Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 20 February 22 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that the article needs clean-up rather than deletion. (non-admin closure) Enos733 (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Keirstead[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:NACADEMIC KidAd • SPEAK 23:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep It has lot of primary sources but still, there are few sources that give notability to this person. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:07, 23 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pepe Escobar[edit]

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

There has been extensive discussion about their notability but no consensus was found. I am relisting in an effort to gain consensus. Personally I believe that the article should be moved to Draft space to allow for improvement ahead of moving it back to main space. Gusfriend (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liamyangll: Your opinion is very understandable given the poor state of the article when you saw it on 21 February. But per WP:HEY, could you please look again and see if your opinion is changed by the new information now available? HouseOfChange (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseOfChange: Certainly (I must admit I did not know about WP:HEY before your reply, so thanks for enlightening me about that); after looking at the new arguments made by you and Laptopinmyhands, as well as the new content added into the article, I realised that I had missed Escobar's potential notability by probably not doing further research on him when originally commenting on this AfD. Now that the new content seems somewhat encyclopedic and notability has been largely proven, I have no reason to stick with my delete vote. Moving to Keep. Thanks for improving the article. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 08:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Much material that supported Escobar's notability was removed by a now-blocked editor. I am trying to improve the article, because the current state of the article is so poor. Escobar's early work was influential (the intelligence pros leaked by Wikileaks were passing it around, for example) but Google doesn't make it easy to find decade-old material ABOUT Escobar behind the enormous pile of material written BY Escobar. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has done important global work because of which he has been interviewed etc. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Escobar's reporting from Afghanistan just before and after 9/11 was an influential resource "widely cited"; the bio now shows this for 3 different stories. In 2011, he broke the news of an Al-Qaeda fundamentalist leading the NATO-backed Libya revolt (the CIA knew about this but the public did not), another influential story. His "Pipelineistan" theory of Eurasian conflict has been backed by some and criticized by others. Finally, the US State Department has recently identified him as someone who may or may not have become a Russian asset, wittingly so or unwittingly so. For all these reasons we do a service to our readers by including information about him in Wikipedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looking at available online sources; subject easily meets GNG. As pointed out above, part of the issue with the article is that an editor deleted a multitude of sources. This can be easily remedied and there is no value in moving it to draft space while this is being done. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:48, 25 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ellington University[edit]

Ellington University (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 found no significant coverage for this diploma mill. SL93 (talk) 21:53, 21 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maud Angelica Behn[edit]

Maud Angelica Behn (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)
Leah Isadora Behn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contrary to what was said upon the recreation of the articles, the Behn girls are expressly not "core members" of the Norwegian royal family. Not even their mother is. See the official website. Consequently, the girls bear no titles and have no public role. They are low profile teenagers. The only reason we have these articles is that their mother is the daughter of a king, but notability is not inherited. According to WP:INVALIDBIO, "that person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A". For them to be considered notable, they have to have attracted significant coverage in reliable sources, but the truth is that they do not get more than passing references in reliable sources when their parents or another actually prominent relative are discussed. Surtsicna (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Thank you for notifying me of the AfD. The acid test here is WP:N, and the test is surely met. Notability is not about importance, but the subject is listed on the web site of the royal family as one of the small number of members of the family, anyone who doubts that has only to follow the link helpfully provided above. Could this information please not be deleted from the article again? It seems pretty unlikely that any member of a reigning royal family is non-notable. But the correct approach to this is whether there is substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, and there is. Moonraker (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note on “the recreation of the articles”, in checking the history, which goes back to 2004, I can find no deletion. I see the nominator has twice blanked the page without discussion, but that is not quite the same thing. Moonraker (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A header at Leah Isadora Behn says that article is being considered for deletion, but the link provided leads here instead. If this page is treated as an AfD for that page too, then I say Keep for the same reasons. Please could I be notified if another AfD is in fact begun? Moonraker (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the deletion nomination page for both articles. I contend that WP:GNG is not met because there is no in-depth coverage of these teenagers in reliable sources. Since you claim otherwise, please point to the significant coverage which I have not been able to find.
The subject is listed on the family's website as a minor relation, literally "in addition" to those who are "members of the Norwegian Royal House", i.e. those with royal roles. Unlike their cousins, who are prince and princess, the Behn sisters do not have biographies on the official website. On the official website, just as in every other reliable source, they are only mentioned in passing when their mother is covered. That does not constitute significant coverage.
However unlikely it may seem, relatives of monarchs can be non-notable. We have guidelines explaining that, and we have had numerous articles deleted recently, e.g. the grandchildren of the kings of Sweden and Belgium, for the very same reason. Surtsicna (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: When it comes to “the grandchildren of the kings of Sweden and Belgium”, that is beside the point, as every case needs to be judged on its own merits, viz. compliance (or otherwise) with WP:N. You are surely not suggesting that a rule of thumb is developing that the grandchildren of monarchs are non-notable. The sources are listed under the header “References”, no point in copying them here. As WP:N is not about importance, I do not think it matters to this discussion, but it is not correct that “the subject is listed on the family's website as a minor relation”, that is not said there. For what it’s worth, below is what the royalcourt.no page says, which is pretty clear: it treats Maud and Leah the same way as their mother, Princess Märtha Louise. You would not I think say it implies that she is non-notable? Moonraker (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC) [reply]

