Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 25 August 27 >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Uddenberg[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. RedPatch (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. pburka (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - there are a few sources there that focus on her (usually with her sisters as a trio rather than individually though) beyond just routine match coverage. Youngest player to ever play for her senior national team (age 13) is not an non-notable fact though and there's just enough prose, so I feel it hits that minimum needed. RedPatch (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per @RedPatch:. Clearly significant figure in Saint Kitts and Nevis women's and international football. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects (or any WikiProject) and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I finish writing this, another 30 will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Athletics at the 2004 Summer Olympics – Men's 400 metres#Heat 2. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulla Mohamed Hussein[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Deq Abdulle[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG because of a lack of significant independent coverage. His taekwondo record fails to meet any SNG. He appeared at one world championship where he had one fight--and it was a loss in the round of 64. The event mentioned in the article was not a world championship event, but rather a "world cup" open event that didn't require qualification. Papaursa (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suleiman Abdille Borai[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Perry Shyken[edit]

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

The sources in the article only include brief mentions of the subject, and I can't find other sources providing significant coverage, so this seems to fail the notability guideline for biographies. Complex/Rational 21:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I found him named in various sources about the Gemini series, but that's all. Like the references provided here - just a name listed among many. I'll keep an eye on this if some great resources are found, but I'm not hopeful. Lamona (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went through and created sections for the article since it was hard to read as a single paragraph. I'm very open to some newly discovered sources, but the page top has a suggestion that the author can add videos of the subject, etc. - those will not provide notability. Nor will interviews. What is needed is at least one longish article about him in a magazine or newspaper. Sometimes a local paper is a good source. Lamona (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The videos could provide notability just as articles depending on the prominence of his role in the video and who published it.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PiccklePiclePikel, notability must be established by independent, third-party sources. If a video is, say, a news story or documentary, then it could indicate notability.

He would have to be featured prominently, just as he would have to have prominence in a print source. Lamona (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Fléming[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hendricus Thijsen[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Prod and notability tag contested. Avilich (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect, per lack of the requisite SIGCOV as demonstrated above. JoelleJay (talk) 03:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In cases like this, where we've got a WORLD champion in a major event, coverage is hard to access, and the person meets NSPORT, I think it is appropriate to IAR. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BeanieFan11. StAnselm (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Achievements indicate that offline sources are likely. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources have been presented and three-way world champion in 1903 is not enough for me to buck the notability guidlines. Cattivi has found a newspaper from the time and found only trival coverage. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - tried to look through various sites through the Wikipedia library but both spellings of the name unfortunately came up empty, aside from one passing newspaper mention. There most likely are Dutch sources somewhere out there and I'd be happy to change my !vote then, but as of right now the article doesn't seem to meet GNG. DatGuyTalkContribs 12:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting considering possible offline sources that could exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In his favor, Thijssen was a world champion. He is a historical figure. There is absolutely no WP:BLP concern. So I would consider him notable with less coverage than a recent athlete. That said, what is needed for considering him notable, within his era, isn't there either. Or at the very least hasn't been found by all who searched extensively, including me. This leads me to the conclusion that Thijsen is NOT NOTABLE enough for an article on Wikipedia for a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Without prejudice against a future article if more is written or found. gidonb (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To put this in the greater context of Olympic athletes: it took some time to make a huge deal out of the Olympic Games. In the early editions interest existed but was moderate compared to later editions. gidonb (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here we have a verifiable Olympic competitor and world champion in a single discipline. That would seem to meet NGYMNAST, although everything I'm reading about the 1903 meet makes it seem a lower bar for entry (only four teams, only 60 total individuals, only 36 actual competitive team members). The current condition of the page is marginal although several reliable sources are applied, if some merely statistical. Looking at Template:NavigationWorldChampionsArtisticGymnasticsMen'sPommelHorse one can see Thijsen would be the only red or black link on the template if deleted (which gives me a IAR vibe, as a wikipedian who expects all such subjects to receive better articles eventually). If I had access to French, Dutch or Belgian local newspapers of the day (and could read the language), I'm confident that significant coverage would be found. Further, national sporting heroes, especially world champions, would be highly likely to receive occasional coverage as they aged and newer world championships were held. In a pre-internet time, national sports figures were actual celebrities. Since such offline archives will eventually be available online, and per NGYMNAST we may presume likely contemporary and later significant coverage, I'm asserting keep. BusterD (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to say, I read the entire gymnastics-history.com link and ignored the bold-faced "not an individual competition." I'm striking through my keep. My intention to presume likely coverage was based entirely on the world champion achievement, and this seems dubious. BusterD (talk) 08:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BusterD, NSPORT requires at least one source of SIGCOV to be cited in the article to remain in mainspace -- without that, we also can't apply the presumption of SIGCOV afforded from meeting NGYM. We additionally don't have evidence that contemporary gymnasts in his country actually did receive SIGCOV; how do we know that all national sports figures were celebrities if we don't have proof? Couldn't it be the case that, with the printed space constraints that existed at the time, individual athletes actually didn't garner GNG-level discussion? The whole reason several NSPORTS2022 proposals passed was because coverage of even world champions and Olympics medalists just wasn't materializing enough to justify presuming notability. JoelleJay (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 1903 world championship was not an individual competition. In 1903 Thijsen was a gymnast who performed well individually, but he finished last with his team. I don’t know when he became world champion, but it can’t be before 1922. [4] I could expand the article a bit: Year of emigration to South Africa (1925), name of his wife, his occupation, his home address (he died at home), but everything would be based on primary sources. For me, improving the 1903 world championship article would be more important than this article, because it appears to cause confusion. Cattivi (talk) 06:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Per Cattivi's research. When the official write-up the the event we are claiming he is notable for doesn't even give more than name, age, and home-town we aren't going to magically find more sources. Rockphed (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Richardson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Android 13 (disambiguation)[edit]

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

No disambiguation needed; there is a hatnote on Android 13. Leschnei (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is against deleting the content but still no consensus on whether the content should be in this article or in the branch line article. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 12:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Broomhill (Northumberland) railway station[edit]

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

No valid references to support inclusion. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edited on the 27th from redirect to merge. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Redirect to Amble branch line.--Bduke (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Expanded significantly since the nomination with several new references. --NemesisAT (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have checked every source I can access, and none of them is more than a sentence or two on the topic. There is no significant coverage of this station, and it does not merit a standalone article as a result. All we have is "it opened, it closed, and one year it had this number of passengers". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/request – Mattdaviesfsic or others, could you please very kindly remind us what policy we are working under here? I have the vague feeling that the notability requirement, or something, for individual stations has ??recently changed but I am too vague/senile/etc to remember exactly what I saw and where! A pointer to precisely what we're discussing here (the policy not the station!) would be a massive help to a vaguely interested but uncommitted browser ... TIA DBaK (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See WT:N#Notability of train stations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! DBaK (talk) 20:50, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Amble branch line, I have tried to add to the article since the deletion nomination, yet as Trainsandotherthings says the sources I found for the station only mention the station in passing, there is no sources about the station that I think qualifies it as notable, and also I think I am of the opinion of Option 3 of WT:N#Notability of train stations (Inherently notable, but may be merged), and therefore should be merged into Amble branch line. NDNSWMI (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to have sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG. Can't think of any British railway station that wouldn't have, given the amount written about the British railway network over the years. Has anyone actually bothered to check the two books cited, or just relied on the online sources? Because it seems to me that their existence has been completely ignored (see WP:OFFLINE). I note that nobody has proposed keeping any of the information about it, just redirecting, which would obviously be a disservice to Wikipedia. We should never wilfully delete information on a valid subject of interest just because of some dogma. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've added a closure detail, the article has sufficient sourcing.Nempnet (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Adequately sourced and there is too much encyclopaedic information here to really justify a merge to the branch line, especially as per others there appears to be more information in offline sources. Thryduulf (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep railway stations are generally notable and there seems to be enough sources anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. No consensus to Delete but opinion is divided among those advocating Keep and Redirect. Please do not move the article during an open AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article is now of sufficient length that a merge with the line article isn't desirable. Mackensen (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to [[Amble Branch Line. Much of the article would sit comfortably in this article, and it seems absurd that this small and rather unremarkable station has a longer article than the line it iwas part of. I'd strongly disagree about all railway stations being notable; more to the point (and this applies here) in many cases there is almost nothing that can be usefully said about them.TheLongTone (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as I linked above, a recent RfC explicitly found that train stations have no sort of inherent notability and must stand on their own merits. Any votes arguing the station should be kept just because it's a train station should be discarded by the closer. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the keep votes are arguing for inclusion purely because it is a railway station so I don't see the point in your comment. NemesisAT (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Assuming that significant coverage on the subject exists in offline sources (which Necrothesp certainly believes so, and I would be inclined to do so as well), subject passes WP:GNG. As to why it shouldn't be merged, again, more information about the subject could be added from the aforementioned offline sources by someone who has access to them. Same could apply to the target page to merge to. HenryTemplo (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pateros Technological College[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL. No Significant coverage. JML1148 (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. JML1148 (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I had already previously flagged this with copyvio and what is left now (or recreated) is nothing more than promotional. I don't see this passing WP:NSCHOOL criteria at all. Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt fails WP:NSCHOOL and salt the page since it was recreated multiple times per [5]. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't find any reliable sources pertaining to notable awards or research pertaining to this school. --Lenticel (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per NSCHOOL, needs to meet GNG or WP:ORG. Not apparent with sources included, none seem present. I disagree with salting. A determined editor can just then recreate the same article under a different name, making it difficult to detect. Not worth it. Deleting is sufficient. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've also noticed that there is a declined draft here. The mainspace article here was created after the article was declined. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 00:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fill device. Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KOI-18[edit]

KOI-18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:GNG. Previously PRODed, then deproded because it "describes an important historic method of cryptographic key distribution". But a WP:BEFORE search brings a few results, but those are still insufficient to establish GNG. BilletsMauves€500 20:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted by Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) per G5. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of deputy chief ministers of Assam[edit]

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

Article serves no useful purposes. Any entries will already have their own articles. Any list could be included in a substantive article about the political structure. No evidence of any notability for this topic  Velella  Velella Talk   20:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted by Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) per G5. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of deputy chief ministers of Arunachal Pradesh[edit]

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

This article appears to serve no purpose. The single entry already has its own article and the single source produces a 404 error. Fails all tests of notability  Velella  Velella Talk   20:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NSA encryption systems. Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AN/CYZ-9[edit]

AN/CYZ-9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:GNG. Previously PRODed, then dePRODed because it "describes an important example of state level security by NSA". Yet a WP:BEFORE search brings less than two pages of passing mentions, primary sources and WP clones. BilletsMauves€500 20:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non notable, could be a few lines in another article maybe. Oaktree b (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of military electronics of the United States#C: non notable portion of an army thing. The article title is wrong too; it should be AN/CSZ-9 per the source cited in the article and a comparison of google results between the two terms ("AN/CYZ-9" produces wiki clones and pages that probably took info from the wiki page, "AN/CSZ-9" produces army documents). It should redirect there because it contains short descriptions of electronics which could be useful to some readers; deleting the page wouldn't give any information or usefulness at all (its description there could also be expanded by a handful of words). If the outcome of this discussion is a redirect, I favor moving first then redirecting (not moving now because I don't want to try to break scripts or something). —Danre98(talk^contribs) 13:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Not sure how to classify my reccomendation, but I support letting Arnold move content around (even if they don't have the time for it right now). —Danre98(talk^contribs) 22:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hardware random number generator, with corrected title, as an example of NSA practice.--agr (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for commenting, but I'm not sure a merge is appropriate into that page. While AN/CSZ-9 is a hardware RNG, having a paragraph about it would distract from the topic more broadly. In addition, I'm not sure that it's a prominent example of a hardware RNG (so writing a lot of content about AN/CSZ-9 would be putting too much emphasis on it). It's also not currently mentioned in the body, though a mention could be added to Random numbers are also used for non-gambling purposes, both where their use is mathematically important, such as sampling for opinion polls, and in situations where fairness is approximated by randomization, such as military draft lotteries and selecting jurors. Questions that need answered in my view for a merge are 'why Hardware RNG is an appropriate place for a merge' and 'where specifically would content go in the article'. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 19:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps NSA encryption systems might be a better merge target. There are several small articles that have recently been PRODed that could fill out a section on NSA key management there, this included.--agr (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not opposed to that; that sounds like it could be a good idea. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 00:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you. If there is no further objection, I propose to do that and also make similar merges to KSV-21, KOV-21 and U-229, which were recently PRODed and have similar issues. I don't expect to get to it before next week.--agr (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Grönroos[edit]

