Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 31 February 02 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. I contemplated relisting this, but am comfortable closing this as soft since it's the article's creator requesting review, and there are no substantive additions from other editors. Could also be considered a G7 Star Mississippi 20:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nemo Schiffman[edit]

Nemo Schiffman (edit | talk | history | 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 created this article almost a year ago, when I didn't know about notability requirements. After looking over this article again, it appears that they do not meet the requirements, with only a few minor roles. Wgullyn (talk) 22:58, 1 February 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. Geschichte (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest wilderness areas in the United States[edit]

List of largest wilderness areas in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Complete content fork with List of wilderness areas in the United States. The complete list is able to be sorted by size, providing the same information. Suggest blanking and redirecting to the parent list. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:45, 1 February 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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paperboy Prince[edit]

Paperboy Prince (edit | talk | history | 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 WP:POLITICIAN WP:MUSICBIO Yousef Raz (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm seeing coverage well beyond what one would expect from a losing politician, including significant coverage in The New Yorker, Business Insider, Rolling Stone, and Washington Post. Mlb96 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note @Mlb96 Each of those articles are about the subject's mayoral candidacy. The subject's candidacy received 0.4% of the votes. The WaPo article is about mayoral race with brief mentions of the subject. This level of coverage is expected and consistent with the other NYC mayor candidates for Democrat primary 2021.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article meets WP:GNG. “A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject,”. I do not know what else we are looking for here. Whatever it was that the made journos write about him is none of our concern as editors as far as he passes the criteria, there’s no need to sweat this out. And please, don’t try to convince me to change my mind, we’re not trying to get the winner or loser here. Reading BeansTalk to the Beans
  • Delete Incidental coverage of a person in connection with an election is not enough to show notability. Almost all candidates get some coverage, but this coverage is not enough to make us have to create articles on every person who runs for public office and gets coverage for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick google news search brings up multiple reliable and independent sources writing about them. He therefore meets the inclusion criteria. CT55555 (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which could be said for almost any candidate for public office above a certain level. Unelected candidates need to do more than just pass the minimum of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you agreeing that he meets the GNG? You think he needs to do something more than that? It seems you're moving the argument to why he meets the GNG, whereas I'm just sticking to the point of if he meets it. CT55555 (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets Notability Guidelines. I've read a few articles about them recently. Came here for more background and was quite shocked to see there was any question at all about their notability. J. Van Meter (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note @User:J. Van Meter He's a minor part of a New York City Mayoral Democrat primary. Its consistent with WP:ONEEVENT. Every person that ever runs in a New York City mayor Democrat Primary will likely get a news article about them.Yousef Raz (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note Yousef Raz, please use the correct pronouns (they/them) when referring to the subject of the article.Sevey13 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG, which is sufficient. I don't think WP:ONEEVENT applies here as they appear to also be notable for their music career. NemesisAT (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems pretty clear their biography passes the notability guidelines given the sourcing present. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even the current citations in the article demonstrate a wide variety of coverage over a sustained period of time.Sevey13 (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment At this point, the chances of this article being deleted are equivalent to a snowball's chance. User:Yousef Raz I encourage you to withdraw this AfD as per WP:SNOW CT55555 (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The sources do seem reliable enough and the subject seems to have coverage in both music and politics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 04:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are plenty of good citations provided. Caphadouk (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough sources to show that this entry is notable. Historyday01 (talk) 20:35, 8 February 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. ✗plicit 23:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kulu Abdullahi Sifawa[edit]

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

Mid-level Nigerian bureaucrat lacking in sources about her specifically, so WP:GNG isn't satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:51, 1 February 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. Star Mississippi 20:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kulu Bay Resort[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for self-WP:PROMOTION. I don't see any independent writeups of the place. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:39, 1 February 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. albeit weakly. There is no consensus to delete this. Star Mississippi 01:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Mickolus[edit]

Edward Mickolus (edit | talk | history | 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 indication in the article or in searches that this article passes WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. All references are lacking in either significance, independence, or reliability. Also violates WP:NOTRESUME. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep So I came across this article in the references section of Hassan Al-Turabi's article. I think it helps show that it's a good source for the article, but other than that, I can't think of any other reason why he'd count as notable. However, I posted on the talk page and noticeboard specifically without mentioning article deletion since I disagree with Wikipedia's notability guidelines in general, but if it violates them, then there's not much else to do other than removal. Seabass715 (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Seabass715.[reply]
  • Weak keep? There may be a weak pass of WP:AUTHOR, but the BLP contains a vast amount of dross that should be deleted. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Marquis Who's Who doesn't count though and other sources briefly discuss him. But I found some book reviews so inclined towards keep. Coverage: [1], [2], [3]. 67.168.136.107 (talk) 22:00, 6 February 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 suspect this is a SNOW keep.) This is a strange keep, given that it comes from the person who completed the nomination (noticing a redlink on February 1's AfD listing and a tag on the associated page), but it is abundantly clear that the subject passes NPROF and the GNG, and further sourcing was fairly easy to come across. Additionally, the comments made by the Yale IP indicate that the underlying deletion nomination was intended as a BLPREQUESTDELETE that, given the circumstances, is being done in bad faith, and given the references, is being requested by a public enough figure (or someone with a connection to him) that the subsection is not applicable. There is a worthy discussion on how much the negative elements with the available sources can/should be discussed while meeting our various BLP policies and guidelines, but that is for the talk page, not Articles for deletion. I will be starting a section header at the talk page and pinging the participants in this deletion discussion there for further handling of the matter. (non-admin closure) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto González Echevarría[edit]

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

Completing a nomination for IP nominator 130.132.173.30. No reason was given, but this editor then removed a section with the edit summary Contentious material about the living person named in this article is poorly sourced (blog) and libellous. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some background: The "contentious material" section covered a sexual harassment allegation from 2017. See the removal diff. The main source cited in the paragraph is the Yale Daily News. The case was approved to go to trial in April 2020 ([4]) and it got written up in Law.com at the time the allegations surfaced in 2017 ([5]). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, the IP geolocates to Yale University, where the subject taught. The IP left a comment at User talk:GB fan reading, You are a previous editor of the Roberto González Echevarría page. González Echevarría would like the entire page removed from this cite. Would you be able to do that? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although the Yale Daily News url has "blog" as part of it, all the stories on the front page appear to direct to similar urls, and these otherwise appear to be normal Yale Daily News pieces. I think they are as reliable as student newspaper sources usually are. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is my assessment as well, likely a CMS item. The more I look at this, the more I see this as not a matter for AfD. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NPROF criterion 5. Regarding whether to include the allegations, that's beyond the scope of this AfD, but as this is where attention is, I'll weigh in. It's tricky. WP:BLPCRIME states that for non-public figures (which would include a professor) editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Weighing against that is the fact that the allegations appear strongly substantiated, that the Yale Daily News is one of the most respected student newspapers in the U.S. and therefore very much a reliable source for Yale-related topics per WP:RSSM, and that it appears likely someone with a conflict of interest is trying to tamper with the article (which would nullify WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE considerations for me). I'd be alright seeing this go either way, but at the very least, we can include in the article the aspects that aren't strictly legal. I've done that here. (As disclosure, I came to this AfD through a generally neutral but conversational invitation on WP:DISCORD.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I give some consideration to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, I think that the notability here is unambiguous: he passes WP:NPROF C5, also WP:NPROF C3 multiple times over, and the citation record (in a low-citation field) looks like a pass of WP:NPROF C1. He's fairly widely quoted on Cuba-related issues. A casual search of JSTOR turns up lots of reviews for WP:NAUTHOR. Comment that basic personal details can probably be sourced to a Yale Alumni Magazine piece [6]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to be notable under the GNG from the articles revealed by Google News, which goes beyond NPROF. The Miami Herald feature plus the consistent coverage by RS going to him for quotes on his field of expertise is more than the usual academic. It might even make him a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Would not be surprised if the IP who refers to the prof in the third-person is in fact the prof himself. Notability is well-demonstrated for reasons already given. Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof. Notability is not marginal so BLP1E does not apply. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Well sourced. Needs the stuff pulled from the page history, also work to bring text up to standard. Closing admin: feel free to ping me to do this work if kept. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:13, 3 February 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. Star Mississippi 20:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corbin Maxey[edit]

