasn't outright speediyl deleted. There is no coverage of this YTer, the fact that they have 12 million views/followers is entirely irrelevant as anyone can buy views/followers and there is exactly 0 other coverage. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just noticed that at various points in the article, MissaSinfonia is referred to as "he", "she" and "they" and this demonstrates to me, not an ambiguity about gender identity but a lack of care in writing the article. It is yet another article that was moved to Draft space in the middle of a AFD discussion that I moved back to main space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also looks eligible for G5. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The number of subscribers is never a factor in determining notability. If he is notable, he will be covered by the news. SunDawn talk 02:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability beyond having millions of subscribers. Neo-corelight (Talk) 12:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not proven and it fits the pattern of other non-notable / even hoax articles edited by sockpuppet accounts of User:Peluches extronidos --10mmsocket (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources found to bolster notability. Plus an extra serving of trout to the IP sock of the article creator who came to my talk page and claimed that the sourcing of the article was on par with any on Wikipedia (shortly before getting blocked for a level of disruption on the article which was block-worthy regardless of their level of sockitude). --Finngall ^talk 04:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judita Leitaitė[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not an easy one to decide either way, because there is so little information. Receiving the National Lithuanian Order of Vytautas the Great does not indicate which of several levels this award was at. If it the higher levels, that would indicate notability, and I would be happy with keep, but we do not know. If it is at a lower level, this article should be deleted. --Bduke (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand by translating the Lithuanian wiki article, which was first created in 2008 (or working from the Spanish one, which is a translation of the Lithuanian). I've added an external link to her website, archived in 2017.

In particular the reference "Tamara Vainauskienė. Judita Leitaitė. Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija, T. XI (Kremacija-Lenzo taisyklė). – Vilnius: Mokslo ir enciklopedijų leidybos institutas, 2007, 699 psl. ", included in the initial article in 2008, appears to be an entry in a national encyclopedia. PamD 07:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And this profile suggests that coverage of 1998 Newport Music Festival etc should be available. PamD 08:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I've added an extensive 60th-birthday interview as an External Link. Clearly notable. PamD 08:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources in Lithuanian language that I added. Also I added her Discography.Misasory (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur Hotel[edit]

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

I can't find any significant coverage for this straight to streaming film, besides the blog sources included. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few non-professional blog reviews do not constitute significant coverage. Per WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 22:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFILM LibStar (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No major coverage, not notable. Ode+Joy (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as there does not seem to be anything that could be described as significant coverage then I would concur with the view that this film lacks notability. Dunarc (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Airlines are no more exempt from WP:NCORP than businesses in any other industry. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

European Executive Express[edit]

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

~~Problems with WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:CORPDEPTH. Asketbouncer (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

WMF banned spammer. MER-C 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : no significant news coverage exists. Webmaster862 (talk) 07:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. The airline is not flying anymore, and neither is the page. Ode+Joy (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Short-lived airline; practically no secondary sources. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an airline that actually flew scheduled services it is noteworthy for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 10:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator's view is discounted as a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user. Apart from that the discussion is mainly a disagreemnt as to whether is sufficient. It is unclear to me who is correct, but I see no consensus for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sreevidya Mullachery[edit]

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

She only played some minor roles in several films. Fails NACTOR. Sources are routine and incidential. Fails GNG Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 21:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 21:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 21:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 21:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The actor passes WP:NACTOR she has acted as heroine and has played only title credited role in the movies she acted. Moreover she acted significant roles in the movie Oru Kuttanadan Blog along with top actor in malayalam Mammootty and in Oru Pazhaya Bomb Kadha. She is very much known for the Television stage show Star magic as well. Sources are featured and reliable and do have secondary sources. so she passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG Jehowahyereh (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE : Just before this AFD tag, some IP intentionally removed reference about the actor's significant role as heroine. This Afd tag seems intentional Jehowahyereh (talk)

Delete: No significant coverage and all sources are just routine coverage, fails GNG. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 03:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment : Article reference about this actor in Vanitha 1, Mathrubhumi 2, and Times of India 3 etc are significant and featured coverage not just routine Jehowahyereh (talk)