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

Does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Nothing substantive appears related to him online or in other reliable sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by KlayCax (talk • contribs) 20:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep As per WP:PROF, this article passes the notability criteria for academics with flying colors. Just a quick check at Google Scholar shows that this Professor has been cited more than 100.000 times [6]. His most cited publication alone stands at above 12.000 cites, and he has 26 publications cited more than 1000 times. That alone would be enough to establish academic notability per WP:PROF. Furthermore, he appears to have received an honorary doctorate from at least three universities, also indicating strong academic notability. I must say that in over 10 years at Wikipedia, I never saw such an obvious keep come up at AfD. Jeppiz (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, and Finland. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Could even be speedily kept via WP:SK3. A WP:BEFORE search was obviously not conducted. Subject clearly passes WP:NPROF with flying colors via citations and h-index. Curbon7 (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree this needs better sourcing, though. I've added a couple of articles which focus on Grönroos, better than what existed but far from great. /Julle (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Military patrol at the 1924 Winter Olympics. Liz Read! Talk! 21:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bohuslav Josífek[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. No medal record and a before search doesn't bring up any third party sources. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. I would also support a redirect to Military patrol at the 1924 Winter Olympics as an alternative to deletion. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 20:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify.. Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Runiversalis[edit]

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

Classic WP:NOTNEWS. — SummerKrut 18:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify per WP:TOOSOON. The website was launched a couple of days ago, there is no RS that analyse it, only news about the launch. Now the website is already down. In several months the website will perhaps be full of articles and we would have some RS analysing it, but now we have none, so we should not speculate. Wikisaurus (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's too soon to delete per WP:TOO SOON, delete per WP:1DAY. If it gets up and running for a 2nd day, then it can be deleted per TOOSOON. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable yet. --Pepyss (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or at the very least draftify. It's back online now, and reporting continues. — The Anome (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify the webpage is online but requires to be logged in to even view content. Other than that, let anyone who is interested try to draft an article. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, obviously too soon. Cheers, VIGNERON * discut. 08:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jemal Thompson[edit]

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

This may be the most non-notable football player we have on WP! Never played in the CFL, never even drafted. Newspapers.com brings up absolutely nothing. ProQuest: Nothing. Google search: Nothing (besides a bunch of "wikis"). I can't even verify that he was ever even on the Argos. The OVFL database source listed as the first ref and a passing mention in Bleacher Report ([7]) are the only things I could find on him. Fails GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Definitely not notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom Andre🚐 18:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I put the notability tag on a few weeks ago but wanted to wait for someone who knows more about gridiron than I do before nominating. It's clear that this person isn't notable and we also can't verify he was even on the books at the Argonauts. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cbl62 (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. He's not listed on the 2009 roster for the Virginia State Trojans either. The lack of verifiable information makes this a borderline hoax. Mackensen (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No presence or mentions on social media. No mentions in coverage of CJFL teams and games. In fact, one of the CJFL teams he's said to have played for, the Brampton Bears, don't appear to exist. Many of the citations added over the years make no reference to the alleged subject. I'm actually starting to think there's no such person as Jemal Thompson. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm at the point where I think any source that does claim Thompson played in the CFL should be preemptively blacklisted as a source, because they obviously got it from us, without attribution. Mackensen (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just about all of the "sources" that claim he played in the CFL are unreliable "wikis" such as "ItsBiography.com" or "PeoplePill.com." The only source that mentions him in the CFL that may be considered reliable is this article from Narcity ("His first cousin, Jemal Thompson, is also from Toronto and is an athlete in a slightly different area. In 2011, he played defensive lineman for the Toronto Argonauts. But he retired his time in the Canadian Football League"). BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be interested to hear if anyone can verify that he existed at all. Can someone with better knowledge pull up anything about his alleged time in the CJFL?
    If this was confirmed as a hoax and added to WP:HOAXLIST, it would be the second longest surviving entry on the list. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done so many different search combinations ("Jemal Thompson Brampton Bears" "Jemal Thompson Toronto" "Jemal Thompson Tristan Thompson" "Jemal Thompson CFL" "Jemal Thompson Argonauts" "Jemal Thompson CJFL" "Jemal Thompson Virginia State" "Jemal Thompson Birchmount Park" and "Jemal Thompson Burlington Braves" to name a few) and I can't really find anything on him. This may actually be a hoax. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Brampton Bears do appear to have existed; see [8]. Mackensen (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacks significant coverage and not verifiable. --Mvqr (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Sportsfangnome (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Kpddg (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am not finding evidence that he played in the CFL. Rlendog (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax?[edit]

Making a separate section for this. I found two Virginia State football media guides:

Neither mention a Jemal Thompson. No one with a name like that is on the roster. Through archive.org I looked at the old version of the VSU website and found rosters for 2009-2011:

I don't see a Jemal Thompson there either. These aren't infallible sources, but if he really were a "standout" as the Bleacher Report article claims you'd expect him to be there. I'm concerned about the Bleacher Report article. It's dated June 15, 2011. The first archive.org snapshot is from 2013. I have no reason to doubt the date; it would have been published before the 2011 NBA Draft. That does mean that if this is a hoax, it didn't start on Wikipedia.

Now, the article is created in August 2011, ostensibly when he's signed to the Argonauts. Roster pages from around then:

He's not shown on any roster. Was there a Jemal Thompson who had a cup of coffee with the Toronto Thunder? Maybe! I feel pretty confident asserting that he didn't play football at Virginia State and wasn't signed by the Toronto Argonauts in 2011. Mackensen (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've worked back further on this. The article on Tristan Thompson, notionally Jemal's cousin, was created by the same editor on November 25, 2010: [9]. From the outset, it included the claim about Jemal Thompson: He is also the cousin of fellow NCAA athlete and current Virginia State University Trojan football standout Jemal Thompson. This is sourced to Tristan's profile on the Texas Longhorns website. A November 2010 snapshot of the website does not include anything about a cousin. That clears up the Bleacher Report question; they would have found it on the Tristan Thompson article. It's practically word-for-word. I feel comfortable calling it a hoax, though I'm at a loss to explain why, and R.Chauter (talk · contribs) is long gone. Mackensen (talk) 22:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: the 2011 transactions page for the Argonauts doesn't list Jemal Thompson. R.Chauter adds Thompson on July 24. No player was added on that date. The transactions page does list practice squad players, which is what Thompson ostensibly was. Mackensen (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Walks and quacks like a hoax. Cbl62 (talk) 13:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I know it can't be used as proof, but one IP editor certainly seemed to doubt the claims in the article way back in 2018. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fwiw, nothing in newspapers.com Ovinus (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Matusik[edit]

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

I'm not sure the subject passes WP:NPROF based upon being a dean at a school of business; others may disagree. The subject certainly fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Judging the cites present, work she published doesn't lend to her own notability. Cites from universities where she worked are not independent and therefore don't count for notability though they are fine for verifiability. A BEFORE search showed me non-independent pieces like DenverPost, WSJ, and 9news where she was quoted/ interviewed. Even then, those pieces are not about her in any depth. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Colorado. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Matusik is the Edward F. Frey Dean of Business, which is a named appointment at a major academic institution (University of Michigan). Therefore she meets criteria #5 of WP:PROF. I argue she also meets criteria #1 (significant impact in her scholarly discipline) as she has an h-index of 17, and her top four publications are highly cited (1634, 499, 375, 303, 294 citations as of August 2022). DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep via WP:NPROF C1 and C5. "Weak", because citation levels in the subject's field are fairly high, and I'd like to see less of a gap between the highest cited and next highest cited paper; also because named positions appear to be more common in business schools than elsewhere. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PROF#C1 but not C5. "Edward F. Frey Dean of Business" sounds like the sort of named chair given ex officio to administrators as a way to give them a slush fund, rather than the sort of named chair C5 describes, given to scholars for their high-level scholarly accomplishments. Whether an administrator position is named or not, it should be covered under C6, the only criterion about academic administration, and dean is too low-level an administrator to pass C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed regarding Deans. Now if a dean also held a named professorship... Thinking I might make a proposal to formalize this at WP:Prof. What do you think? Jahaza (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is how to distinguish named professorships given to deans for being deans from named professorships given to deans for their personal scholarly accomplishments. Only the personal ones should count for #C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Noting the BLP concerns. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Fernandez[edit]

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

Opening an AfD on behalf of IP.

Tyw7 remarks: The creator of the page is Stevenfernandez00 (talk · contribs), so the user may have an extremely close relationship to the article and can possibly be a conflict of interest case. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP user reason given: As a person without a Wikipedia account, I am requesting someone else complete the deletion process for this page. I'm leaving this detailed note for your consideration, and I do not intend to return because I don't have time to wrangle and hairsplit. I'm laying out my perspective, and it is up to you Wikipedia editors to decide.

The issue is that Fernandez was / is a notable Youtuber years ago when he was a minor. Also when he was a minor, he was caught up in a situation where he was charged. The charges were dropped, he never faced trial, and he was never punished.

The Wikipedia page is, for my search engine, the top result for his name. The details that underlie his notability, and thus reason for inclusion on Wikipedia, are continuously removed. The article history reveals that. Because of this, the charges and surrounding controversy make up 50% of the page.

This is a poor use of Wikipedia. Either Fernandez is notable, in which case the article should reflect that notability, rather than its current minimized (and in my view suppressed) state, or he is not notable and the page should not exist.

Given the currents state of the article, the page in my view constitutes an "attack page" (G10). The article history reveals considerable effort to maintain the article as a stub + criminal history page.

As far as I know no non-notable person is featured on Wikipedia for criminal charges that have been dropped and never went to trial for events that took place while the person was a minor. The page also constitutes a breach of the claimed sensitivities surrounding the biographies of living persons. The claims of the accusations against Fernandez may not be unsourced, but they do not tell the whole story, and they are presented on Wikipedia, (and _by_ Wikipedia) in an unbalanced way and thus in my view is unfair and unjust.

The page does not, for example, note how the Los Angeles Police Detective Ninette Toosbuy targeted Fernandez in part because of his Youtube comedic pick up artist persona. This article (cited in the Wikipedia page) says that he's "likely to face more charges." Yet all the charges were dropped.

https://www.newsweek.com/steven-fernandez-youtube-lapd-los-angeles-414999

Toosbuy continues to feature Fernandez as a major case she cracked on her personal webpage:

https://www.toosbuyconsulting.com/baby-scumbag

In my view, the infamy surrounding this case, which I reiterate produced no trial or conviction or punishment, has possibly more to do with the fame seeking of Ninette Toosbuy than the supposed (unproven, untrialed, unconvicted, unpunished) "crimes" of Fernandez. But nobody can add those details or reflections to the page because nobody in the establishment media has decided that sorting through these details is worth their time. So it counts as "original research".