Corbin Maxey (edit | talk | history | 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. Surprised this article has existed since 2008 given obvious WP:AUTOBIO, WP:COI, WP:NOTRESUME, and WP:PROMO issues. KidAd • SPEAK 20:27, 1 February 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 Page should have been restored to my user area as requested. I have moved it there and will not resubmit it until I have found more and better sources. . (non-admin closure) Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Letha Weapons[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Letha Weapons (edit | talk | history | 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 done some searching and while there are a number of passing references, I'm not seeing enough to support an article. Hobit (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still no significant coverage to justify an article. Just passing mentions, interviews and trivial coverage. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Just a namedrop" is generally a euphemism for "mentioned in an article, but the coverage is slight". Here, the phrase is literal. Several sources are actually just a one-and-done name. In short, the sourcing to support the notability of the subject is nonexistent. Zaathras (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Polycarpa aurata: Deletion review restored the article to main space. Now that it is back at AfD, we should reach consensus. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page should not have been restored to the main space. I will not resubmot the article until I have found more and better sourcing. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the ideal merger target hasn't been identified, there is consensus to keep the content at a location TBD. That can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 01:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Game of Alice in Wonderland[edit]

The Game of Alice in Wonderland (edit | talk | history | 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 came across this while trying to clean up Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. The two sources are dead, as is the link in the attribution template on Talk:The Game of Alice in Wonderland. There is another game, called The New & Diverting Game of Alice in Wonderland, which is probably not notable either but which I see some hits for: [7] [8]. I'd happily be proven wrong here but I don't see a GNG pass. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment [9] looks like a probably reliable source. [10] is maybe a bit more than a passing reference. I suspect the (now dead) links in the article may have only a bit more. I'd really prefer not to see this deleted and am hopeful someone can find more. Hobit (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first link led me to [11], which has more pictures but the text is mostly a general comment on Alice and not on the game in particular. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sadly. It seems like some non-notable historical object that sadly did not generate much if any coverage so far. We have one sentence and few pictures here, and the second link seems dead and not saved in the Internet Archive. The book Hobi found has two sentences and I am sorry, it is a passing reference in my book. Ping me if anyone finds new good sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Hobit and Piotrus: I also found the following: "In the U.S. Selchow and Righter produced a trick-taking game in 1882 while in England Thomas de La Rue & Co. created a 'Go Fish' Alice game around 1899. Both versions adapt John Tenniel's original illustrations." That's on page 27 of doi:10.4324/9781351392143. Now that we can verify this game's existence, maybe a merge to Works based on Alice in Wonderland#Games is appropriate? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that seems like a good solution. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm hoping we can find more, but that's much better than deletion. And we have other RSes, so we are well past WP:V. It's just none of them are hugely in-depth. Hobit (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article has been expanded significantly, if that helps. BOZ (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The expansion relies substantially on [12], which I do not consider a WP:RS. I think we've discussed the other sources on this AfD already. [13] is arguably SIGCOV; [14], not so much. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • BGG is clearly not a RS. The other two most certainly seem to be. What objection do you have to the University of Indiana's page on this topic? Hobit (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Indiana's page has only one sentence of prose about the game. The rest is commentary about Carroll/Alice in general and pictures from other editions and Alice memorabilia that Indiana has in its library. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, my bad. I'd read it as claiming it wasn't a RS, but that's not what you said. You clearly were discussing SIGCOV. Sorry, I think I got your first sentence confused with your second. But to that point, I think we have at least 3 sentences.
        • A matching game, The Game of Alice in Wonderland consists of 52 cards: twenty cards numbered 1–20, and thirty–two cards, numbered 1–16 in pairs, with images of the Wonderland characters.
        • Pictured below are images of cards from the game and illustrations from various editions of Alice in Wonderland in the Lilly Library collection.
        • Curiouser examples of playing cards for the Alice in Wonderland Game
By themselves, not a ton, but with the art included? I'd say we're over the edge of significant coverage. Add to it the fact that the Lily Collection includes this and documents it makes it feel like something we should have here too. YMMV. Hobit (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been going back and forth. I think I'm at weak keep Two okay sources on an older topic where such sources are harder to find. That said, I think an article, rather than list, on the topics of AiW games might make sense. Hobit (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being the first game published about one of the most popular chidren's books in history establishes notability. The search for further sources continues, but it could be that someone will have to go through microfiche rolls of American newspapers of 1882 to find further information. Guinness323 (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Being the first X of Y does not make something notable. There has to be significant coverage about it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hobit and Guinness323, although I would note that if a volunteer has access to Newspapers.com then we don't need to bother with microfiche. :) BOZ (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked it up in newspapers.com and I see nothing. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Works based on Alice in Wonderland#Games - BGG is generally not considered a reliable source due to being user generated, and the two other sources are fairly weak in actual information on the game - the Indiana University page, for example, really only has a couple of sentences of actual coverage of the game itself. Its really not enough to sustain an independent article, but should certainly be included in the main article on works based on Alice. Rorshacma (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Things is that I think we should have more than a sentence. Our coverage, should for example, include the art. The proposed target it too broad. But I agree a standalone article seems like too much... Bah. Hobit (talk) 03:05, 3 February 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John S. Darling[edit]

John S. Darling (edit | talk | history | 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 as far as I can tell. WP:BEFORE (Newspapers.com and Google Books) turned up nothing for me but minor mentions alongside other artists in a few news articles in Richmond, Virginia. I found nothing specifically about him, or otherwise any significant coverage in WP:RS. The tone of the standing article is promotional as well. If significant coverage of him can be found I'm happy to withdraw the AfD, but I didn't see it. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 18:10, 1 February 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 followed by move of the old page to this page and a history undelete. Interested editors should checkmthe content to make sure it is correct . Spartaz Humbug! 11:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block, Inc.[edit]

Block, Inc. (edit | talk | history | 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 page appears to be a duplicate of the existing Square (financial services company) article. I propose that the article be reverted to the redirect that it was prior to 1 February. Chrisclear (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Square (financial services company)#Splitting proposal for more info DownTownRich (talk) 18:24, 1 February 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 Pro Football Hall of Fame. ✗plicit 23:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Hay Pioneer Award[edit]

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

Award is only given periodically, specifically this award has only been given out nine times since 1972. There seems to be some notability, but sources don't seem to be totally independent. I would support this being Merged with Pro Football Hall of Fame since that's where the award comes from, but I don't know if the award should have it's own space. Some content can be salvaged there. Spf121188 (talk) 16:44, 1 February 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. ✗plicit 23:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of Kylen Schulte and Crystal Turner[edit]