    The Royal House of Norway belongs to the House of Glücksburg. The members of the Norwegian Royal House are Their Majesties King Harald and Queen Sonja and Their Royal Highnesses Crown Prince Haakon, Crown Princess Mette-Marit and Princess Ingrid Alexandra. The members of the Royal Family are in addition the Crown Prince and Crown Princess’s other children, His Highness Prince Sverre Magnus and Mr Marius Borg Høiby; Her Highness Princess Märtha Louise, Miss Maud Angelica Behn, Miss Leah Isadora Behn, Miss Emma Tallulah Behn and Her Highness Princess Astrid, Mrs Ferner.

  • Keep Maud. Unlike her older half-brother Marius Borg Høiby, Maud Angelica Behn has actually done something that separates her from the half-significant royal/celeb gossip news. She became a public figure when her father died and she spoke at his funeral. This was followed by her writing the book Tråder av tårer, which was printed in 10,000 copies [1] and immediately reached #1 on the Norwegian Booksellers Association bestseller list upon release. [2][3] Geschichte (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on Leah. She is an influencer and horserider, but only a teenager, so one might construe the coverage (which is ample) as not being significant. But it's 100% certain that the Norwegian press treats these people like full members of the royal family. The notion of them being "low profile teenagers" could not be further from the truth. Geschichte (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking at father's funeral hardly makes one a public figure, but being a writer might be something that makes RS notice her. The question is whether they get in-depth coverage by reliable sources, thus excluding tabloid gossip or brief mentions in articles about their parents. I do not see that. Surtsicna (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would you know about the outcome of someone speaking in public, when you haven't had a single glance at relevant sources? Geschichte (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hostility is uncalled-for. You know less about my Internet search history than you think, otherwise I would be rather concerned. Surtsicna (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non notable member of this family.--SlideAndSlip (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meet WP:GNG and the grandchildren of ruling monarchs are usually notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there is enough coverage to show notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:57, 28 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thredded[edit]

Thredded (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)

Promotional article, written by one of the developers. Indeed, it's one of the few articles they've ever touched in 5 years being on WP. Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 21:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable and clear COI DeadMansTown (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per DeadMansTown. Sources are also not independent. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 04:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I found another article [4] and have added, but nothing else comes up, so IMO there is not enough to meet notability. Zeddedm (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm part of WT:FOSS and this is how it landed on my table. I fully agree with User:onel5969 that we have a case of WP:PROMO here. I suggest deletion and in case it should be of sufficient interest for the FOSS community we might be part of a WP:NEUTRAL rebuild. GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promtional content present, non-notable sources, lacks notability as per nom. Timetraveller80 (talk) 08:58, 25 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arie Priyatna[edit]

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

He played 21 minutes of league football and 53 minutes in the cup, which is less than one match in terms of game time. This is a very weak WP:NFOOTBALL pass so we need to look towards WP:GNG. Furthermore, he is approaching his 40th birthday, so we can hardly make any credible argument of having a future pro career.