So the story on Wikipedia does not represent the whole or true story of what happened. In that sense, the page fails as a provider of true and accurate information.

I have noticed that over the past few years #MeToo type accusations have ballooned on biographies, at times getting space that outweighs the information that establishes notability. Wikipedia has an interest in maintaining balance in these cases, or it risks losing credibility over the long term. If Wikipedia permits every vague, unproven, uncharged, untrialed, unconvicted claim to become the life story of people on Wikipedia, readers will have to find their biographies elsewhere.

In conclusion, as I said this page presents itself on search pages as the first word on Steven Fernandez. He is a young person trying to rebuild his life after the roller coaster of online fame and online infamy. It isn't the place of Wikipedia to keep Fernandez on trial for the rest of his life. If Wikipedia editors want to keep the page, then the page must be notable. For that, the details of his life (the reason for his fame years ago) must be returned. For that to happen, the page probably has to be locked (since otherwise it will likely be turned into a stub again). In my view, this is the proper way to resolve this issue. Fernandez is a significant figure in the history of online influencers, especially on Youtube, and this probably should be reflected on Wikipedia.

However, if these changes are not made to establish notability and ensure balance, the page will continue to constitute a G10 violation and should be deleted.

For more information from Fernandez's side, see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtUaoQYPy_Y

To understand his early fame, see this video from PBS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXjVosJh-dc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion_as_attack_pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.41.64 (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination opened on behalf of IP -- Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Gonna be honest, I didn't read the whole nom because it's way too long and disjointed. I initially was leaning toward delete however the vice profile and others really, really go into detail. With that being said, I'd suggest rewriting the article to reflect why he's notable - it's not for being an internet personality, it's for the alleged multiple sexual assaults and rape. PICKLEDICAE🥒 15:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see nothing here to justify having this article. Athel cb (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article only contains information on his alleged criminal activity that he (according to the nominator) was not convicted for. In my view this public figure is low profile now even if they were important roughly a decade ago (See changes in high/low profile in WP:LPI.) Following the policy in WP:SUSPECT that arrests that do not lead to convictions for low profile individuals should on the balance not be included, it looks to me that this article should be deleted. I don't have any thoughts on the COI of the nominator. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of evidence for enduring notability, and most particularly per WP:BLP policy on respect for privacy - allegations of criminality by a minor not followed up with charges would only ever belong in a biography in very exceptional circumstances, and such circumstances do not remotely exist here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - BLP with the only notoriety (rather than notability) was being accused of rape while a minor. For BLP's sake, we don't publish this kind of non-article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very week keep I think the Vice [10] and the LA Weekly article (already in the article) are GNG, but just barely. <--Redacted--> helps add to the notability, otherwise we don't have much to go on for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    the Redacted thingie was their run-in with the law the article talked about. Oaktree b (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If he's really only notable for alleged crimes, especially such serious ones, BLP concerns trump GNG. Ovinus (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandana Joshi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR  and WP:GNG PravinGanechari (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD G5. Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Shang[edit]

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

Unable to locate WP:THREE in the article. Fails GNG DavidEfraim (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 05:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. DavidEfraim (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Note that his name is sometimes spelled "Tobyshang". Either way, he's a hypeman who hypes himself in the usual Nigerian self-upload sites and webzines that recycle his own promo announcements. We don't need more of that here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point but saying "...usual Nigerian self-upload sites..." sounded stereotypical. HandsomeBoy (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Big deal. If you peruse the AfD archives you can see that we've been through this dozens (maybe hundreds) of times with unknown musicians from that particular country. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
doomsdayer520, you could say the exact same thing, sharing your wealth of experience, without being so dismissive. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I learn something new every day. For example, I did not know that a self-upload site can have its feelings hurt. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oto Skrbek[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete; Before search didn't bring up any third party coverage, and doesn't pass WP:GNG. No medal record either. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 13:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 13:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ola Herje Hovdenak[edit]

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

Non-notable skier, no medal record, and a before search doesn't bring up an third party coverage to establish notability, so doesn't pass WP:GNG. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 13:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 13:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jahangiri[edit]

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

With numerous "citation needed" and "dubious" tags, and 2 references which are vague, this article provides me with more questions than answers. Is there enough verifiable material here to salvage it, or does the article amount to WP:OR? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a lot of the disputed information was entered in this edit here: [11] by an IP editor. Rather than reverting, another editor immediately added the dubious tags. I would suggest we could just delete the dubious statements added in that edit, although it doesn't leave much. The Jahangiri dynasty gets a mention here [12] although that book doesn't shout "reliable source". This book [13] says In India's collective memory Jahangir is a little more than an insignificant man that ruled between his father Akbar the Great, a military and political colossus and his son Shah Jahan the builder of the famous Taj Mahal of Agra. but I don't have the book to check if this is the correct Jahangir dynasty - it seems unlikely as Jahangir, father of Shah Jahan ruled 1605-1627, which is later than where this page once put this dynasy; It is clear from the original page created on WP that the term is historical [14] but allegedly 1190-1520, although there were never any sources. The dynasty is linked with those dates from List of Sunni dynasties and also List of Muslim states and dynasties. Searches are complicated by the fact that this is a surname so many false hits. I am not an expert in this matter, but it seems likely to me that there was a Jahangiri dynasty (as the page originally said, and probably spanning the original dates, and regional) but it never had good sources and it is unclear how significant the dynasty was. Then the unsourced page was edited in a fairly uncontrolled manner until it said something that is certainly untrue. What we have is a mess, but I cannot say that the subject fails WP:GNG - someone better versed in the history of the period and location and able to speak languages that better sources may be in, may well find significant coverage. I suspect it could exist. What I can say is that the page as it stands is so very wrong that there is nothing worth saving here. I thus think this is a prime article for a bit of WP:TNT. The existence of a red link in List of Sunni dynasties would then, hopefully, encourage a subject expert to begin again on this, and this time hopefully with some sources. WP:TNT should be used sparingly but in this case I think it will improve the wikipedia project. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Velisek[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. Before search doesn't bring up any third party sources to establish notability, no medal record. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 12:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie the Robot[edit]

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

Not a valid disambiguation page. There isn't a single Robbie the Robot in the bunch. The Asimov character is a robot named Robbie (and this page isn't titled Robbie, a robot). The rest are variations of the name Robbie. Assuming this is deleted, it could be reconstituted as a spelling mistake redirect to the one-and-only Robby the Robot. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge from Rob the Robot and keep as a set index page. There is an alliterative trope of naming fictional robots some variation of "Robert" or "Robbie" or "Rob" that can lead to confusion between them. This is not exactly an ambiguous topic, but one worth listing somewhere. The phenomenon was even commented on by Isaac Asimoc in-universe: "There's no law about it, but you've probably noticed for yourself that almost every robot has a name beginning with R. R for robot, I suppose. The usual name is Robert. There must be a million robot Roberts in the northeast corridor alone". "Christmas Without Rodney", Robot Visions (1991), p. 398. BD2412 T 00:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:SETINDEX, "The criteria for creating ... a set index article should be the same as for a stand-alone list." There are no such lists out there. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have Robert, an article on the name, which lists people named Robert (including fictional people), and Robbie, also on the name, which includes two robots on its list of names. This would just entail a restructuring of existing information (or, at least, permissible information) about robots named variations of "Robert". I have no objection, by the way, to moving that to a more refined title, and redirecting the title at issue here to Robby the Robot. BD2412 T 05:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to understand your rationale. There are people and fictional characters named Robert and Robbie. There are none named Robbie the Robot, and only one close enough to require any action. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per our own article on the name, Robbie, it is "usually encountered as a nickname or a shortened form of Robert, Rob or Robin"; per Asimov, this is a common trope in robot naming, and there are plenty of robots named an alliterative variation of "Robert". Enough for a page, anyway. BD2412 T 18:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as either a DAB or SIA. These are all variations people could reasonably be looking for if they heard about a "Robby the robot" and weren't sure of the details of the spelling. MB 13:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a set index article, per BD2412 and MB, but rename to "List of robots named Robert" or similar. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Chaudoir[edit]

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

No significant coverage found, so fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT. Only sources are passing mentions in primary sources and results listings, and the usual all-inclusive database(s). Prod was removed and article converted to a redirect, but in this case, it is clear that other people of the same name exist, e.g. artist (1890–1969) (fr:Georges Chaudoir) and a Belgian industrialist and Officer of the Order of Leopold (p.5, bottom right) (d. 1923 p.4, bottom left), who are potentially notable (but with nothing to connect them as being the subject here), so a redirect to a random target would not be a valid ATD, per WP:R#DELETE. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:38, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion due to previous WP:PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond County Public Schools[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Lanierm24 with the following rationale "Added more citations.". The citations, however, are either not independent, just catalog information (failing WP:SIGCOV) or both. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Virginia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:27, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've listed sources for improving this article on the talk page — there are 17 additional sources on Rappahannock High School for a new article. (The local newspaper is technically by subscription, but clearing your browser's cache, cookies, and browsing history lifts the subscription block for another couple of articles.) Even it its current pitiful state, this subject is notable, per [[WP:NEXIST]. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grand'mere Eugene The notability of Rappahannock High School is not the same as notability of the Richmond County Public Schools. Perhaps the solution is to make an article about the notable school, and redirect this article there. Keep in mind WP:NOTINHERITED. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ?? Piotrus, Did you miss the 23 articles on Richmond County Public Schools that I listed on the talk page, plus the 3 NCES sites to verify current enrollment stats? Sorry if my note above was not clear that I find that the Richmond County Public Schools article has enough sources meet GNG, because those sources exist. Secondarily, there are 17 additional articles on Rappahannock High that I didn't list, because of course that's a separate subject that also happens to be notable and should have an article, too. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grand'mere Eugene Right. The problem is that your list of potential sources is very much a WP:GOOGLEHITS style list of all websites that mention those topics. A quick glance shows that many are not independent or don't meet WP:SIGCOV. If you'd like to rescue this, rather than throwing three dozen or links, please select two-three best ones which meet WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV and present them here (tell us why SIGCOV is met, and why the source is reliable). This will be a much stronger argument. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Friend Piotrus, your "quick glance" analysis of the sources listed on Talk:Richmond County Public Schools is sadly lacking in resemblance to reality. Twenty one articles are sourced to News on the Neck, a website that consolidates three local newspapers' coverage of the rural Northern Neck peninsula: Northern Neck News, Westmoreland News, and Northumberland Echo. Having three small newspapers is a little unusual in rural areas, but their consolidation on a website is a plus in terms of indexing. Their news stories are secondary and thorough, significant coverage; it appears reliable and neutral to me, as the articles cover both sides of a couple of contentious issues. There are two ERIC sources listed on the talk page that cover an older research project conducted on the arts curriculum in the district, also independent and reliable significant coverage. If you find it more reasonable, go ahead and pick any three of these bona fide reliable sources from the article as I have now revised it. Cordially, — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me repeat: can you link here, directly, to two best sources? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, see the first 2 paragraphs of the article's section on Funding, supported by the following sources:
  • "School Board weighs open district proposal". News on the Neck. Apr 17, 2013. Retrieved 2022-08-24.
  • "Citizens overwhelmingly support no fees for school". News on the Neck. Jun 26, 2013. Retrieved 2022-08-24.
  • "School Board decides open policy with no tuition". News on the Neck. Jul 17, 2013. Retrieved 2022-08-24.