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

References and web search don't indicate this rises above routine coverage. Star Garnet (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Star Garnet (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this case had been routine, it would not have been receiving the sustained national [15] and international [16] coverage that it has been getting, per WP:GEOSCOPE. There has been WP:DEPTH of coverage in this case, partly due to the fact that the event occurred in the same time and place as the events surrounding the killing of Gabby Petito, leading to considerable speculation about who the perpetrator/s might be. By all accounts, the event was highly unusual for the location in which it happened. StonyBrook (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are passing coverage (classic WP:PRIMARYNEWS), and any sustained coverage in this case is routine coverage of the stages of a crime investigation. WP:DEPTH specifically discourages using articles like the Independent one (and the vast majority of possible sources for this event), noting similarities/contrasts to a notable event, as evidence of notability. The event warrants a paragraph in the Petito article, nothing more. Star Garnet (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Before commenting I read what meets the criteria for routine events. This is not routine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Routine_coverage CT55555 (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is run-of-the-mill murder coverage, i.e. routine. WP:NOTNEWS, etc., etc., etc. Star Garnet (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've read the policies that you link to, but I don't specifically see parts that back up what you are arguing. And I do see where the event meets the general notability requirements. I'm open to being persuaded, but you've not persuaded me. Can you really specifically point out where this should not be on wikipedia, rather than linking to a policy, spell out the parts that you think apply? Until then, I remain unpersuaded. CT55555 (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • On a world-scale, the media covers thousands of murders/killings/unnatural deaths at a high level of detail annually. It is not WP's place to compile that information, or even the few hundred that were covered most closely. Wikinews, sure. The four articles I nominated for deletion after browsing through the 30-odd 2021 murder/killing/death of X articles fall short of the others in level of news analysis and impact on outside events (I'm also skeptical of plenty of the others, but I could at least see a competent argument for them meeting at least one of the WP:EVENTCRITERIA). While they certainly received signicant coverage in the media, that is in the form of news reports. We don't have the secondary sources to satisfy SIGCOV. Could this incident gain notability through a book, law, or otherwise? Sure, in the way that some of today's paintings may get articles in 40 years. But until they have gained that secondary coverage, these are WP:NOTMEMORIAL material. Specific to this case, WP:DEPTH states that "Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally." Star Garnet (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks, I appreciate this context. I don't want to make a hasty comment, so I'll reflect on this. May I just ask one other question of you, I see AfD described a some sort of last resort whereby we should try to improve articles before deleting them. Would you say that you or anyone has done that with these four examples? CT55555 (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • No problem, I should have made a clearer case in the original nomination. While I didn't edit the article (which I did for several of the other pages that I didn't nominate), I did search for sources that could help satisfy SIGCOV, and came up empty. Star Garnet (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Putting aside whether or not the 'significant coverage' that the event received qualifies as SIGCOV (the sources are reliable but not secondary), I would suggest you look at WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Particularly this paragraph: "Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article." Star Garnet (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This double murder has been linked by the media to the Killing of Gabby Petito because they occurred within days of each other and in the same vicinity. Both cases also involved the same police department. However, the media speculation connecting the two cases was not substantiated. If one is to consider other possibilities, such as merging with another article then the Killing of Gabby Petito would be a candidate merger option, even though it is not connected. Keeping this as a separate article in some ways protects other articles from inappropriate addition of content. There is enough coverage, worldwide, simply because of the coincidence in space and time for it not to be a "routine" murder or "routine" coverage. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article is well sourced and I agree with those who want to keep this as it is clearly not routine. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of good sources. Sustained coverage. BabbaQ (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the unsolved nature of the crime and the FBI investigation into a possible connection to the killing of Gabby Petito appears to be generating sustained and significant coverage in diverse sources, which could further develop the article, e.g. Newlyweds told friends about a ‘creepy guy’ at their Utah campsite. Five days later, they were found shot dead. (Washington Post, Aug. 26, 2021), Details released in deaths of newlywed couple at campsite (Associated Press, Sept. 9, 2021), Utah newspaper pens apology for coverage of double murder in Moab (Independent/Yahoo, Sept. 10, 2021), Utah authorities make rare public appeal for help solving Kylen Schulte and Crystal Turner homicides (Independent/Yahoo, Sept. 29, 2021), Unsolved murders and Petito case leave dark cloud over Moab (Associated Press, Oct. 3, 2021), Remembering the light: Local artist creates sculpture in memory of Kylen Schulte and Crystal Turner (Salt Lake Tribune, Jan. 8, 2022), FBI says Petito, Laundrie not involved in double murder outside Moab (FOX13, Jan. 20, 2022), Investigators Have 'Persons of Interest' in Moab Murders of Crystal Turner and Kylen Schulte (People, Jan. 24, 2022, also reported in the Independent), Family still searching for answers in Utah double-murder investigation (WTKR3, Jan. 25, 2022). Beccaynr (talk) 00:52, 6 February 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. ✗plicit 23:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Heuberger[edit]

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

Only thing that has happened since previous AFD is some ref-bombing with WP:ROUTINE sources. If no one is interested in this subject, let alone write an actually meaningful article about him, there is no encyclopedic value in an article about him. Tvx1 16:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not going to withdraw this. The claim that this subject is notable is a joke. Cleary no-one is interested in this person, or else a meaninful article would have been written a long time ago. There is nothing that proves the encyclopedic value of this article.Tvx1 23:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "else a meaninful article would have been written a long time ago"... well, it sometimes takes a while, and non-inclusion is not an indicator for non-notability (else we couldn't write any new articles anymore; in the last year alone, I created articles on people including Max Wallraf and Emil Utitz, who are clearly worthy of inclusion despite having had no articles). It is clear that a sports biography can be written about Heuberger (successfully lead his hometown club to the Handball-Bundesliga, managed the national team, did something else, now manages junior national team). Easy to find more sources: [17], [18], [19]. —Kusma (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has existed like this for ten years. Five years since the last AFD. That’s more than enough to make “it takes a while” a ridiculous excuse. Clearly no one is interested in this person thus justifying a standalone article. Accept reality and stop filling Wikpedia with rubbish articles.Tvx1 06:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @LeFnake and @Malo95 have now expanded the article, which is much more helpful than us all arguing here about what potential the article has. It still isn't great, but at least now lists some of the person's sporting achievements. @Tvx1: please tell me which of my Wikipedia articles is rubbish and why, and I'll try to fix it. Most of my rubbish articles are 15 years old now. —Kusma (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanded with nothing but WP:ROUTINE information. Nothing that actually establishes notability. Let me ask you a question? What are you obessed with blocking deletion of this article? Why is this person so important to you? Why would it be such a drama for you if this were deleted?Tvx1 00:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not interested in this person at all (I don't care about handball). I came across this deletion discussion because I look at all Germany-related AfDs. I care about improving Wikipedia, and so I argue to keep or to delete as needed. Sometimes others agree with me, sometimes they don't. But my personal approach isn't the issue here. The Deutschlandfunk Kultur and Handball World sources are significant coverage. There are enough sources interested in the person, not just mentioning him. —Kusma (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Kusma says it. There's no time limit on these things. Ingratis (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing you state is a valid keep argument.Tvx1 06:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable and as Kusma said above, no need to delete. If someone wants to expand it, they can, even if not he stays notable. Kante4 (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Kante4 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
  • You came up with the exact same nonsensical arguments five years ago. Literally no one was interested then and is now to expand this, because there simply isn’t anything to expand this with and because no-one is interested in this subject. I really don’t understand why you are so hell-bent on keeping an article that has no encyclopaedic value whatsoever. Moreover, when you claim something is notable, you need to prove that. Something isn’t notable just because you say so.Tvx1 06:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you commenting on every single voter who does not share the same feeling as you do? Just let the AfD run out and see how it went (pretty clear right now, tbh). Kante4 (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just playing matches in a sport doesn’t make one notable. Everything you provided is WP:ROUTINE. Notability is achieved through significant coverage in independent sources. You just haven’t provided any justification for keeping this.Tvx1 15:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, he did not just played matches in a sport, he played 164 professional matches in 1st handball League (Bundesliga), 26 international matches with Germany (one of the best national team) and has been Germany's coach for 3 years, heading two major competitions (7th at 2012 European Championship and 5th at 2013 World Championship).--LeFnake (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Handball. Just being a coach of a team in a sport doesn’t make you notable. Not every sport is fundamentally notable. What we need is significant coverage, which no one so far has been able to provide. You only give a personal feeling about notability.Tvx1 16:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant coverage is already provided. It looks for me that your personal feelings are in play here. Here an other example of a source which provides a complete interview of him and the women's coach (part 1 and part 2). It is a interview in one of the most prestigious magazine in the world. And here an other article. I really don't know what you want more. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews are not considered acceptable for notability purposes unless they include SIGCOV by the interviewer (otherwise they are WP:PRIMARY and not independent); that one clearly does not. The second source is better, since, despite having a lot of quotes, there appears to be independent analysis by the reporter. JoelleJay (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found more articles about him from the ARD (National public-service broadcaster)
  • Start as national team coach:[23], [24] & [25]
  • End as national team coach: [26], [27] and [28] (This would be a news broadcast in the tv, but in the archive not able to play)
The second big national broadcaster ZDF has also an article about the end: [29]
This two broadcaster talked for sure in there sports program about the start and the end of Heuberger. They also showed handball games which he gave interviews etc. And these games watched several millions of people. I really don't know how you have the feelling that he is not notable. If he wouldn't be notable most coaches of all team sports wouldn't be notable as well.🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the only "bombing" taking place here is the WP:IDONTLIKEIT WP:BLUDGEONing in this discussion. For context, Germany is one of the few countries in the world which actually has fully professional handball, with good attendances, media coverage etc, which, more importantly, has been demonstrated in this discussion. The article/subject is a bit beyond the need for debating certain details of this or that source, which is an editorial question belonging to the article's talk page. Geschichte (talk) 06:16, 8 February 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary A. Conlon[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BASIC. No WP:SIGCOV on her career. – DarkGlow • 16:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe her obituary in the New York Times is WP:SIGCOV, and it's certainly a reliable source. Her work in establishing the Bronx Day Nursery is covered in a 1927 book on the Bronx [31]. The other citations confirm her role as principal of schools. I cannot find a citation for the school's first graduation, nor that she watched the construction of the school so I left {{citation needed}} in two places. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are not weighing the fact she was local to the New York Times coverage area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in WP:GNG about locality of sourcing. That is a made-up requirement by people who want GNG to be based on significance when really it is based only on coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some local coverge clearly runs into problems of violating not news guidelines. We really should add better guidelines on local coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Even if you accept the argument that the NYT is more likely to publish obituaries about people from NY, it would still be equivalent to a state-wide newspaper, so providing SIGCOV. In addition with the paragraph in the 1927 book, that should just about establish notability. Femke (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm finding more about her in Google Books, in particular this delightful (?)[32] lengthy testimony before a US Committee on Communist Propaganda, in which she gives details about a small number of students taking May 1 off, which was apparently a sign of dangerous communist ideas, and of pamphlets found in the neighborhood. Being called on to testify before a congressional committee shows her stature. She is also credited with running an experiment on the teaching of shorthand [33] and praised by the Classical Journal [34] for introducing the study of Greek in the schools. These all show that she was a significant educator. There are regular bulletins of the NY education department that we may be able to use to fill in some of the factual details and other hits on G-Books that I haven't gotten to. Lamona (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lamona - nice job on the added sources. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NYT obituary should be enough but the newly added sources strengthen the case for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough sources have been located to clear the wiki-notability bar. XOR'easter (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:14, 6 February 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. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Dees[edit]