Searching Arie Priyatna yields zero sources in Google News and only Wikipedia mirror junk in DDG. Searching under the alternative name of Ari Supriatna, I managed to find this Bola article but it only qualifies as a trivial mention as he is only mentioned once in the body of the article. This falls way short of the requirement to have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. He passes WP:NFOOTY but doesn't the WP:GNG at all Dr Salvus 21:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep there is indication that he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. He is in professional team listed at WP:FPL and has played at least one game. Caphadouk (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Caphadouk some years ago, there was a concensus which says that one or two match(es) is/are not enough for a player to be notable when GNG is clearly not met Dr Salvus 22:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This shows 2 matches, I agree that it's borderline. That consensus you mentioned is not stated in the policy, but I will change my vote to Weak keep. Keep in mind that the data may not be accurate and missing other matches he has played in. Caphadouk (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Soccerway goes back to 2009 currently (see Bambang) so given that Liga 1 (Indonesia) formed in 2008, there's only one professional season missing. It's technically possible that Priyatna played in the first Indonesian professional season but not sure how we'd go about establishing it. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Caphadouk, do have a look to GiantSnowman's comment below Dr Salvus 12:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would usually argue that Priytana would meet NFOOTY, but in some cases, such as this one, GNG beats NFOOTY, per above. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 12:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete meets NFOOTY, but NSPORTS requires GNG, which they fail. BilledMammal (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a perfect example of why we need to scrap the ludicrous one game standard, and replace it with at least 3 games. With actors they need to have had significant roles in multiple notable productions. With footballers not only are we assuming I guess that every game in an FPL is notable, which is questionable at best, and that every player is significant, which is also open to question, but we grant notability at just 1, which with there 3 points combined leads to Wikipedia being flooded with articles on footballers. 40% of BLPs are on people who played football, this is insanely too high.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Rock beats scissors; GNG beats FOOTY. Subject does not appear to pass GNG. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:10, 26 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Coleman (American artist)[edit]

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

No RS to establish N for this PROMO bio. The book is self published by "Coleman Studios" and only held in 8 libraries https://www.worldcat.org/title/life-works-of-james-coleman/oclc/35095591&referer=brief_results All that is left are PRIMARY and PROMO sources. Theredproject (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I do not find it as promotional but it is not notable. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article sourcing is way too promotional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I found one independent source: "AUTHOR: JENNIFER DULIN WILEY TITLE: Imagination Reigns Supreme SOURCE: Art Business News 35 no4 28, 30 Ap 2008". I also found a link to an article announcing an exhibit in Hawaii (related to that article). There are at least 3 online galleries that sell his work, but I have no idea if they are considered "significant" or just commercial. A significant article about his work at Disney would push this to a keep IMO. Lamona (talk) 20:07, 24 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 00:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RJM (Artist)[edit]

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

RJM (artist)

This musical artist does not satisfy any of the musical notability criteria or general notability. Naïve Google search shows that he exists, and that he uses electronic media to advertise. We knew that. The sources are only listing of his works on Apple Music. There are two copies of this article, in article space and draft space, so that the article cannot be sent back to draft space. The article should be deleted and the draft left alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 21 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jeffries[edit]

Sarah Jeffries (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 nurse whose media coverage is solely due to the fact that she's married to an Olympic bronze Medalist. Notability is not inherited. – 2.O.Boxing 19:44, 21 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IodéOS[edit]

IodéOS (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 article is advertising. The operating system is proprietary (closed source). It may be based mostly on open source components, but few to none of the details for preparation of the ROM are available. This is not mentioned in the article. Also, WP:TooSoon.

Of the 5 sources, 3 are minimal coverage or known unreliable:

  • DroidGamers source[5] is a mention without substantial coverage.
  • Heise source[6] is a brief mention in a list.
  • Linder source [7] was deemed unreliable self-published blog at Reliable Sources Noticeboard.[8]

Other source Note: when adding it to the List of custom Android distributions[9] a self-published forum post at XDA was used as a source; This source was (correctly) removed from the article during "neutrality and cleanup for accept" edits.[10]

Note The article creator, Manonrouget is a single purpose account.[11], with a declared conflict of interest on the draft page until AfC cleanup.[12]