The next source is a follow-up, a year later:

Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As I mentioned above, the cited newspaper is technically by subscription, but clearing your browser's cache, cookies, and browsing history lifts the subscription block for another couple of articles. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Grand'mere Eugene Thanks. I am afraid I'll remain unconvinced (and just let this discussion continue - let's see what others find). To me, the above is pretty much WP:ROUTINE reporting, not unlike press releases, from a very local outlet (News on the Neck). IMHO we are proving the existence of the entity (entities) discussed, but not their significance (as defined by WP:GNG). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Piotrus. I, too, welcome the opinions of other editors. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It's a small school district in a rural area so the sourcing is going be rough. The editors on this page did a good job using all the sourcing that is available and making it work. Nweil (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the decision on whether or not to keep an article on a school district isn't based on NSCHOOL. It's based on the notability standards for units of government (GEOLAND), because that's what a school district is in the United States. A unit of government; with fixed geographic boundaries, elected leaders and the power of taxation. 174.212.228.93 (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For years, when a school was found non-notable, the advice was to direct to the district article (if it existed), or to the locality if it did not. I am unaware of a school district article ever having been deleted. Per WP:GEOLAND, "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low". A school district is a legally recognized place, so we should keep them. Jacona (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on whether he fails WP:NACTOR or not. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Cinis[edit]

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

Cinis seems to fail notability for the various grounds that it is suggested. As a politician, he is only a local councillor with no significant contributions to politics, so seems to fail WP:NPOL (not having received *significant press coverage*), as an actor he fails WP:GNGACTOR with just a few minor roles, and his press coverage seems to cover one incident where he was arrested for having a bag of marijuana. None of these seem notable enough for him to qualify. The references are problematical... of the 9 reference for the page, half of them relate to the one incident of his drug bust, two of them are self promotional items (His CV and something from his agent), one is a link to IMDB and there is a reference to an article that is talking about a number of new councillors, of which he is just one. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I hope that those editors who located sources could add them to the article which still needs some improvement. Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noritoshi Furuichi[edit]

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

Non notable sociologist, all sources lead to Furuichi's papers. Obermallen (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination does not reflect community consensus on how notability works, summarized in WP:NEXIST: The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. I also note WP:BEFORE, which says that before nominating, please be sure to, among other things, check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better-sourced articles. As you might be able to figure out from the Japanese Wikipedia article, the subject is not just a sociologist, he is also a novelist whose work has been nominated on two different occasions for the Akutagawa Prize. Even ignoring his other books and his role as a cultural/political commentator (and friend of the Abe family), there are plenty of sources discussing just his fiction (Google 古市憲寿 芥川賞 and filter by news, et voilà, sources). The first novel in particular was pretty controversial! Anyway, we probably agree that the article could be improved, even greatly so, but that's not what this process is for. Notable under WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR#3. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Hoping to see more policy-based arguments. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DatGuyTalkContribs 14:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Saadiya[edit]

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

"...being Kerala's first transgender national television newsreader." (refs 1-8) does not confirm notability. David notMD (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep There's quite a lot of coverage here, she's been the subject of coverage as the first transgender woman to become Kerala’s first broadcast journalist. This 2020 Hindustan Times article offers some additional context, and she also received coverage in The Indian Express in 2019. She is also discussed by SheThePeople in 2019. -Imperfect Boy (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock. Beccaynr (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is a similar article, see Padmini Prakash. India's first transgender television news anchor. -Imperfect Boy (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unfortunately, despite his previous promise, the creator has moved this draft into article space without a review for the third time. If we move it back to draft, we'll need to protect it so that he can't create it again. Deb (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm currently neutral on the article itself, but if this is deleted again, I think some WP:SALT might be required. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Support WP:SALT'ing. Can I draftify and work on this article and try submitting it through AfC? — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 12:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vortex3427 you can !vote to draftity, but you'd need to see what the outcome of this AfD is before actually doing it. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of the eight refs, five are dated September 2019, about her first job assignment. The others are about her being a journalism student/trainee. No mention of accomplishments since then, or even that she is still working as a journalist. There is no confirmation of a career. The lede mentions acting, transgender rights activist and Youtube, but nothing about that in the article. David notMD (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:*Comment news about Heidi Saadiya on 2018: They welcomed her with open arms. 2019 :Meet Heidi Saadiya, Kerala's First Transgender Broadcast Journalist, Meet Heidi Saadiya, Kerala’s first transwoman journalist, A 22-year-old trans journalist tells us why many like her are forced to beg or dance for a living. 2020: Transwoman journalist Heidi Saadia ties the knot on Republic Day in Kerala — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperfect Boy (talk • contribs) 01:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock David notMD (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment 2018 is student days, 2019 is first job assignment, 2020 is wedding. Still no confirmation of a continuing, noteworthy journalism career. David notMD (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep given multiple pieces of independant coverage to meet WP:GNG, but it's not overly significant, hence a weak !vote. However the creator should still be WP:TROUTed for repeated moving it to mainspace without review. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ms Saadiya managed to attract media attention for two things: (a) being a transgender broadcaster in the public eye and having this tweeted by a politician, (b) being one of the first to have a trans-couple marriage under Indian law. Is that WP:BLP2E? More generally, do we need bios for every person who satisfies “nth person of type x to do y-thing in location z”? Is it a problem if we do? In this case, the 4-tuples seem to be (1?, transgender, TV news announcer, Kerala) and (4, transwoman, marriage, Kerala or maybe all India). If we had articles like Transgender personalities in Indian media or Transgender marriage in India it might be covered better there. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 02:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply She is the first transgender journalist from Kerala. Hope Being first in a field (from a country/state) needs an article. Imperfect Boy (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment Simply "being first" at something doesn't matter, it's what independant coverage there is that matters for WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just being the first from a state, not a country, just a state is not enough. She isn't famous enough. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, same argumentation as @Kj cheetham, as I do agree it seems that WP:GNG is met, which I think means WP:BASIC is met. Cafkafk (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep said by Cafkafk and KJ Cheetham, meets GNG (Note: The unsigned vote to the left was apparently done by IP 2409:4073:211F:8449:CC12:D4FF:FEB5:2B18, I have moved it to a newline. --LordPeterII (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC))[reply]
  • Weak keep. Multiple sources found, not all useful but some (thus weak). She isn't famous enough isn't a valid argument, if sources exist: If an article passes WP:GNG, that suffices even if it otherwise fails subject-specific notability guidelines. However, I do support Kj cheetham's move for a trouting; that moving behaviour is not acceptable (but doesn't influence my opinion on the article). --LordPeterII (talk) 09:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Multiple sources found. Article meets WP:GNG 49.206.8.53 (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sock: Imperfect Boy - the article creator and opponent to deletion - has been blocked as a sockpuppet 30 August 2022. Hence, G5 applies. David notMD (talk) 16:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pelagic and Cmr's edits protect the article from G5, I think. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 between keeping or merging. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MoonSwatch[edit]

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

Article reeks of WP:PROMO and non independent cruft sources emphasize its exclusivity. I did a BEFORE search, didn’t find any further sources. Even with promo language trimmed it’s at best WP:TOOSOON. Alternatively merging into Swatch would be acceptable too. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LordPeterII The Bloomberg and WSJ sources solely consists of quotes/marketing material from Swatch Group and anonymous industry experts, which cannot be used to justify GNG. However, the other two sources you provided from NYT, Wired do satisfy significant coverage. I am less convinced about their independence with heavily promotional/cruft language like "revolutionized manufacturing/materials" without elaboration on what changed and extensive coverage of the mania/hype rather than the product itself. Even if those two sources were independent, I still don't think this sourcing merits own article, as current sourcing is still WP:PROMO. An acceptable alternative would be to merge within Swatch Group. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shushugah: Fair point, reading it again I agree that Bloomberg especially is not great, although it is considered reliable. I'd count it as half a source. The NYT article I believe can be assumed as independent, I see no reason to doubt that. Wired (also reliable, generally) goes into some detail of the manufactoring process, which gives some explanation on why this watch might be different from others (something about bioceramics, idk). I can see why you are skeptical, as there apparently was a lot of hype around it, and the language used is a bit vivid. Currently in the article is also an article from the Strait Times, which apparently also is considered reliable unless it involves Singaporean politics. I'd say in sum we have enough sources, but I wouldn't be wholly opposed to a Merge as suggested by you and Gusfriend. My issue with this is that the MoonSwatch involves both Swatch and Omega SA, so into which would we merge it? (they apparently are friends, but the issue is the separate articles) I think the best point is about the hype, and whether or not this is WP:LASTING, although the article is not about the hype event, but the product. So... I still believe this MoonSwatch is notable in its own right, just barely. --LordPeterII (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Actually found a few more sources, mostly in German: this (by 20 Minuten), this (by Handelszeitung – not sure about independence, but language is at least not just promotional, calling the article subject a "PR stunt"), this (Handelszeitung again, not significant here, but mentioned), this (Financial Times, in English). This actually reassures me Keep is better than Merge. And I don't even have even a cheap wristwatch anymore, I just use my phone 🤷‍♂️ --LordPeterII (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. LordPeter's sources are indeed independent of the subject, establishing notability in the sense of WP:NPRODUCT and probably even in the sense of WP:NCORP (although that guideline doesn't apply here). Surprising indeed. Ovinus (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Swatch: There is already some information there and this would fit nicely there. Gusfriend (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gusfriend, as pointed out above this article discusses a product by both Swatch and Omega SA – so how would we merge? I'm also curious whether you had a look at the sources I found (since amended): Did you not find them sufficient? --LordPeterII (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would merge to Swatch (possibly with a small note on the Omega page) as it is a Swatch creation paying homage to Omega watches. I have absolutely no concerns with the notability even before the addition of the new sources as it received a number of reviews and articles independently to the promotional side of things but I figured that a merge !vote was a simpler approach than saying keep (or even speedy keep) then a WP:RM process down the road. Gusfriend (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting The Swatch Group owns both Swatch and Omega. All three articles could mention it though. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait what – @Gusfriend you believe this satisfies notability, but still voted to Merge because it was simpler? I don't get that. Surely if the article satisfies WP:GNG, we don't need a WP:RM later? The whole point of WP:GNG is to determine whether an article can be standalone, afaik. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant recommend merge rather than recommend move. Do I think that the topic is notable? Yes. Do I think that there is sufficient information for a page? Yes. Do I think that there is a better option for the page than having it as a standalone page? Also yes. Gusfriend (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Just because something can be a standalone topic doesn't mean it needs to be. There is no requirement for all topics with significant coverage to stand alone. In fact, often we have articles that are split out only after the article gets too unweildy in size, not because one of the topics contained therein is independently notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gusfriend and Anachronist: Hmm, okay I think I get what you mean now, thanks for elaborating. I stand by my Keep vote, but the Merge votes no longer seem illogical to me ^^ --LordPeterII (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LordPeterII: In this case, the Swatch article is reasonably short and could easily absorb the information from MoonSwatch without gettting too big in size. It is a convenience for the reader if all the information about a topic is in one place. When that "one place" gets too big, then we split it out. So far nobody except the nominator Shushugah is advocating deletion, and I think even he would likely not object to a merge of content that he feels doesn't merit a standalone topic. A merge discussion can be held separately from this. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Swatch#Swatch X Omega: per Anachronist. The start-class parent article can use additional content and references, already has coverage of the topic, and "there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page" and there is simply no need to have a separate page on every subject. The small amount of content of this article will likely not advance beyond glorified stub yet merging could help raise the parent article classification. -- Otr500 (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The question here is whether there are enough citations to warrant the subject to have its own page, rather than a merge. I believe there are. In addition, merging it may make the Swatch page too long at some point, and require a breakup, so best to keep it as its own page. Lovewiki106 (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the swatch meets our notability guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bev (company)[edit]