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

This is an article on an actress who spend all her career in uncredited roles, with one exception. The exception is 4-minutes of standing in in a film for the lead actress who died during production. However they had someone else dub in the voice, so she was just a physical stand in. Our sourcing boils down to a "home town women makes big" coverage article that is predicting this will lead to true stardom, but that does not happen, another paper covering the incident because it is a rarity that someone dies during filming and you need to film them afterward, her papers having been archived, and a primary source on her birth. She clearly fails the acress notability guideline, because even if her one role was significant, that requires multiple roles, and all her other roles were so far from being significant they were not credited at all (it is not even clear she was credited for her stand-in). So I see no way that this article meets our inclusion criteria, and no way that our sourcing is enough in-depth to meet GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 1 February 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 List of Maharashtra cricketers. ✗plicit 23:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Chavan[edit]

Ajay Chavan (edit | talk | history | 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:BLP of a cricket player, not making or reliably sourcing any claim to passage of our inclusion standards for cricket players. The only notability claim being made here is that he exists, and the article fails to say anything about him that could even be measured against WP:NCRICKET, such as what league he played for Maharashtra in. And while there is an external link to a paywalled subscription-only database of cricket statistics, that means I can't get into it to see whether it adds a meaningful notability claim or not -- but there are no footnotes being cited at all to verify anything any other way.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who can access CricketArchive, and/or some evidence of Indian sports media coverage, can actually add something to this article that would constitute a notability claim -- but we don't keep unsourced articles just because there might maybe possibly be a stronger notability claim than anybody has been arsed to actually include in the article, we keep unsourced articles only if somebody can prove it. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 1 February 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 13:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaka Muhammad Umar[edit]

Kaka Muhammad Umar (edit | talk | history | 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 and the article was created by a blocked user. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I added the basic information and reference about this person into the Jamia Darussalam article, but the reference is no more than a passing mention. Fails to demonstrate individual notability. AllyD (talk) 20:45, 1 February 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 13:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Cannon Film Company[edit]

The Cannon Film 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)

Non-notable company. Article created by the owner. MClay1 (talk) 13:30, 1 February 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 13:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guadacanal Resort[edit]

Guadacanal Resort (edit | talk | history | 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 unsourced "suburb" article seems from the few available sources online to simply be a holiday resort, and at the wrong title to boot (should be "Guadalcanal", not "Guadacanal"). Fram (talk) 13:21, 1 February 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 per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Maluma[edit]

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

Appears to be related to Gregson Maluma which was deleted after clear consensus here. Some of the sources appear to be new so I'm not sure that this qualifies for speedy deletion. A lot of the sources look like self-published spam and there is no claim to meeting WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NSPORT or any other guideline. Source analysis to follow. I did a WP:BEFORE search but found nothing additional. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12739962/ No No WP:IMDB No Just a profile page ✘ No
https://contents101.com/2021/09/18/greg-maluma-biography-age-educational-career-and-net-worth/ No No Clearly a user-generated page rather than professional work No ✘ No
https://www.radiotimes.com/programme/b-8ud37w/martial-arts-mind-and-body/ Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
https://nofilmschool.com/u/gregmaluma No This is Maluma's own user page No https://nofilmschool.com/about - filmmakers can make their own user page on this site. This is what Maluma did. No ✘ No
https://www.musicinafrica.net/directory/greg-maluma No No This is a social media site where artists can promote themselves. It is unreliable and doesn't indicate notability. No ✘ No
https://nofilmschool.com/u/gregmaluma No No No As per #4 ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20220130051520/https://newscolony.com/entertainment/greg-malumas-biography-fact-career-awards-net-worth-and-life-story/ No No Unreliable content scraper No ✘ No
https://viadeo.journaldunet.com/p/greg-maluma-7966008 No Personal profile created by Maluma No Personal profile created by Maluma No ✘ No
https://www.amazon.com/kyokushin-kenbukaikan-technical-syllabus-karate-ebook/dp/B09PDVKMT2 No No Anyone can sell on Amazon No Linking this on Wikipedia is a form of advertising and fails to establish notability. Anyone can sell a book on Amazon ✘ 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}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:24, 1 February 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trackpedia[edit]

Trackpedia (edit | talk | history | 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 the general notability guideline. The only sources I could find were forum posts, affiliated pages and unreliable YouTube and Vimeo videos. Page creator appears to have been a single-purpose account dedicated to promoting the website on Wikipedia. – Teratix ₵ 13:01, 1 February 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! 03:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doru Sechelariu[edit]