Note article creator user page was just deleted for "U5: Blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violations"[13] Yae4 (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, Software, and France. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I accepted this draft out of AfC because I believed there was enough significant coverage in the Android Police and Tarnkappe sources, along with the DroidGamers source, to satisfy WP:GNG after cleaning up the promotional tone. An opinion from someone more experienced in this subject matter is appreciated. -Liancetalk/contribs 01:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Below are links from French press coverage if that helps: https://www.challenges.fr/high-tech/smartphone-la-solution-francaise-anti-tracage-publicitaire_739240 https://www.lefigaro.fr/secteur/high-tech/iode-le-logiciel-francais-qui-protege-les-donnees-de-vos-smartphones-20210908 https://www.01net.com/actualites/village-startup-fevrier-2021-mytwiga-iode-baobab-lab-2033835.html https://www.leparisien.fr/high-tech/le-parisien-a-teste-les-smartphones-anti-trackers-publicitaires-de-iode-09-12-2021-CHLDID34ORGNVGE7G7U2LB7TQQ.php https://www.toolinux.com/?iode-smartphones-reconditionnes-qui-respectent-votre-vie-privee-grace-a-l-open https://www.servicesmobiles.fr/iodeos-est-une-solution-alternative-respectueuse-de-la-vie-privee-67507 https://www.la-croix.com/JournalV2/Adopter-smartphone-ethique-2021-03-13-1101145348 https://www.greenit.fr/2021/03/23/iode-le-fairphone-qui-protege-votre-vie-privee/ https://startup.info/fr/iode-le-smartphone-ecologique-qui-protege-votre-vie-privee/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manonrouget (talk • contribs) 10:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Of those in the link bomb, Le Figaro and Le Parisien do appear to be more than just mentions; however, it is less clear if they are articles with editorial oversight or blogs without oversight. Both being published, then updated quickly, within a couple hours, indicates more a blog to me, because editorial review should happen before initial publishing. A blog would be published, then read by the author and updated quickly. From the links:
Publié le 08/09/2021 à 18:33, Mis à jour le 08/09/2021 à 20:39
Published on 08/09/2021 at 18:33, Updated on 08/09/2021 at 20:39
Le 9 décembre 2021 à 16h42, modifié le 9 décembre 2021 à 17h04
December 9, 2021 at 4:42 pm, modified December 9, 2021 at 5:04 pm
Also, to quote, translated, from Le Parisien,
Iodé has only "a few hundred customers" at the moment, but it has an appetite...
Is "A few hundred customers" notable? -- Yae4 (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Checked
  1. The Heise source is very reliable and it is not just a brief mention in a list - it's a regular list mention.
  2. Tarnkappe.info is unbeknownst to be but seem to be legit by every measurement. The article writer also made clear that they haven't received any money for this review.
  3. Androidpolice.com also seem to be legit by every measurement. The article writer also lists not only positive points and it doesn't read as a promotional article
✗ Fail The Linder source due to WP:SELF since the founder of this website is also the creator of the article.
✗ Fail The droidgamers.com source seems mostly promotional
Idea: Instead of deleting the article I would prefer to bring this issue to WP:COICOIN and they should decide how to handle this issue. The article creator user:Manonrouget doesn't seem to bother to make themselves familiar with the rules of Wikipedia. The link bomb seems to push the work to WP editors and changes are made without signing the posts or without being logged in. GavriilaDmitriev (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the subject appears to be notable, but refer the issue to COIN.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:56, 28 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Csaba Markus[edit]

Csaba Markus (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)

An autobiography that does not establish Notablity, and has no reliable sources that cover the subject in any detail. From Markus' LinkedIn page: "Markus's Production company Monoleto Films was founded in 2008" User:Monoleto is the primary contributor to this article. The other language versions are translations of this article, and do not contain other sources.

None of the articles listed were verifiable, and most appear to be press release type promo and/or not reliable sources. Art Business News appears to be a real thing (https://web.archive.org/web/20121114093356/http://www.highbeam.com/publications/art-business-news-p5624) but I don't think it would be considered a RS. "Art Magazine" is quite vague, and unverifiable in relationship to "Csabo"

The books listed are all self published. And a Listicle from the Toronto Sun calling one of his paintings "one of the World's 10 most sensual paintings" is... not very encyclopedic. Theredproject (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete very sketchy as defined in nomination. Doesn’t have reliable, independent sources. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:21, 23 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) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Houda Abouz[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Houda Abouz (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)

Insufficient informations or insufficient sources FBall (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Completing nomination on behalf of new editor who had added the above template to the article itself. As for my own view, the sources in the article seem perfectly adequate to meet WP:GNG. Noting that nominator blanked an associated file page on Commons without explanation. --Finngall talk 17:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Law, and Morocco. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has enough coverage to pass WP:BASIC and featuring in 100 Women (BBC) is notable too. Not all significant coverage is in English, too. See FNH for example. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources signify significant coverage in media that passes WP:GNG. Article is quite short so could definitely use some additions but I see no need for deletion. GoldMiner24 Talk 18:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the NYPost and Arab Weekly articles are, with the exception of the opening paragraphs, exactly the same. Seems to be sourced from an original piece from Reuters. Per WP:GNG - "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability". -KH-1 (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this source has independent content from the others so may help Abouz's cause. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Might be WP:TOOSOON.-KH-1 (talk) 05:33, 25 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 Hand transplantation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Hallam[edit]

Clint Hallam (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:1E, he is already covered in Hand transplantation so proposing merge would be equivalent to deletion here. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized a redirect might make most sense. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Redirect to Hand transplantation. The article is short and while I think it could meet WP:GNG I think it would be better to redirect to Hand transplantation where the information is already covered. GoldMiner24 Talk 18:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Subject is only notable because of the first hand transplant. Really a sort of combination single event and inherited. The subject themself is not really notable, just the event. Subject name might be a search term because of the event so redirect to Hand transplantation and merge any remaining relevant material. Aoziwe (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect This person is not notable and redirecting the article so that the notable event can be found is appropriate. Schwede66 16:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect It's an interesting read (especially the part about his nurse) but hardly encyclopedic info. The section in hand transplantation already covers his case, though it could use the information that he stopped taking antirejection drugs. I added one relevant ref from this article to the hand transplantation article. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:35, 24 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 00:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Del Rio[edit]