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

Not corresponding WP:NCORP and WP:RELIABLE. Obvious WP:PROMO and WP:COI. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Sourcing meets WP:NCORP and the company is notable for being a rare female-led company in the male dominated alcohol business. Addresses Wikipedia's gender bias. However, nom looks like a sock. New account, short history of similar token edits, almost all reverted, then uses Twinkle to nominate this, citing multiple policies that would be unfamiliar to newcomers. I think this is a bad faith nomination to hide the fact that the actual target is another article I wrote, Ragy Thomas, the CEO of a company with a history of being targeted by socks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Electiondata/Archive. WP:NOTHERE TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not achieved if it is female led company. In real world that might be a thing, but on Wikipedia notability is based on citations. Samanthany (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Timpleton - I don't know you. I'm not familiar with any other wikipedians here or there. I pointed out below what problems does the page have. nothing personal. I'm not here because of you as you think. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wine, Companies, and California. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The First Forbes article is good and is by Staff writer. The remaining articles are mostly about the founder, rather than the compamy. Samanthany (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Samanthany the first forbes article also has significant problems, which I addressed in a separate comment below. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Samanthany: I originally thought that an article about the founder would make more sense, but wanted to wait until there's more coverage of her besides describing her role with the company. I added a redirect for Alix Peabody, per Women in Red. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - the company is notable and famous. The nomination is kind of strange. There are many great weblinks, news stories and history behind the company to keep in here. Nomatter No no (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment: This account was created on 29 August 2022 and has zero edits. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - thanks but no thanks. No socks welcome here. Also, @多少 战场 龙:, your editing history is also suspicious. Care to explain how you decided to make these two articles your first Twinkle AfD nominations, and how you learned so much about policy and syntax in just a month of adding Wiki-links that were almost all reverted? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtempleton AfD discussions are created for article discussions, not for user's discussions. your behavior is quite interesting as you don't follow WP:NPA. Be careful. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since this is a company, NCORP criteria applies. I could find nothing that approaches NCORP criteria. Forbes staff [20] perhaps could be regarded as a reliable independent source, however I didn't find it to be independent or deep enough, as at least half of the article is produced by the comments of the Bev's founder, that is a mix of an article and an interview. Another Forbes staff article [21] is also mainly constructed with the comments of Bev's founder and the comments of Bev's investors, with some information regarding Bev's founder biography (unrelated to the Bev). The coverage itself is passing, not truly secondary (because of multiple comments that resemble interview style) and not corresponding this criterion: Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth WP:ORGCRIT 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:NCORP, I also found evaluations of the company product, e.g. Paste Magazine, PopSugar, Wine Spectator. Also, a 2019 Money article about the founding and growth of the company (with some independent content), 2021 news from Fortune about Halle Berry investing (with some independent content) (also blurbed in People), 2022 coverage in AdWeek, a 2021 LA Times article about the industry with coverage of the company, and a brief mention in Wine Spectator in 2021 coverage of the industry, "In June, the L.A.–based canned wine brand Bev became the official canned wine of the Rose Bowl Stadium and will be served at all events, from concerts to sporting events, and even the monthly Rose Bowl Flea Market." Beccaynr (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beccaynr which of those media mentions you mentioned are independent, reliable and addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth? 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bad-faith nomination by a suspicious account. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Games[edit]

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

I prodded it a year ago with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by an editor (no ping, they are topic banned from deletions now) with no meaningful rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). The article hasn't improved since and is still unreferenced. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to difference of opinion on whether the suggested redirect is appropriate to this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I am unable to find any references which establishes notability of the topic company. I am also unconvinced that we have identified a good redirect target and there is nothing in the article that suggests one. HighKing++ 21:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 04:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mask Trilogy[edit]

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

The AfD from last year, IMHO, should've ended with "disambiguate", assuming WP:DISAMBIG allows disambigs for such cases. Otherwise, this just needs to be deleted as failing WP:GNG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I also checked for German wording ("Masken Trilogie") to be sure and could find no sources either, apart from passing mentions in forums and on shopping sites. It might be that the publisher/creator intended to group these games together, and that the individual games are notable; but the grouping under this term here is not mirrored in reliable sources. A disambiguation wouldn't make sense since this doesn't seem to be a common search term. (btw, the source found in the previous AfD was this, and interview with the creator, which uses "Masks Trilogy", with a plural "s". Not sufficient.) --LordPeterII (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Real Bible Translation[edit]

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

A new Bible translation project apparently run by the article creator, with no indication of notability, and no coverage online apart from the project's own blog. The article is entirely original research, with none of the references actually mentioning the project, since they all predate it (including one from 1862). Speedy deleted once already. Storchy (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Software. Storchy (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No relevant references. No assertion of notability.--Jahaza (talk) 07:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Jahaza (talk) 07:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Jahaza (talk) 07:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a speedy candidate because "a new Bible translation" is a per se assertion of importance. Having said that, I don't see any RS coverage in the usual places, and note that most of the article is COATRACK. While I applaud the self-disclosure of COI, I am struggling to see how this is appropriate for Wikipedia yet. Jclemens (talk) 07:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's no coverage by any reliable third-party sources that I could find. This may be an instance of WP:TOOSOON, but the subject fails WP:GNG and I don't know what other notability guideline would apply? WP:NBOOK? WP:NSOFT? It fails those too. As a note, if the article is to be kept then it needs serious work; that lede is overly-technical and the conclusions in the "Traditional Stories Challenged" section are unsourced WP:OR filled with WP:WTA. - Aoidh (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until sourcing develops if ever. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above reasoning. Interesting little article, but it reads like an ad. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this translation is notable, there should be independent reliable sources discussing it. Maybe there will be such sources in the future, but no such sources are cited here yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but tag for imporvement -- The one substantive reference appears to show this is a research project from a Dutch university's school of theology. As such, the sources needed may be non-English ones. The majority of the valid sources appear to be sources for statements in the article. As some one who has studied the New Testament in Greek and English, it soon becomes apparent that one Greek word is liable to be translated in several different ways. This becomes a problem when an English translation is used as the source to translate into a third language, leading to a significant risk of mistranslation. I believe there is a translators' version, designed to avoid this difficulty by translating the same word in the same way. No doubt this also applies to Hebrew. This appears to be an attempt to get around that problem for the Old Testament. Accordingly this seems to me an important research project, but I accept that there is a dearth of independent sources regarding the article. The solution is to tag for improvement, rather than deletePeterkingiron (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By "one substantive reference" I assume you mean the reference to the Eep Telstra Centre? Unfortunately that reference doesn't mention this project, and the article only says that the RBT project is using Eep Telstra's ETCBC database, which is open to researchers outside of the Centre [22], so it doesn't necessarily mean that this is a research project from the Dutch university's school of theology. Perhaps the article creator can clarify. Storchy (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I appreciate User:Peterkingiron's usual attention to the small details and his concern there may be Dutch language materials we are missing. I went looking for any related papers in Dutch in case anything had indeed been missed. There are none though. The project appears to be lead by an individual, MP (I don't name him from an excess of caution - he names himself on the project pages), This individual is apparently from Cleveland, Tennessee according to his public linked in profile, and not based at ETCBC. This is not a project of ETCBC; it is privately funded through Patreon support. It claims to use the Text-Fabric Python module, and the BHSA data graph built by ETCBC. Indeed, github has the code, and the relevant BHSA code is labelled "Forked from ETCBC/bhsa". The ETCBC code is released as open source software. There are no WP:RS about what is being claimed, and the page is clearly written by MP himself as a means of self promotion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Shooting at the 1996 Summer Olympics – Women's 10 metre air pistol. ✗plicit 04:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Schuverer[edit]

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

Fails wp:SPORTBASIC and wp:GNG, also lacks wp:SIGCOV, doesn't appear to have medals. NytharT.C 05:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mike Rohsopht (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third Kishida Cabinet[edit]

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

It is not the "Third Kishida Cabinet" but a reshuffled Second Kishida Cabinet. Usually a reshuffled Japanese cabinet do not have a separate article in the English Wikipedia. Mike Rohsopht (talk) 07:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why does English Wiki seek to follow Japanese Wiki on renaming the cabinet as "reshuffled" but not giving it a separate article? Either merge or move the article to be aligned, but why 1 step and not 2? - Indefensible (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The naming convention is from the Japanese government. It is called "第2次岸田改造内閣" not "第3次岸田内閣"[23]. I will not oppose if someone want to create a separate article in the English Wikipedia for each reshuffled cabinet.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 05:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Think we should move this article. If no one else wants to separate out the earlier cabinet reshuffles (i.e. similar to Japanese Wiki), then I can work on those as well. - Indefensible (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure. It is a reshuffling, but a very big one, more new faces in this cabinet than those remaining. Maybe it should be merged to the 102nd one, more of a merge discussion than deletion. Fulmard (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does anyone oppose just moving this to Second Kishida Cabinet (Reshuffled) to match the Japanese Wiki? Mike Rohsopht seems correct this should not be called the "Third" cabinet, so it should just be fixed soon. If no one else wants to, I can separate out the previous reshuffled cabinets too. - Indefensible (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am neutral on this one. Like Indefensible suggested above, if we are to keep this article, the title should be changed to "Second Kishida Cabinet (reshuffled)", at least not "third". -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 04:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Indefensible: You can move the article.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see discussion and proposals for solutions that are outside the regular outcomes for articles in AFD discussions (Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge). Should this discussion be settled as No Consensus and then you could seek an alternative remedy like a RM?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Procedural close, nomination by a sockpuppet and no response from other editors. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Shroff[edit]

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

There aren't enough sources to demonstrate enough notability. He does not meet our notability requirements, fails GNG. Germeesh (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mukarramah International School[edit]

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

WP:MILL school. Couldn't find any WP:RS. A previous draftification was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by the nom (me). Sufficient sources have been found to suggest borderline notability. (non-admin closure) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selected Stories[edit]

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

A follow up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vintage Munro. Identical case, so quoting from my prior AfD: "Anthology of short stories. Yes, the author won a Nobel Prize in Literature. No, that doesn't mean each of her works is notable (see also WP:NBOOK). Arguably, many of her short stories are notable and we probably need articles on more than we have, but anthologies are just containers, and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Love Lost (book) (an AfD for another anthology of hers that ended up as a redirect), unless we can show that this anthology received coverage as a whole, related to the process of selection of the stories contained in it, it probably should be just a redirect, rather than (as currently), an unreferenced catalogue entry. PS. Note that this collection just reprints stories published before. Her anthologies which contain original work are more likely to be notable, but this is pretty routine." Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of Justice (comics)[edit]