Jehowahyereh, Interviews with the subject itself are primary sources. For establishing notability we need to have secondary sources. The last source you provided is just a routine coverage about the actor's health condition. You need to provide sources that gives her WP:SIGCOV. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 21:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment : Primary source material is original material, without analysis, interpretation, or transformation by others. These articles are interpreted and transformed by the news journalists in their way. These are not primary sources. Refer WP:PP Jehowahyereh (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This actress is quite famous by the show Star Magic and also she has acted in significant roles in some movies. The latest movie Esacpe the surviver thriller in which she is doing a lead role is going to hit the theatres recently. Her film with Dhyan Sreenivasan also seem to be a notable one. More over she is a famous youtuber who had won the silver play button. So I guess this article can be given a KEEP vote. Sonal Mathew (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This actress is quite famous by the show Star Magic. More over she is a famous youtuber who had won the silver play button. These are not proper arguments in an AFD discussion. Fame has nothing to do in deciding notabilty. We decide the notability of actors based on WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. AS far as Im concerned, she is not having significant coverage thus failing GNG. For passing NACTOR, a person should have played notable roles in multiple number of films. She only played three minor roles out of the four movies in which she acted At the present scenario, this actress is failing NACTOR. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ) 21:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla, Your facts are not correct, She has acted in around 8 movies so far as per news reports and out of which 4 are as heroine and 2 other are significant character roles as per the references cited, She is also a pubic figure known through a very well known TV stage Show Star Magic in Flowers TV as per the news sources cited. These are well enough to prove the notability and the actor passes WP:NACTOR also she passes GNG as per the references cited, before the AFD tag and the new references introduced and as per clarifications above. Jehowahyereh (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Article has sufficient references from relevant sites and sources to establish notability.
Anish Viswa 07:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. Currently fails WP:NACTRESS. Only the Maffi Dona film role is significant per the sources in the article (it's the only role with a decent independent review). The others were minor roles. However, she does have several upcoming films in which she is a leading actress which will cause her to pass criteria 1 of WP:NACTRESS. However, these films have not yet been released and do not yet have independent reviews. Once they do, the article can be updated with reviews of those films in draft space and then the article cab be moved back into main space.4meter4 (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment WP:NACTRESS passes clearly. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions She has so far acted in around 8 movies. 4 movies as heroine, 2 other are significant character roles (one as hero's sister in Oru Pazhaya Bomb Kadha as Sreekuttan's Sister and one as heroine's sister in Oru Kuttanadan Blog as Maya , both are significant and credited roles as per the news references cited), She is also a pubic figure known through a very well known TV stage Show Star Magic in Flowers TV as per the news sources cited. So she very well passes the WP:NACTRESS criteria for notability. Jehowahyereh (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and does not have enough sources to establish the notability, most of the sources are not reliable. 007sak (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Upon checking 007sak talk page, it seems he has rare idea about Wikipedia policies. About the Notability , detailed description is given above. Jehowahyereh (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note : The user User:Krishnavilasom Bhageerathan Pilla who tagged this page for AFD is now indefinitely blocked for Abusing multiple accounts as a result of Sockpuppet investigations Jehowahyereh (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment : Vanitha Article 1 and Mathrubhumi 2 article are interviews where she explains about her achievements and life experience in which the mathrubhumi is reliable source while the online website edition of the popular magazine Vanitha is not reliable and articles are published by not staff editors , rather by contributors. The Times of India article 3 is about a leg fracture happened to them. These sources does not establish the notability 007sak (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 007sak, Your facts are not correct. Vanitha is the largest magazine in India by circulation according to Audit Bureau of Circulations and is reliable. Moreover there are no facts to show the 2 Vanitha articles about the Actress is a contributor post . Also Primary source material is original material, without analysis, interpretation, or transformation by others. These articles are interpreted and transformed by the news journalists in their way. These are not primary sources. Refer WP:PP . In addition lot of new news sources are added as reference after the AFD. Jehowahyereh (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes WP:NACTRESS, a criteria for notability.Advait (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She is a prominent and promising actress and heroin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nibinnvs (talk • contribs) 16:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was redirect to Mai Chao. Sandstein 09:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guangzhou Glorious F.C.[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable soccer team that plays in the Chinese Champions League, which is China's fourth tier. Article sourcing is very weak and I can't find coverage non-routine coverage that would help to satisfy WP:GNG.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not in an FPL and fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete there some coverage of the club, but mostly just brief summaries of its existence rather than substantive information. Cobyan02069 (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC

Merge/redirect to Mai Chao, the football club's founder and head coach. The football club is close to passing Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline because it has significant coverage in one source:
1. 木兰 (2018-08-06). "广州国体俱乐部征战2018中冠麦超表示率队冲中乙" (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. Retrieved 2021-10-11.
  This is a detailed profile of the football club. From Google Translate: "In 2016, Mai Chao and Guangzhou local entrepreneurs Mr. Chen Zhishi and Mr. Chen Xianghang jointly established the Guangzhou Glorious F.C., adhering to the development of local football, building a community-based team development concept, and revitalizing the strong sense of mission of southern football, quickly gaining Hu Zhijun, Lu Jianjun, Dai Xianrong and many other local football stars in Guangzhou."
A redirect that preserves the history under the redirect will allow for a merge. It will also allow for the redirect to be undone once there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Guangzhou Glorious F.C. to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per above - valid WP:ATD and it preserves the one really good source available on this subject Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per previous arguments. SecretlyQuebecois (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom English Academy[edit]

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

I tried to get explanation on WP:Notability by tagging as PROD, but the main creator themselves removed the tag without any explanation. I did CSD citing G11, but one of the administrator thought otherwise. This article being a Nepalese article of a private school, it surely qualifies as an G11 (advertisement). Single citation is provided in the article which is the website of the shool iteself hence WP:Primary. Note that a similar article exits in draft space as Draft:Ed Mark Academy nirmal (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. nirmal (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of importance, fails WP:NSCHOOL. It seems like the creator is/was a student of the school. Clog Wolf _Howl 11:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no major coverage. No wisdom in keeping the page. Ode+Joy (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not notable. --Bduke (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nominator and other participants. Surely, it doesnot meet WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. Fade258 (talk) 06:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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