Doru Sechelariu (edit | talk | history | 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 find significant coverage of the subject of this largely unsourced WP:BLP, with a WP:BEFORE search only seeming to return WP:ROUTINE coverage, passing mentions, or sources which do not appear to be independent of the subject. Ideally someone who can read Romanian could help with determining whether there are any suitable sources which could get this article up to the WP:GNG. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral – After looking at MSport1005's comments clearly there aren't zero sources. I wouldn't say he unambiguosly passes GNG, and I'd personally prefer deletion, but there appears to be coverage in Romania so it doesn't seem as bad as it did. 5225C (talk • contributions) 21:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I don't speak Romanian, but I could find these with ease: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40] covering his "promising" career and his future aspirations, [41] apparently covering an incident with the police, [42] is more of a passing mention as a young up-and-coming Romanian talent, [43], [44] two visibly non-ROUTINE announcements, and [45], [46], [47], [48] which suggest some sort of relevance as an F1 pundit/expert in his country. Funnily enough, he was the subject of an F1-related april fools joke: [49], and even the gossip press talks about him nowadays [50], [51]. I might have a second look later to see if I can find more, but just based off this (combined with the fact that he completed a full GP3 season) he seems to comfortably meet GNG. MSport1005 (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm undecided for now. He completely fails WP:NMOTORSPORT, so we turn over to WP:GNG. Looking at MSport1005's sources, bits in Adevarul [52]/[53] (per WP:GNG they count as one source) are good examples of secondary non-trivial coverage. Automarket seems good enough, but I am not sure whether that website is a reliable source. Fanatik one is an interview, and thus isn't independent to count for notability. Realitea Sportiva one just copies Fanatik's interview. Cancan is a tabloid website, making it not reliable. Evenimentul Zilei bit has only 3 sentences (2 of those being short) about him, so I can't call that WP:SIGCOV. SportAuto is a quote farm (meaning it's not independent), and MotorsportNews is a mere blog. Gazeta Sporturilor contains his analysis of Hamilton-Verstappen battle, but is of very little importance in terms of his own notability. TVS24 is yet another blog, Cancun again, WP:TRIVIA April Fools, WowBiz isn't a significant coverage of Doru. I'll try to dig for more sources if possible (including my research on Automarket), but for now I'm leaning delete. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've had another look at them. #1/#5 and #2 are SIGCOV (Automarket indeed is reliable). #4 as you say is just a copy, #7 and #8 aren't sufficiently extense. The ones you wrote off as blogs (#9, #11, #13) I'm not sure they actually are, as messy as they might look (their reliability might need review though). The fact that a newspaper like Fanatik (#3) went to interview him, tabloids (#6, #15) talk about him without even needing to introduce him, and GSP (#10, #12) have him as their go-to expert suggest clear notability within Romania. #14 I never intended it as SIGCOV, and #16 is a tabloid and refers to him as "Dumitru's son" so we can ommit those two. We're left with potentially 6/7 proper sources, plus whatever we can find in an advanced WP:BEFORE search, so I'm heavily inclined towards keep. MSport1005 (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. It appears that you have found some sources which I was unable to find in my searches. I'm still not fully convinced that this meets the WP:GNG, but the Adevarul sources probably take the article half-way to meeting it. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep sources shared by MSport1005 appear to establish notability per WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 22:22, 6 February 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Ziani Guennon[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Can't find any newspaper articles or the like on him. Just barely scrapes by WP:FOOTYN having made a 84th-minute substitute appearance in the CAF Champions League for Wydad AC. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Where does it say that he is actively playing there? The article says he is not. Geschichte (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I didn't find any news reports using "Bilal Ziani Guennon" or "Bilal Guennon", although there was one routine hit with "Guennoun". It looks like Ziani is what he goes by. Regardless, none of these searches turned up anything approaching significant coverage. And meeting NFOOTY is irrelevant. JoelleJay (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. From what it appears, player hasn't appeared in any professional games in his career? Josh (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only the 6 minutes against Kaizer Chiefs so far. Geschichte (talk) 09:55, 2 February 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. czar 16:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TerraDrive[edit]

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

This niche RPG seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE is of little help (the only indepedent sigcov surce I see is the cited ArsTechnica piece [54]). It seems this was a 2007 era attempt to promote an upcoming product - the article hasn't improved much since and still states "It is scheduled for release at PAX: The Penny Arcade Exposition on August 26, 2007." This is also a near fork of a related game TerraDrive Live which seems even more niche (google just gives about ~200 ghits for this...). We also had an article about the developer, that was deleted a long while ago it seems (Technomancer Press). PS. I am not sure how to make a bundle AFD (since TD Live is de facto a fork). If this is deleted, I guess TDLive can be prodded? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Piotrus, I have tagged TerraDrive Live for deletion in this nomination discussion. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. They don't seem to meet any criterion for notability I can find. FalconK (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: TerraDrive was previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Both articles clearly fail WP:GNG. Searching for sources, I only really found this Ars Technica article about TerraDrive Live ([55]), and then absolutely nothing else. One article does not an article make. Nomader (talk) 02:50, 3 February 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 13:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waterland WaterPark (Thessaloniki)[edit]

Waterland WaterPark (Thessaloniki) (edit | talk | history | 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 failed to detect significant coverage from indepedent reliable sources. C messier (talk) 10:56, 1 February 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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous circuit[edit]

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

Single sentence unsourced article that has remained unchanged for ~13 years. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:46, 1 February 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 10:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olimjon Karimov[edit]

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

Has only made appearances in WP:NOTFPL leagues to date (checking Football Database as well as Soccerway) so no claim to WP:NFOOTBALL. Searches such as this and this only provide trivial coverage so WP:GNG is not established. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:10, 1 February 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. If people think a redirect is warranted, they can create one, although it appears unlikely to me that somebody would search for this phrase. Sandstein 09:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M&M Desexualization Controversy[edit]

M&M Desexualization Controversy (edit | talk | history | 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:NOTNEWS. Not every flash-in-the-pan "controversy" or talk show host stupidity needs an article here. Fram (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. These days people raise such "controversies" on everything everyday, but being a notable subject requires more than the mocking by a TV-host. Cavarrone 10:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not worth an article, but the anthropomorphized M&M commercials are. People have been talking about the oddly sexualized nature of some of them, casual violence/cannivalism, etc. for some time now. So reframe to be about that broadly. I thought about doing it myself, but I can't bring myself to start an article about a commercial campaign. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already have a lengthy M&M's#M&M's characters section, isn't that sufficient. The M&M's article also has a very long section on "marketing", with little focus on encyclopedic discussion of the marketing, but a rambling series of trivia like "In 2007, M&M's introduced a limited-edition raspberry flavor called "M&M's Razzberry Chocolate Candies"." A cleanup of the main article, with one line about the "controversy", may be feasible. Fram (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I mean is that section could probably stand to be its own article. If someone did that, there might be cause for a few words about this (certainly not as a "controversy"), but it would be undue in the parent article so I guess Delete otherwise. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cavarrone. I'd like to add: NOT-WP:LASTING. It's so funny and sad that this wasn't successfully prodded. It's precisely this that was frivolous (with reference to the edit summary), and not the proposed deletion. twsabin 17:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete M&M's#M&M's characters should cover it without the usual 'culture war' kvetching (as long as the yellow M&M remains the kind and nervous soul he is, I don't care about the rest of it). Nate • (chatter) 23:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. I get that performers are always trying to drum up a reaction to whatever is going on in pop culture, but Wikipedia is a place to cover long-term factual information, and not short term bursts of opinion. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep content somewhere: Readers would be best served by this episode being covered somewhere in our coverage of m&ms and the recent mascot changes, with the barest mention of Tucker's views. Carlson's attitude to sexual issues leads him to make the most bizarre comments on these things. I fear to know the inner workings of his brain.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to M&M's#M&M's characters per WP:NOTNEWS, that way if any content does need to be preserved it can be done so. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These are twitter people starting the controversy. TzarN64 (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely to be WP:LASTING. Will likely stay undue for the main M&M's article. Femke (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't believe this page got made before Twitter got bored of the M&M thing. This realistically shouldn't even be on the main M&M page, let alone have it its own page. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a few sentences to M&M's. Does not appear to have generated enough secondary coverage to warrant a separate article, however. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:SUSTAINED. If a company thinks so many people are getting sexually attracted to their anthropomorphic candy mascot that they have to change it, that's their perogative and not a real "controversy". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to M&M's#M&M's characters. Never heard about this incident, I thought I was the only one who thought some of the M&M characters were oddly sexualized for a candy mascot. Surprised to hear someone objecting to a desexualization of an anthropomorphic character but it's not worthy of an article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 8 February 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 Rename to List of rowing clubs. Sandstein 09:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of rowing blades – Club oars[edit]