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

I've prodded this 2 years ago with "How is this comic book location notable? Sources are the usual PRMARY for PLOT, plus list of appearances in media. It was also made into two or three toy sets. Nothing here seems sufficient to warrant a stand-alone article?". The PROD was removed without any comment, and the article is still a combo of plot summary and list of comics and related media this appears in (which is pretty much a bulleted point version of plot summary). Can this be saved? My BEFORE suggest this is unlikely... (all I see are some minor plot summaries). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Architecture, and Comics and animation. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very selective merge to Justice League#Headquarters The detail that it was based on CUT is interesting and relevant, but the level of fannish detail is far from encyclopedic. Mangoe (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective Merge to Justice League#Headquarters - My assessment of the independent notability of the location is the same as the nominator's. However, its a valid search term, there is a perfect target for a Redirect, and that very small bit of sourced material on its real-life origin can be merged over there, as said by Mangoe. Rorshacma (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Justice League#Headquarters. If the end result is merge, I ask that the closer of this discussion start a sub-section for the Justice League's respectful headquarters and have the information for the Hall of Justice be placed under the established Hall of Justice section. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG based on sources in article. Bad articles need improving not deleting. AFD is not cleanup.★Trekker (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SIGCOV is not met by any source. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Justice League#Headquarters. The topic doesn't appear to have coverage that can allow it to meet GNG. What's in the article seems to mostly amount to fluff. TTN (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Justice League#Headquarters. I found no evidence of the subject meeting GNG. There doesn't seem to be much to merge, but a merge seems a better option to me than a full-on delete. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Justice League#Headquarters. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC) Keep. New sources have been added by BD2412 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 06:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [24], [25] appear to be two non-trivial independent RS mentions about the edifice itself. "Hall of Justice" is used as a synecdoche for the Justice League itself or as a simple gathering point so often that everyone can be forgiven for not finding these--it took me some digging. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The first source is a discussion of a single bubble, an effectively saying "oh, it's open for public/tourists and provides revenue, smart". Right. But that's not SIGCOV. Ditto for the other source, which compiles passing mentions about dungeons underneath the hall. The problem is we still don't have any source that discusses the importance of the main structure itself. Notability is not inherited, and a discussion of minute trivia related to the Hall (tourism, dungeons) is hard to generalize to the notability of the Hall itself. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but your bar for SIGCOV is simply unreasonably high. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect as there isn't WP:SIGCOV to prove WP:NOTABILITY for this as a separate topic. Many sources treat this as a synonym for the Justice League itself and the others are only passing mentions. Jontesta (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, merge or redirect? Or merge-redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Smerge to create a WP:CONSENSUS. Agree with Rorshacma that this doesn't meet policies for a stand-alone article, but redirects are cheap, and editors can find a WP:DUE amount of information to be included at the target. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a uniquely notable fictional location. BD2412 T 01:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources in the article (including a reference that I just added to Robert Greenberger, Justice League: 100 Greatest Moments (2018)) suffice to provide WP:SIGCOV. It has appeared in various iterations of fictional media, and in the real world as a toy set. At least one real-world building has been modeled after the fictional one (I have also added reference to this), which also indicates architectural significance. BD2412 T 03:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What substantial information is to be found in the 100 Greatest Moments? Looking at the Google Books search, I see plot-only trivial mention after trivial mention, so I don't see how it can be said to provide significant coverage. There appears to be no significant commentary on the structure at all in that source. There doesn't appear to be anything currently in the article that necessitates the current level of depth. Justice League#Headquarters can easily be expanded to two or three paragraphs to include the minor development info and sufficiently describe it in expansive enough detail relative to its weight. TTN (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For substantial coverage, I would first point to the CBR article, "Meanwhile... A History of the Justice League's Hall of Justice". That certainly goes beyond being "plot-only". In any case, we would need to keep the current title as a redirect to maintain the edit history of content copied over per the GFDL, but I see nothing on the page that should immediately be deleted, so we would end up copying over the entire thing into an article-length section inside another article. BD2412 T 16:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What in particular does an article that simply regurgitates info found elsewhere bring to the table? The only real world information in the article currently attributed to it is a quote that seems to originate from the older of the Cincinnati Enquirer articles. It appears that source could be completely removed without any lost context. My opinions on listicle-farming trash like CBR not counting as a reliable source aside, I don't see how an article created simply to capitalize on search results is in any way significant coverage if it provides no real original commentary on the topic.
  • This does not reflect the reality of what the sources say. The assertion that The 100 Greatest Moments provides "plot-only" trivial mention is incorrect. That source also states that the building was "based on Cincinnati's Union Terminal", which is obviously not a "plot-only" detail (unless an in-universe discussion of this design element can be provided), identifies Al Gmuer as the designer of the building for the comics (also not a "plot-only" detail), and characterizes the reaction of fans to the structure (also not a "plot-only" and obviously significant to notability). The CBR article by a well-known writer in the field is not a "listicle" and is a reliable secondary source. Of course it contains information that can be found elsewhere, that's why we use secondary sources. However, the article also describes—not found in any other source that I have seen—the artist's eventual displeasure with having to draw the building due to its complexity, which is also obviously not a "plot-only" element. There has not been a good-faith examination of the sources. !Votes premised on rejecting permissible sources because some editors wish they were impermissible should be discounted. BD2412 T 18:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what good is supposed to come from pointing out that the referenced content amounts to minor production details. That's textbook trivial coverage. The quote, "In the long run, I hated that building...The way it's designed, it was not easy to draw. I had nightmares about that damn building" comes from this 2009 article (or was at least was the first to use the quote if it originates elsewhere) that is already cited, so that means there is no benefit whatsoever to the CBR article. Though again, that is a minor production detail doesn't help the topic meet GNG or necessitate a full article on the topic. Even without this back and forth on what consitutes reliable and signficant, the amount of real world information cited in the article is extrodinarily trivial. It can all fit within the parent article in a small single paragraph. TTN (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevertheless, the CBR source is an originally arranged piece by an expert in the field. It is a reliable source, and it does provide in-depth coverage of the subject. Of course, the details are about a fictional structure, which is no different from having an article on the Death Star or The Simpsons house or Hogwarts. If such details were automatically trivial, we wouldn't have any of these. BD2412 T 18:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if it provides nothing new, then what good is the article in fulfilling the requirement of significant coverage? If you can remove it from this article and lose no context, what purpose does it have? In having nothing new to bring to the table, that solidifies its place as a pop culture fluff piece that exists solely to drive clicks. Primary production details are fine article content, but they are not GNG-fulfilling content. They can be placed in the most relevant space, which would be the main article's section on the topic. To sustain an article, we need a good deal more in terms of commentary and cultural impact. TTN (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The construction of an actual physical replica of the fictional building is sufficient cultural impact. Multiple of the sources note that the structure is well-known to fans of the comics, a considerable population. BD2412 T 19:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We seem to be arguing "notability" vs WP:Notability. The building is undeniably something culturally recognizable, but that does not currently extend to meeting GNG through reliable sources. As of this time, everything in the article amounts to a few minor sentences that together fail to meet the SIGCOV threshold. Articles don't need to have 15 paragraphs of cultural analysis to meet GNG, but this still isn't cracking more than a paragraph of mostly minor production details. TTN (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order to reach that position, you would have to imagine that CBR and the Cincinatti Enquirer are not reliable sources. There is no such determination at WP:RSP. With the right attitude, one could dismiss every piece of information in Wikipedia as "trivia" and delete the whole thing. BD2412 T 20:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The main issue I am seeing is that few sentences are not really WP:SIGCOV. Still, there may be something to MERGE to Cincinnati_Union_Terminal#In_popular_culture, which, strangely, doesn't even seem to link back to this article (although it does mention the connection). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There are now 22 23 sources in the article, including five six that I have added within about the past 48 hours. There are, obviously, many more sources in the world that discuss the Hall of Justice to some degree, but suppose we do a source analysis of the 22 23 that are currently in use. BD2412 T 04:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    By all means, please tell us which of these meet SIGCOV. To avoid miscommunication, for each source you think meets SIGCOV, you provide a link and a number of sentences and paragraphs about this source, plus a quotation of your choice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The status quo is that an article is kept unless there is a consensus for deletion, and this consensus must be supported by policy. The burden is yours to make the case for deletion. Why don't you tell us which of these sources does not meet SIGCOV, with a number of sentences and paragraphs. I have actually just added a 24th source, which spends three pages, a total of fifteen paragraphs, describing just the Kenner/DC Hall of Justice playset. BD2412 T 05:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BURDEN. The ball is in your court. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BURDEN states: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". The substantial claims of the article are supported by inline citations to reliable sources, several of which contain multiple paragraphs on the subject of the article. That burden is clearly satisfied. BD2412 T 19:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The burden of verification, yes. The burden of notability, not as much. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You cited WP:BURDEN. I merely quoted what it says. BD2412 T 04:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2009 Cincinnati Enquirer piece reposted here is typeset at about 40 paragraphs, but since almost every sentence is its own paragraph, it amounts to about 50 sentences. It might be quibbled that the article strays from the comic book topic, but the title is literally "Meanwhile, at the Hall of Justice…". BD2412 T 05:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The source is arguably about the Cincinnati Union Terminal as much as it is about Hall of Justice. The section "Union Terminal in peril", for example, is all about the real, not comic building. I still see no reason to split the 'Union Terminal in popular culture' section into a dedicated article. Other than a short paragraph about how the Hall was inspired by the real building, all there is is fancruft (plot summary and media appearances). A redirect will suffice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Arguably" cuts both ways. That section is 1/5 of the entire article. BD2412 T 19:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And the rest is mostly about CUT, with only some mentions of HoJ. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire thrust of the article is about how the Cincinnati Union Terminal, despite being an unquestionably notable building in itself, is far less notable than the quasi-fictional building (quasi because versions of it have now actually been built) from the comics and TV series. The first nine paragraphs of the article are about the Hall of Justice (a paragraph noting similarities between the buildings is by definition about both); the last six paragraphs of the second section are about the Hall of Justice; several additional paragraphs of the article are as well. If you knew nothing about the Hall of Justice before reading this article, you would come away from this article knowing why it was designed, when it was designed, who designed it, how it was designed, what the editorial process was, what it looks like, how the designer felt about it, how an important segment of the audience felt about it, and some details of repeat appearances after its debut. BD2412 T 04:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For the sake of the argument (and yours is not terrible), let's agree this source is ok. GNG does, however, require two good sources. Can you show me your second one for this? Again, one that meets SIGCOV and goes beyond a plot summary? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Before getting into that I am going to point out that in the past few days, I have completely turned this article around in terms of eliminated unsourced cruft, and providing a not-in-universe section about the origin and design elements. Compare the current article to the version at the time of nomination, and it's night and day. As for sources, there is no policy excluding the above-discussed Anthony Couto CBR article, "Meanwhile... A History of the Justice League's Hall of Justice", for this purpose. That is seventeen solid paragraphs on this subject. CBR is a permissible source and the author of the piece has been cited in published works in the field. The complaint that the article is derivative of content published elsewhere would knock out every biography of John Adams or history of the American Civil War that relied on recounting events previously recounted by others. It has no basis in policy, nor could it. I would also point to Greenberg's Guide to Super Hero Toys, which spends three pages and a dozen full paragraphs discussing a playset of Hall of Justice (which has various features of the building as depicted in other media). We could practically have an article on the playset alone, but I think it's best to keep the content together with other information on one of the most recognizable fictional buildings in the U.S., if not the world. BD2412 T 06:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While I am not fully convinced, looking at the current distribution of votes it is likely this will be kept. Thanks for rescuing this (even if I'd like to see at least one more good ref, as I am not convinced Greenberg's is a RS). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please re-review the article as it has basically been rewritten.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per BD2412's improvements and sources. SnowFire (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am satisfied with BD2412's work with finding adequate sources for the article. Haleth (talk) 09:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. The difference between the nominated version and the improved version is considerable and substantive. User:BD2412 has improved both the sourcing and the encyclopedic style of this page. Nominator's reasonable BEFORE could not have forseen the considerable nerd-cred User:BD2412 has displayed in this discussion. BusterD (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suggest this discussion is a demonstration of how the AfD process has been being misused to bludgeon improvements, rather than being an evaluation of the potential of an article. WP:ARTN is explicitly opposed to such de facto requirements. Jclemens (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jclemens: Nevertheless, the outcome will be correct. BD2412 T 21:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Articles reaching the TNT threshold are often deleted, regardless of notability status, because even a redlink may encourage new article creation rather than leaving the page in the status quo; totally unreferenced and unencyclopedic. If someone then decides to improve it and invoke WP:HEY, that is their business, but there is no rush here. Nobody is insinuating a better version of such an article can't be made later. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Zxcvbnm: Even so, if this article had been deleted rather than being rewritten, we would have lost the 1/3 or so that was usable, and remains there now, including previously underutilized references that contained additional background information. BD2412 T 06:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Oregon. Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UO Computer and Information Science Department[edit]

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

Not notable. Few outside sources. - Wiseoleman17 (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/redirect to main University of Oregon page Andre🚐 06:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to University of Oregon. I think there is a case to retain the article history here as some content may have scope for being merged, however I am unsure exactly which parts could be and there isn't an appropriate section on the proposed target article now to either merge into or directly redirect to. The majority of the references are primary sources and those that aren't I don't believe sufficiently assert notability. A straight redirect at least allows for future selective merging with attribution as I am not seeing a case for this to remain an article. Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Knafo Klimor Architects[edit]

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

WP:NCORP/WP:CORPDEPTH failure. No significant independent coverage of the company located on a search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azinho Solomon[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sources such as [26] and [27] are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep after the uncontested discovery of sources. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Edwards[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Page appears to be nothing more than a promo. Wozal (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nomination. This article don't have any significant coverage, it really looks like promo.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 03:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom – I can't find any significant independent coverage, although now I know that there is a (different, i think) Rusty Edwards who serves as a high school principal in Florida. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    hmm, i'm unconvinced by Jahaza's sources – the second is good biographical information, but I'm not seeing that the rest provide similar SIGCOV, or a WP:NAUTHOR pass. Maybe some guarantee notability for his works? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a couple of his hymns appear to be widely published in hymnals[28] across many denominations and reliable biographical information is available in the companion[29] to Wonder, Love, and Praise: a supplement to the Hymnal 1982. He has an entry in the Canterbury Dictionary of Hymnology [30]. The Hymn index 1982-1997 shows a number of relevant article entries[31]. He gets mentioned a couple of places as a notable hymn writer such as here[32]--Jahaza (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jahaza (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources uncovered by Jahaza. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jahaza. StAnselm (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found. I'll note that this isn't me or any relative of mine I know of. Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified by Jahaza in this discussion so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Greensmith[edit]

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

The was a proposed deletion for the article back in July which was objected to. The actor doesn't seem to pass WP:NACTOR and a WP:BEFORE search didn't bring up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Suonii180 (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This doesn't pass WP:NACTOR. Even it doesn't pass WP:GNG because there is no significant coverage on the subject.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 03:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A lot of passing mentions for his role, but nothing in the way of SIGCOV. The four sources in the article do little more than peg his name to the role. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I have reached the exact same conclusion as Theleekycauldron, in that there are numerous "passing mentions" of him in contemporary news reports but all they do is associate him to the single role he seems to have acted in and in no way offer any significant coverage or close to asserting notability. Probably a bit WP:TOOSOON, though there may be scope in the future, perhaps. Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair Morrison, 3rd Baron Margadale[edit]

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

British lord with no claim to fame. Fails WP:BIO. Didn't sit in the House of Lords either, so cannot qualify for WP:NPOL. BEFORE only turned up a Daily Mail piece and one run-of-the-mill piece in the Times. He is also a Deputy Lieutenant (DL) for Wiltshire, which is only a honorary position, and there are lots of precedents for deletion of DL articles, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Philip Grey Egerton, 11th Baronet and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Williams, Baroness Williams of Elvel. Source assessment follows.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Burke's Peerage [date, page unknown] No Only reliable for genealogy, per WP:RSP. However, family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic, per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. It's also a tertiary source since it acts as a reference work of noble titles, so it cannot count towards the GNG. ? ✘ No
"The Hon Declan Morrison and Miss M.de L.M. Prado – Engagements Announcements – Telegraph Announcements" No Engagement announcements are written by the spouses-to-be or their families, and are primary sources. No One sentence ✘ No
"No. 57113". The London Gazette. 14 November 2003. p. 14106. No Primary source and passing mention. ✘ No
Danielle Sheridan, "Lord’s apology after rowdy 21st birthday keeps villagers awake", The Times, 27 September 2016 No Morrison issued an apology after his daughter's rowdy 21st birthday. Not sigcov, and the whole article is WP:MILL. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Pilaz (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Including for this: [33]. MisterWizzy (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator withdrew, article is being worked on. (non-admin closure) Madeline (part of me) 16:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Violence against men[edit]

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

This article is obviously bunkum, it's WP:POINTY, about as pointy as it gets. Looking at sources, they are frequently misrepresented. After taking the time to read the first few sources, it is evident that they clearly do not support the claims they are linked to. Generally, the article's claims are poorly cited and wildly at odds with mainstream academic discourse around the subject of gendered violence. Many claims are very dubious, for example the article claims the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide were "gendercide", among a litany of other blatant nonsense. There does appear to be a small amount of legitimate content amongst the pointy bunkum. Perhaps merge any useful, valid and well cited content into another article/articles like War Crime or Domestic Violence? I'm a bit confounded as to why it wasn't deleted at the first two nominations where consensus was to delete, and with good reason. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 01:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep : There shouldn't be a Violence against women article, When Male violence isn't represented. That's plain sexist. User:PeenorMan
  • Keep: I reviewed a few of the academic articles and I didn't see them misrepresenting anything, but I'll go back later when I have time and do a deeper dive. Criminology isn't my area of expertise but from the articles I read that seem to reflect a mainstream viewpoint as they are still cited by people within the last couple of years. With that said I think a lot of the articles could use an update which I don't think would be that hard to find. I think the gendercide content isn't the greatest part of the article for sure but it doesn't make up a large chunk. Since the last time this article was up for deletion it's grown significantly and has a lot more information and depth. If you could give a more detailed outline of what you believe is wrong with the article it would be helpful because this is a really long articles, most of the AfDs I see here are a lot shorter and have less material to go over. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 02:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Echoing what @LordPeterII said, if I'm missing something I'm willing to change my vote. It is a really long article so there a chance I could have missed something. I did go over the article a bit more, updated some of the academic articles, and tried to improve the flow. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 09:52, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I might change my vote when the deletion reason is expained: @Tambor de Tocino, why do you believe this article should be deleted? This procedure is for very specific reasons only (please see WP:DEL-REASON), a bad article quality not being one of them. If you think that the article has issues, please tag them or fix them yourself. There were not just two, but four noms previously, with different results; but I agree with Dr_vulpes that the article today seems to be a different one. I see a large number of sources, and couldn't check them all; but it seems the article is not all bad. Parts of it might be, yes, but that doesn't mean we should delete. --LordPeterII (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Dr Vulpes and LordPeterII, thanks for your considered responses. I hear what you are saying, and I also struggle to go through the entire article as its really long, but at a cursory look, I found a lot of fringe/dubious citations and issues that raise concerns for me that the article has been created in bad faith and often edited so. The first two citations back a claim that men are over-represented as victims of violence...this is in stark contrast to the figures and in contrast to mainstream academic views on gendered violence...and unless I missed something, neither citation makes that claim, on the contrary all the evidence I've seen says the opposite. This is a false claim, obviously false and easily falsifiable (last time I studied this subject women were four times more likely globally to be victims of gendered violence). The article misrepresents citations by conflating all violence that men experience with gendered violence. A prime example is the obvious non-sense that the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust targeted men on the basis of gender (this is blatant BS). The article was originally created in an obviously pointy manner, someone just copied the violence against women article and changed the genders used in the article, that was an obvious farce. The article had been improved but like the fist citations, the cites are often misinterpreted or selectively read, many of the cited materials also run with fringe views when Wikipedia articles, while giving some space to alternative views, should be weighted to favour the mainstream view. I don't think any serious study of the subject of gendered violence would lead any reasonable person to the conclusion that men are somehow highly represented as victims of gendered violence, it's patent nonsense, a deliberate and obviously false equivalence. The Violence against women article has a heap of issues too, but at least the subject is really a thing. I hope that's not too long winded a response, it's hard to address the issues in an article with such an inexhaustible list of problems. I guess it could just be improved, but it reads like it was created by partisans in the American culture wars, like a real anti-feminist, super WP:POINTY article. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a Google search for "rwanda genocide gender" and the very first result is an academic article that contradicts your assertions. Just because an article may go against your ideology does not mean it should be deleted. If there are sources that support your claim, you should edit the article to include them as well.
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14623520120113900?journalCode=cjgr20 188.213.136.3 (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, feel free to improve the article. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is completely false. Its a well known fact that men are vastly more often the victims of violence, everything you write is completely bad faith. What is funny is that what you claim that its conflating all violence that men experience with gendered violence when what actually happens is the reverse, gendered violence against men are ignored and dismissed as just violence while all violence that women experience gets conflated with gendered violence all the time. Just go look at the article for violence against women, its stacked full of it while here we have well documented instances of violence against men and your first instinct is to delete it. 130.226.157.37 (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:46, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with reservations. There is a valid topic here but the article needs to be reviewed carefully. Somebody needs to go through and remove all the poorly referenced stuff, if reliable alternative sources can not be found. The thing that seems to have set the nominator off is the Holocaust stuff and, yeah, that's absolutely fair. gendercide.org looks to be an anonymous blog. It's definitely not RS for sweeping statements about the Holocaust, and probably not for anything at all! More broadly, the article needs to take more care not to equate the extent of gendered violence against men with gendered violence against women and other genders. It is fair to note that wars are often fought by men who are unwilling conscripts but this is not, specifically, gendered violence. The article should link more to the articles about the equivalent articles affecting women. This article is going to accumulate more and more MRA nonsense unless watched carefully. There are indications of that in the current See Also section. The inclusion of links to SCUM Manifesto and Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy are dubious at best, and that latter one might be a more plausible deletion case than this article. That's annoying (as MRAs often are) but it's not cause to delete. DanielRigal (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with your points, I think the article is trying to draw false equivalences, misreads sources, misrepresents scholarly materials, is so poorly constructed, makes so many obviously false claims and is clearly WP:POINTY...I think it should be deleted or a t least burnt down and re-built from scratch. But when all is said and done, it'll eventually just end up being a dogs breakfast again, it's such a quagmire of blatant falsehoods, false equivalences and mindless anti-feminist POV pushing that it's unlikely it'll ever be a good article. There's a reason it keeps getting nominated for deletion. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    >It is fair to note that wars are often fought by men who are unwilling conscripts but this is not, specifically, gendered violence.
    I'm not sure the question is as cut and dry as you make it out to be in that specific case. This academic at least considers it to be part of the issue: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0967010606064139?journalCode=sdib
    UNHCR (https://www.unhcr.org/gender-based-violence.html) has this to say about gendered violence: "Gender-Based violence refers to harmful acts directed at an individual based on their gender. It is rooted in gender inequality, the abuse of power and harmful norms." Further on in the article, they include economic acts as a form of gender-based violence. The Council of Europe has a similar definition which is broad, all encompassing.
    I'm not going to go into extent or prevalence debate, there's a lot of different statistics out there, some of which paint a much more "balanced" picture of IPV and gendered violence, but it's not my area of expertise. I do think that without necessarily making violence against men or against women as a competition, it's possible to discuss the issues. I think it's important to maintain neutrality and not present the issue as one gender having it worse than another except when firmly supported by data, and then with proper qualification of the sources. 24.203.119.44 (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to change my !vote slightly. It is still a keep, but additionally I now recommend indefinite semi-protection to keep the more disruptive elements at least somewhat in check and allow the grown ups a chance to make progress with the article without tearing their hair out in frustration. DanielRigal (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this recent report from the World Health Organisation (WHO) contradicts the entire premise of this article. This entire article is blatant non-nonsense. In the UK for example women are the victims of 77% of gendered violence and 96% of perpetrators are men...but yet, somehow this article? Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Look we're willing to try and salvage this article. No one is disagreeing that the article as it was nominated was problematic but it is an important topic and we can fix this article pretty easily. Even if we have to remove large chunks of it. And if we see more nonsense being added back in we can go request page protection. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 04:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I can see what you're saying. Now that it's getting a bit of work done on it it's looking less like an anti-feminist attack piece...I really can see what you're saying, thanks. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your logic exactly? WHO have a heavy anti male feminist bias but even if we assume that claim to be true that article does not disprove that men are victims in any shape or form.
    Are you trying to argue that because there is female victims there can't be male victims? What is the logic here? This seems to be nothing but and unfunded anti male attack on male victims. 130.226.157.37 (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
40+ years after lying about DV, we see 5th attempt to remove wiki article on DV against men.
KEEP 2A02:908:1255:2DA0:4CE0:7206:4C71:2020 (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I suggest reverting all changes made by Tambor de Tocino as when you look at the changes they have made they have done nothing but sabotage the article removing valid sources and injecting their own biased language.
Fx they changed "Men are over-represented as both victims and perpetrators of violence." to
"Men are over-represented as both perpetrators and victims of violence." Removing sources and shifting the focus from men as victims to perpetrators. Why one would write about men as perpetrators in an article about male victims in the first place is highly dubious and indicative of anti male bias, but the fact they went out of their way to change the focus of the sentence reveals that their actions are nothing but anti male attacks.
Care to explain yourself Tambino and maybe revert your questionable changes? 130.226.157.37 (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you have a problem with the article, fix it. What you're doing is clearly WP:POINTY, about as pointy as it gets.