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

Unsourced (tagged since 2011) gallery with no indication of notability for the topic as a group (individual oars will be verifiable, but that isn't sufficient to have an article here). Only external link is a hobby website, not the kind of source that establishes notability either. Fram (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weakest Keep but certainly needs citation. This is a tough one as it empirically does NOT meet Wikipedia's guidelines, but the nature of it (a list of information relating to a broader topic) is of value to that broader topic, which itself has established clear notability. That said, following a few of the club links, it appears that most of them have their own colors (usually in the same image as found here) so this list is a nice reference, but not strictly required. -Markeer 13:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid information list. Plenty of things listed have their own articles as well, so valid navigational list as well. Dream Focus 14:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid information list. --evrik (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copying the text from someone else's vote, which they afterwards had to clarify completely as the original vote didn't make much sense, isn't really helpful. Keep as is, "keep" as a completely repurposed and retitled list, or something else? Fram (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why are you being so aggressive and critical? I thought it was pretty straightforward. Why belabor the issue. I have now started adding references. --evrik (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • So no reason to keep this actually. Fram (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is a lot of negativity for a Monday morning. It's a valid list, it has sources. --evrik (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • But that's not what creates a valid list. You need sources for the topic as a whole, not just (primary) sources for the individual entries. You could create list of rowing clubs whose president is called John and find sources for that as well, that doesn't mean that it is a valid list. Fram (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's part of a broader topic, which is itself notable. --evrik (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                • And...? How does this translate to a keep for this list? Notability is not inherited, that an unnamed briader topic is notable has no bearing on this topic. Fram (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename it to List of rowing clubs. --Bduke (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would lean towards delete here but I think this needs to be looked at alongside List of rowing blades and List of rowing blades – National team oars. These articles are badly sourced and I cannot find anything other than very niche and unreliable sources speaking about this as a subject. I have a feeling that all of these fail WP:LISTN. I cannot see the argument for navigational purposes unless each individual rowing blade had its own article. To argue for navigational value this would need to be List of rowing clubs as Bduke said above. If reliable sources can be found - I say keep and merge the three. If not - delete all three. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to List of rowing clubs as per above. Remove all the non-notables. The distinction of just being a club is more notable than the colours of their oars (or other uniformed equipment). Ajf773 (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At this point the consensus is to keep the article. --evrik (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, why do you add your interpretation of the consensus at a random point in the discussion? The closing or relisting admin will decide this, they don't need the article creator (or the AfD started) to tell them what the consensus is. Fram (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 1 February 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! 03:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kakistocracy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kakistocracy (edit | talk | history | 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:DICDEF. While the article contains several sources, none of them provide substantial coverage of Kakistocracy itself and I can’t find evidence that it’s anything more than novel way to say the government is a pack of thieves and liars. RaiderAspect (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ André Spicer (18 April 2018). "Donald Trump's 'kakistocracy' is not the first, but it's revived an old word". The Guardian. Retrieved 26 January 2022.
  2. ^ William L. Kovacs (2019). Reform the Kakistocracy; Rule by the Least Able Or Least Principled Citizens. Newman Springs Publishing. ISBN 9781640965140.
  3. ^ Abadjian, V. (2010). "Kakistocracy or the true story of what happened in the post-Soviet area". Journal of Eurasian Studies. 1 (2): 153–163.
  4. ^ Ornstein, N. (2017). "American Kakistocracy" (pdf). The Atlantic.
  5. ^ Gușă, A.R. (2021). "The Romanian Kakistocracy: The Public Sector's Ethos during the Post-communist Transition and its long-term impact" (pdf). Revista de Stiinte Politice (69).

SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't believe that any of the sources meet the substantial coverage requirement that GNG and DICDEF require. To quote from WP:DICDEF: such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term. These sources all use the term Kakistocracy, explain its definition, and sometimes include some of its etymology - but they swiftly move on to their real subject, the political culture of various nations/governments. --RaiderAspect (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... so, the social and historical significance of the term then. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I agree with the comment above. Unlike e.g. kleptocracy, for which there is serious academic analysis of the term of what makes a regime kleptocratic, that is not true of kakistocracy, which is for all intents and purposes just a fancier way of saying idiocracy (a term that inspired a whole movie, but is still not notable as a political science term in itself). The "scope and use" of the term is very simple: it's bad government by idiots. It does not entail some broader reference to how the government functions, like kleptocracy, or its mode of decisionmaking, etc. There's not a whole lot else that can be said about it. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 19:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Adding a caveat to the above that there does appear to be a novel attempt to define kakistocracy systematically à la kleptocracy etc. in Abadjian 2010, a journal article by an independent researcher. The definition offered does not seem to have been replicated or examined elsewhere. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 17:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The sources describe this beyond just a definition and there is adequate content and context here for notability. Open to a merge target, but deletion isn't warranted here. Reywas92Talk 14:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there's enough to go on here that the "just a dictionary definition" concern, while understandable, isn't fatal. Whatever ails the page, deletion doesn't seem like the right fix. XOR'easter (talk) 21:55, 1 February 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 10:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election[edit]

2026 Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Next Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This topic clearly passes WP:TOOSOON, and there is no reason behind the creation of this page. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 07:31, 1 February 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 and move to Left 4 Dead (franchise). Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Left 4 Dead (series)[edit]

Left 4 Dead (series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A "series" with only 2 video games, a lot of the article either duplicates content from Left 4 Dead, is WP:OR or irrelevant. If the massive amounts of original research were removed it would be a relative stub and would probably remain so given the unlikelihood of a 3rd game now that Back 4 Blood exists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article absolutely needs improvement, but that's not a reason for deletion. The series as a whole is clearly notable based on the sourcing, and an article covering the franchise as a whole allows for coverage of the cancelled sequel, spinnoffs, and comics. This is a classic case of WP:NOTCLEANUP. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not convincing that the little information on permanently cancelled Left 4 Dead 3 cannot be moved to a section at the end of Left 4 Dead 2. The fact remains that it is a series with 2 games, the 2nd of which is so similar to the first that it literally incorporates all the first one's campaigns in it to the point where it's obsolete. There is not really any need for discussion of changes made throughout the series because there are hardly any. Comics can also be talked about in the Left 4 Dead article without WP:UNDUE weight. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per Qwaiiplayer's comments above. I'm inclined to agree that even though this article definitely needs improvement, it seems notable enough given the sources already cited. And the parent article gives coverage to spin-offs and cancelled sequels as noted above. Spf121188 (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But maybe move to Left 4 Dead (franchise) since it covers comics, spin-offs and other stuff as well.★Trekker (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to both of the respective game's articles. There's long-standing consensus that two entries is not enough for a series article. NOTCLEANUP is irrelevant - the article is completely duplicative and redundant - all content can easily fit into the original game or sequel's article, because that's all there is to talk about. It has to fall into one or the other. Sergecross73 msg me 17:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Left 4 Dead (franchise) The franchise includes more than just the two video games, and it's clearly a notable franchise overall. This article covers things that wouldn't make sense to cover in any of the articles about the individual entries in the franchise, such as the merchandise and the cancelled sequel, so it is not entirely duplicative or redundant. Mlb96 (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How so exactly? The Midnight Riders songs are explicitly linked to Left 4 Dead 2 and have nothing to do with Left 4 Dead 1. Besides that, toys and action figures just cover a couple sentences and can be mentioned in passing in either or both of the articles without it being undue.
    The Left 4 Dead 3 info can be mentioned in the Legacy section of Left 4 Dead 2, being the game that directly follows it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and support moving to (franchise). Yes it is only a 2-game series, but there's clearly additional media, and the combination of both games have cultural elements to them that are covered at that level. It is entirely possible to cover all that in only two articles, but this three-article approach makes it a bit easier for organizating the information. Certainly it is not an issue of notability with the series/franchise as a whole. --Masem (t) 13:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The articile has some issues, but worthy of an article TzarN64 (talk) 15:39, 3 February 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. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Albert. Whether a redirect is useful here and where to might need further discussion. Sandstein 09:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A. Wilcocks[edit]