KRLA18 (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of misandrist garbage is this? It's obviously an agenda driven attack on male victims as this entire discussion does nothing but but make false accusations having no valid examples of how it's "bunkum" despite the vast evidence provided of violence against men. It's clear as day it's nothing but anti male retorics by misandrist who wants nothing but silence and cover up the ways men are victims. Everyone who are trying to get this deleted should be ashamed of themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.44.83 (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Amber Heard vs Depp case is a mainstream example of false accusations against men. Any feminist who denies this is just gaslighting. 82.132.186.196 (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!... there are so many men who suffer in silence and think they are alone. 190.92.37.2 (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... you do realize that all votes above were "Keep", meaning that we think the article should not be deleted? We are currently working on the article to make it better, instead. We don't need articles that are in a bad shape and risk getting deleted, we need good articles that can inform people. Heard vs Depp was indeed an example of a false accusation (but it's not really within the scope of this article, so I'm not sure why you bring it up). Wikipedia has a WP:NPOV, which is why I believe it is important to have articles like this one, too. But unless you want to participate in this deletion discussion or the improvement of the article, I suggest you find a discussion forum. --LordPeterII (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And Jesus himself was weeping. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because of your actions. You aren't even pointing out anything wrong with the page, just making broad general statements that its bunkum despite it is factually not and have a giant pile of well documented sources. You should be ashamed of yourself and your obvious misandry. If you had any decency you would apologize for this obvious and unfounded man hating attack on male victims and delete your account and never ruin another wiki article with your bias. Shame! 130.226.157.37 (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that this page never should have been up for deletion, that its likely a anti male attack on male victims and this entire discussion is filled with anti male rethorics? And as such it seems likely to me that any such "improvements" are just gonna be ways to silence male victims and cover up violence against men. If anything the only improvement that is needed is that the page way underplays the sheer scale of violence against men. I wont let this kind of misandry go unchallenged.
I suggest that Tambor de Tocino should never touch the article ever again due to obvious misandry bias, and so should anyone in this discussion who wants to "improve" the article by covering up and silencing male victims. Especially any feminists as they are known to have heavy anti male bias and largely operate by creating anti male attack pieces. Anyone critical of MRA should have no say, as their bias is obvious since they are against men having basic humans right. In fact, the only ones that should be writing about this are MRA and people who are knowledgeable about violence against males and can write without obvious feminist anti male bias. 130.226.157.37 (talk) 08:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - to delete this page confirms the violence against men, be it physical, emotional or just bias. Feminism lacks empathy towards men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.223.136.5 (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP No specific references to what is wrong just their conclusion that sources are 'frequently misrepresented'. I dont have time to sort through all refrences to see if I agree. If there are issues please bring the forward so that they may be fixed. I would say the general philosophy of Wikipedia is to improve not delete.
″I'm a bit confounded as to why it wasn't deleted at the first two nominations where consensus was to delete, and with good reason.″ This is easy to answer, those nominations were in 2006 and 2011. The current year is 2022 and this pages history starts in 2013‎. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EatingFudge (talk • contribs) 02:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up :D I think this deletion discussion can be closed now, there's a consensus to keep and improve and I agree, the article has many problems, but there is a real article in there, it just needs a lot of work.Tambor de Tocino (talk) 03:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:ATD-E and WP:BATHWATER, and especially per DanielRigal. Articles such as these require regular careful scrutiny to make sure they remain NPOV. If there are problems with the page, either fix them or use one of the many fine discussion mechanisms. If in doubt, start with the talk page. De Guerre (talk) 07:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - And a huge thanks to everyone working hard on fixing the article. De Guerre (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The fact this question even got asked is just more proof of how disposable women, and society, think men are. It's obvious that nobody cares about men's problems, that's why feminists keep trying to delete this page. Men suffer MUCH higher rates of suicide, workplace deaths, domestic violence and more than women, but we're not allowed to talk about it. At least we have this page, if nothing else. And, frankly, you can't have a Violence Against Women page without this one. That's called hypocrisy, and it's against the Wiki policy. Cfisher 06:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbfisher (talk • contribs) [reply]

Note: I've just had to revert some personal attacks on this page. MRAs, please try to understand that you are not helping anybody by behaving like this. If anything, you are making me reconsider my keep !vote. Please, just pack it in and let the grown ups work on this. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DanielRigal. There are massive issues with articles like this being targeted by fringe individuals pushing their agenda, I think this is evident in some of the hysterics. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is massive issues with the way this article is being targeted by you pushing your anti male sexist agenda, its evident in your hysterics and complete lack of any evidence of your claims. You "Men are over-represented as both victims and perpetrators of violence." to
"Men are over-represented as both perpetrators and victims of violence." Removing sources and shifting the focus from men as victims to perpetrators. Why one would write about men as perpetrators in an article about male victims and thereby victim blame in the first place is highly dubious and indicative of anti male bias, but the fact they went out of their way to change the focus of the sentence reveals that your actions are nothing but anti male attacks. You should stop your obvious feminist anti male agenda driven attacks on male victims. 130.226.157.37 (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Behaving like what DanielRigal? Calling out anti male misandry and feminist attacks on male victims? Why is not helping? And why is defending male victims making your reconsider your vote as all that should matter is the articles validity not your feelings about being called out. Please, pack it in and let grown ups work on this, like egalitarians and male rights activists. Not obvious anti male feminists. 130.226.157.37 (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are disrupting the AfD process. Remember, that's what we are here for, to decide whether to keep or delete the article. This is not your personal soapbox to rant on. Pack it in! --DanielRigal (talk) 12:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 1) Use the talk page to identity direct quotes from cited sources, 2) Restructure the topic around those sources, 3) Avoid blanket generalizations, 4) Keep on topic and not qualify points about violence against men with 'and ABC also happens to other groups' to diminish each example.
Please no simpleton derailment for the same reason no one would write about Agatha Christie as such: "Agatha Christie was an author, as was Arthur Conan Doyle, of popular mystery novels; but Arthur Conan Doyle was more popular. Her novels are widely regarded as near the pinnacle of the genre, though critics consider Arthur Conan Doyle's works to be of higher quality." Wikipedia, on many facets, has a tendency to one-upmanship in many articles which should be discouraged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:E8D4:FB31:78E2:D335 (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination fails to make a valid case for deletion. There seem to be plenty of sources available to establish notability. Article quality (or lack thereof) is not a reason for deletion. GoldenRing (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. —Wasell(T) 🌻 16:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Rojas (weathercaster)[edit]

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

Sources provided demonstrate only WP:ROUTINE coverage. Of the four sources cited, two are puff-piece announcements based on interviews, one (ABS-CBN) is not independent of the subject, and one is about non-notable tweets by others about the subject. The notability guidelines WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:JOURNALIST may apply to broadcast news personalities. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have founded sources from LIONHEARTV.net about Rojas: [35] [36]. They are repeated sources mentioned here. We may just pick one to add it to the article if its okay. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't significant coverage, that's a brief promotional blurb. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:JOURNALIST. I also think that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Compare his career in contrast with the weather presenters that he replaced such as Kim Atienza and Ernie Baron. --Lenticel (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the given sources is appropriate to establish notability. --ColinFine (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BIO. Sources in the article, including the one presented by SeanJ, are reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Still convinced that it meets BIO with additional sources by SeanJ below. SBKSPP (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 00:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per Nom and Lenticel. A BLP is more than a resume and should be full and balanced. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Otr500: So what do you call the first two sources mentioned at the article? And do you believe what SBKSPP said? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If SBKSPP's vote is right, why you don't guys considered it that it pass WP:BIO? SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How about this? Instead of arguing that a subject is notable, use some of the sources to perform a HEY. This would be better than ignoring that at present, as written, the article is not a biography of a living person but a glorified dictionary entry, which is why I included WP:PSEUDO and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé. Maybe, as an ATD you would care to opt for draftify -- Otr500 (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Otr500: Well as you you look at the sources mentioned here, it is like a WP:HEY. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, I have found another sources and I don't know which Wikipedia policies do they pass, if they pass some but failed on some like what is mentioned above, vote keep, its just a waste of time for me to find sources that can pass just one Wikipedia policy, and I think thats WP:BIO: [37] [38] [39] [40]. Do not waste my time finding more sources that is even just pass WP:BIO other than WP:JOURNALIST, etc. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to say is that RESEARCH PROPERLY!, there may be many sources about Rojas that can pass WP:BIO. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The sources I mentioned above is WP:HEY. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SeanJ 2007: Hey (heh) there! just for the record, WP:HEY is not simply finding more sources – it requires substantial improvement to the article itself, using those new sources. If you can fashion a more substantive article with this source, then WP:HEY might apply. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Theleekycauldron: Okay, I am waiting for the answers of others if some of the sources I mentioned above can fit to the article. If none, I think there is a chance it may be deleted. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving this discussion one more round to discuss the additional sources indicated above. To SeanJ 2007, please be civil to the editors in this discussion. Whether they agree or disagree with you, respect their views instead of wasting your time arguing with them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 00:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete routine/trivial coverage, nothing notable that I see. Oaktree b (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per non-notability and somewhat per WP:NOTNEWS. Coverage is in context of what-seems-to-be a routine hiring of a weather-related show, which is not sufficient basis for inclusion. In addition, coverage is not significant because an article that contains more than his name, previous job, new job, and education is not possible with the linked articles. I'm willing to reconsider if I can be disproved by addition of material to the article. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 04:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per above. Coverage doesn't meet the criteria of standards for WP:NBIO (WP:JOURNALIST) and WP:PSEUDO with a possible include WP:ROTM, WP:ROUTINE and WP:TRIVIAL. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are a lot of sources being thrown at us here but none are quite cutting the mustard. Could be notable in future but they're not quite there yet. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 09:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_August_26&oldid=1108322204"