A. Wilcocks (edit | talk | history | 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 through lack of significant coverage, either provided or identifiable. Unlikely that any can be found, as per Olympedia "there is some confusion about the precise identity of this athlete" BilledMammal (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we really know nothing about this person. Inclusion criteria also do not overcome the need for articles to meet GNG. Beyond this treating a team medal the same as an indvidual medal does not quite make sense to me. I would say the medal rule would suggest we have articles on the teams that won the medals if they can be sourced to reliable sources, but I do not think it reasonble to assume that every member of every team that won a medal is notable. This is especially true because in some competitions in some Olympics there were only 2 teams, so everyone in the competition was on a team that won a medal. That would also have applied if any competiton had only 3 teams. I have not exhastively studied the Olympics, but knowing there were some 2 team competitons makes me suspect there were 3 team ones as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with nominator. There is not any coverage. MartinWilder (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having won a silver medal, he passes the updated WP:NOLYMPICS guidelines. At worst this should be redirected to Rugby union at the 1908 Summer Olympics. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rugby union at the 1908 Summer Olympics. After looking at the Olympedia article it looks like the name may be spelled in some sources as Willcocks and at least this reference refers to the Devon player as J. Willcocks. If the subject's first name can be discerned we may have more luck establishing notability, but if we cannot find referencing to identify the subject's first name, correct spelling of his name, or even if we have the correct first initial I can't see how a standalone article is merited. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He was a member of a medal winning team. as per WP:NOLYMPICS guidelines. Jowaninpensans (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect, per GPL93. GNG has not been uncovered, and a suitable redirect exists. JoelleJay (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note that an Alexander Wilcocks also exists, so a redirect for this term would not be suitable as it would be ambiguous. BilledMammal (talk) 05:37, 8 February 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! 23:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg P. Sullivan[edit]

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

Previously prodded and deleted; restored via a request from the subject through volunteer response team. This article struggles to meet notability guidelines for creative professionals and the general notability guideline. A biography of living people article with long term WP:SPA and WP:COI issues from multiple angles, and overall lacks depth in significant coverage in multiple published reliable secondary sources. What coverage that is provided and seems to exist, is largely trivial and tangential. Seddon talk 04:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:25, 1 February 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 Lacrosse at the 1904 Summer Olympics#St. Louis Amateur Athletic Association. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Albert. Sandstein 09:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A. M. Woods[edit]

A. M. Woods (edit | talk | history | 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 through lack of significant coverage, either provided or identifiable. Such coverage is unlikely to be found, if it even exists, as all we know about him is that he won silver in the 1904 Olympics, that his last name is Woods, and that his first initials are A. M. BilledMammal (talk) 06:19, 1 February 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! 06:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A. Dubois[edit]

A. Dubois (edit | talk | history | 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 through lack of WP:SIGCOV, either provided or identifiable. Unlikely that significant coverage can ever be identified, as all we know about him is that he won Bronze and Silver at the 1900 Olympics, that his last name was Dubois, and his first initial was A. BilledMammal (talk) 06:10, 1 February 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 redirect to Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics#France (Mixed Team). WP:V, a core policy, provides: "If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." In this AfD, it is not contested that nothing is known about this man, not even his first name, except that he played in an Olympic rugby match. It is therefore not possible to write a WP:V-compliant biographical article about him. The "keep" opinions that only make reference to notability guidelines that establish a mere presumption of notability must be disregarded because they do not address the actual sourcing situation as established in this AfD. That a redirect is a reasonable alternative to deletion is not contested. Sandstein 09:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amended to delete: I overlooked that there were reasonable arguments against a redirect. We don't therefore have consensus for one. People are free to create and then to contest such a redirect. Sandstein 16:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A. Albert[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as it lacks WP:SIGCOV, and none was identifiable. Further, it is unlikely that significant coverage can ever be identified, as all we know about him is that he competed as part of the winning French team in the 1900 Summer Olympics, that his last name was Albert, and that his first initial was A. BilledMammal (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we really know nothing about this person. The 1904 Olympics were more just an addition to the 1904 WOrld's Fair then a true Olympics. Inclusion criteria also do not overcome the need for articles to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a gold medal winner, he passes the updated version of the WP:NOLYMPICS guidelines. At worst this page should be redirected to Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect, per above. GNG is hardly to be expected for Olympians in this era. JoelleJay (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, gold medal winner clearly notable.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • How, exactly. What sources do we have that constitute Sigcov? It is time we stop falling back on unwaranted sports notability guidelines. The evidence is very clear that there were times when Olympic gold medal winners did not recieve sufficient coverage to justify articles. The allowance of notability for all gold medal winners was not based on actual evidence there was in general sourcing to justify articles, and so it is a very bad SNG. Also, the guidelines on sports SNGs make it clear that to actually justify keeping an article the subject still has to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not redirect We don't even have this person's full name, and we're supposed to believe he gets an insta-exemption from passing GNG? No way. Now, the issue is that A) Rugby is a teamsport, so coverage of individual team-members is not 100% guaranteed and B) "Albert" is a common enough name that it's both B1) fruitless trying to find sources for this without access to specialist sources, as any search is likely to yield way too many false positives and B2) it would not necessarily mean that readers are actually looking for this specific person (Albert André could be a plausible target, if someone for some reasons got the two names there in the wrong order; and of course Albert (surname) lists at least two other persons who could reasonably be the target). And of course Even the Olympedia database used a source quite frankly says that "little is known about him". While NOLYMPICS might be a better guideline than it was before, it is still not in and of itself a criterion for inclusion (as the answer to the FAQ on NSPORTS says, GNG still needs to be met), and here there are good reasons to think that it is unlikely for GNG to be met, in this case even more than the mere age of the subject. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding redirects, one of those at the disambiguation page is also referred to as A. A. Albert, and a A. Albert Yuzpe also exists. I don't think we can reasonably redirect this page. BilledMammal (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:ANYBIO as a gold medal is "a well-known and significant award or honor." There is no doubt that the subject received the medal WP:V. --Enos733 (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you even read the darn page you're citing? "People are likely to be notable if, not "guaranteed". This is a fine counter-example... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rugby union at the 1900 Summer Olympics Normally I'd argue that winning the first ever gold medal in Rugby in the Olympics, not only clearly meets the recently tightened WP:NOLYMPICS but is also a very clear pass of WP:NRUGBY. But we can't even identify the player's name here! But given that numerous sources list him as A. Albert it's very reasonable that it could be a search term, and redirect seems obvious to me. Nfitz (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RandomCanadian. Evidently fails GNG. Avilich (talk) 02:35, 8 February 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. The consensus is that GNG is met by the sources found during the discussion. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peppy Martin[edit]

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

Unsuccessful candidate for political office. Thoroughly fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 04:29, 1 February 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. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Devolution[edit]

Welsh Devolution (edit | talk | history | 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 is cobbled together from various bits and pieces of Welsh history, but they do not add up to an article about "devolution", which is a somewhat technical term--and as the very first reference makes clear, that process as such started in 1999. Treating the entire history of Wales as a prelude to this recent phenomenon is a violation of SYNTH. This article is redundant to Devolution_in_the_United_Kingdom#Wales, and the links in there. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have just deleted a large section of the page which is perhaps not as relevant, like you say to the title of "Welsh Devolution". I feel that the content of the page is much more fitting of the title. Thank you for drawing my attention to this. The content of the page now fits the title well so please do not consider deleting. I have worked very hard on this. Thank you for your time.TG11TG15 (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quite flabbergasted by this one. Obviously this is a very notable topic that should be covered in it's own article. AFD is not clean-up nor is Welsh devolution an idea that started in 1999. John Gilbert Evans wrote two books detailing the history of Welsh devolution from 1937-1998 [62], [63]. The topic has been also been covered extensively in other academic literature: [64] [65] [66]. Per WP:THREE, I'll leave it at those examples so as not to waste people's time. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an acceptable SPINOFF from Devolution in the United Kingdom#Wales on the basis of summary style: the UK devolution page is a broader overview article, and doesn't/shouldn't cover Welsh devolution in the depth a stand-alone article can. Stumbled across this by accident as I reverted the original creator's edits to a different article. Most of the remaining C18/19th section looks relevant, as does nearly everything from 1949 onwards, and it carves out a content niche not directly covered elsewhere. Clean-up is required, but there's plenty of potential for future expansion. I don't believe it meets the threshold for WP:TNT. Jr8825 • Talk 04:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the previous two arguments (and also rather surprised this would be nominated). I would actually restore some of the material up to the early modern period sections that established Wales as legally part of "England" and the suppression of the Welsh language, at least as some kind of short summary of the starting position. At the moment, it seems like Wales appeared out of nowhere, or was always legally part of England.OsFish (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - easily notable. BilledMammal (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the constructive comments. Please feel free helping me out with tidying the article up or giving me any further recommendations for improvement.TG11TG15 (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added prehistoric and medieval headings with brief summaries as per feedback. Any other suggestions? Thank youTG11TG15 (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's clear from Special:Diff/1069182402 versus Wales#Roman era (Special:PermanentLink/842435878#Roman era) and Special:Diff/1069186134 versus Special:Diff/1050873964 (Welsh independence#21st century), to name just two, that you are copying within Wikipedia without attribution. Shuffling about already-written content from other people does not help to make a case that this is an original article on an as-yet-uncovered subject, and belies your claim to have "worked very hard". As someone who has written articles from scratch, I can assure you that what you are doing is a far cry from working very hard. You are passing off other people's work as your own. You've not been putting in any work at all.

      This probably explains these, which I noticed first:

      • Only capitalize proper nouns. wikt:devolution
      • Always give the page number when citing books.
      • Including the Roman Empire but missing out the Wales Act 1978, the Kilbrandon Commission, and the 1979 Welsh devolution referendum is not following the scholarship of legal/political experts on the subject, who all start by at least summarizing them.
      • Read some books:
        • Williams, David (1998). "Devolution: The Welsh perspective". In Beatson, J. (ed.). Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom: Practice and Principles. Hart Publishing. ISBN 9781901362848.
        • Williams, David (1975). "Wales and Legislative Devolution". In Calvert, Harry (ed.). Devolution. Professional Books.
        • Foulkes, David Llewhelin; Jones, James Barry; Wilford, Rick; Foulkes, J. Barry, eds. (1983). The Welsh Veto: The Wales Act 1978 and the Referendum. University of Wales Press. ISBN 9780708308318.
        • Bogdanor, Vernon (2001). "Wales". Devolution in the United Kingdom. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192801289.
    • Uncle G (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apologies for not citing the previous authors. I was not aware the wikipedia authors were cited. I assumed that article reference only was required. I'll avoid this in future. Thanks for pointing out. TG11TG15 (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC) I'll just contribute from scratch from now on. TG11TG15 (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the first thing you need to do here is decide if "Welsh devolution" is a thing that started in 1999 or not, and adjust your sourcing accordingly. And what is "Devolution from the Romans"? Maximus just left--your source says nothing about him "devolving" anything. And that's the problem I have with the article: as far as I'm concerned, 90% of it has nothing to do with any kind of devolution--it's simply the history of Wales as an area/nation/state/whatever. User:Jr8825 says that the "larger" (UK) article needn't go into all the detail, and that may be true--but the current article doesn't do that either, it just pulls in anything. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 1 February 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 13:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Dharma[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Krishna Dharma (edit | talk | history | 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:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. No major awards or achievement. He has written a few translations of Indian mythology books, but none of them seem to be notable. There are a few book reviews, other sources are self published, dependent and connected with ISKCON. In previous AfD, it was claimed that his books have been translated to other languages. First those are translations of the original Indian work. Secondly those translations serve as propaganda material for ISKCON, which funds their printing. It cannot be taken as a sign of notability. Venkat TL (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. His work might have received coverage, but notability is not inherited, so that coverage does not apply to him. BilledMammal (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The "Dwyer & Cole (2007)" reference in the article is a bit misleading, as the source is "Notes on Contributors" section of the book (one of the essays in the collection is by the subject). The other mentions found above are in similarly in bibliography sections. Guardian article (Meek 1999) is on the book he wrote and doesn't focus on the subject. hemantha (brief) 18:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My BEFORE failed to find anything and Hemantha analysis below demolishes the references in the article. Seems like the subject fails NAUTHOR/GNG. Not all authors are notable, and translators are even less likely to be so. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:16, 5 February 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! 23:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transportistas Unidos Mexicanos[edit]

Transportistas Unidos Mexicanos (edit | talk | history | 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:CORP. I can find no substantive third-party reliable sources regarding the firm, only LinkedIn and various directory listings. There is no corresponding article on es-wiki. Sable232 (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:16, 1 February 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! 03:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leimin Duong[edit]

Leimin Duong (edit | talk | history | 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:BIO. Could not find significant coverage. Establishing a beer company or being on 100 Women (BBC) doesn't confer automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 1 February 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! 03:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nagarathar Sangam of North America[edit]

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

The only reliable source here does not talk about the organization itself (ctrl-f sangam)/its history and is more of a person's account of one event. Per guidelines shown here, an organization is "notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The other sources of the article are not independent of the subject and a Google search does not bring any reliable sources either (which is why the article would have original research). Also note, that the article was previously deleted here. DareshMohan (talk) 01:04, 1 February 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. Geschichte (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Sasse[edit]

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

Questionable coverage found. Originally created by a user that has been banned for paid editing and sockpuppeting. Nominating rather than PRODing because he has been published and since I'm not familiar with the field, I'm asking other editors to see if he passes WP:ACADEMIC. BriefEdits (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Although the original heavily-promotional wording has been trimmed back, this still appears to have no purpose other than promotion. We have no evidence of academic, author, or general notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources fail GNG, most just link to self-published material or the the individuals book itself. Only one appears to be independent, but probably lacks notability due to just being a local paper. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Leaning delete, simply seems to be a long-time bariatric surgeon. I get one or two hits in GScholar that could be him, first initial matches. The paid creation/sockpupuet doesn't help with the notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 2 February 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_February_1&oldid=1070814282"