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

Fails GNG and ENT and awards no longer count. Spartaz Humbug! 16:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even close to having a level of sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 21 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 Dua Lipa. Spartaz Humbug! 17:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dua Lipa concert tours[edit]

List of Dua Lipa concert tours (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:N - it only cites 5 sources, one of which is self published and one that is a WP:RS (The Line of Best Fit) resulting in much WP:OR. I would also argue that it fails WP:V. Additionally per MOS:ALBUM guidelines, tours that are not notable enough should be mentioned in their parent album article, which to me makes it seem like this article shouldn't exist in the first place. LOVI33 15:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Article is too premature at this stage. NavjotSR (talk) 11:25, 23 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 Thrasyllus of Mendes#Family and issue. Nobody is for keeping the article, but there is no consensus about whether to delete it as unverifiable or to redirect/merge it with Thrasyllus of Mendes#Family and issue, where this Aka and the uncertainty about her is mentioned. Absent consensus to delete, a redirect is the most consensual outcome. Editors may want to decide about how and whether to mention Aka in the target article, and if she ends up not being mentioned, the redirect can be submitted to RfD. Sandstein 10:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aka II of Commagene[edit]

Aka II of Commagene (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)

Highly WP:OR-ish article of an obscure royal whose existence is rendered dubious by the source which the article itself cites, Beck on Mithraism. The specific genealogical details apparently come only from "Royal genealogy of Mithradates III of Commagene at rootsweb" (self-published online source). The basis of this person's existence, according to the article, is "a preserved incomplete poem", but the source Beck on Mithraism asserts that this is a "real uncertainty", and adds that the correct reading of line 15 of this poem excludes, in my view, an earlier and widely current interpretation which gave Balbillus himself 'a royal mother, (?)Aka'. The other source which the article cites, Gundel 1966, mentions "Aka" in passing, but his information must be outdated in view of Beck's anyway. Much of the content sounds outright made-up (statements like Aka II is one of the daughters born to the King of Commagene, Mithridates III; She was most probably born, raised and educated in Samosata; Aka II became known as Claudia Aka).

Given that this person's existence is very doubtful, and that the article is more misleading than useful, this should be deleted. The source is already used on Thrasyllus of Mendes, which disposes of the need to merge. Avilich (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We should not create separate articles on people whose very existence is not shown to be real, unless the coverage of them as an unreal person is enough to make them notable, which is not the case here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Thrasyllos. There is no indication of notability here, but I'm not confident that Aka II didn't exist and I'm not at all confident that the scholarly consensus is that she didn't exist. Beck's declaration that a particular reading of a poem is "correct" doesn't make earlier scholarship "outdated" in quite the same way that, say, archaeological evidence would. Even if her existence is disproven, she ought to be mentioned as a disproven figure (as is done with various phantom royals of Hellenistic Bactria). She is discussed in M. Chahin. 2001. The Kingdom of Armenia, 190ff. and mentioned in Levick, Tiberius 1999. Furius (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: Aka II isn't currently mentioned in the main text of Thrasyllus of Mendes, so I don't think that the argument against merging holds water. Furius (talk) 21:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aka II isn't currently mentioned in the main text of Thrasyllus Yes, she is. She is discussed in M. Chahin. 2001. The Kingdom of Armenia, 190ff. and mentioned in Levick, Tiberius 1999 No, she isn't. There's nothing in either, provide quotes or that isn't true. Even if the sources did discuss her, merging would only be required if the present article did so, which it doesn't. Beck's declaration that a particular reading of a poem is "correct" doesn't make earlier scholarship "outdated" in quite the same way that, say, archaeological evidence would Yes it does, especially since evidence of a stronger kind ('archaeological evidence') doesn't exist. Avilich (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is good that you have updated the Thrasyllus article to mention the name. Furius (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which I took from the source itself, not the article which you are saying should be merged with it. Avilich (talk) 04:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look, it comes to exactly the same thing. The name and hypothesis wasn't mentioned in the Thrasyllos article when I initially commented. They are now, so you have done what I was asking for. Furius (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are not the same thing; "merging" entails preserving and perpetuating the article's content, but in this case, just about anything said about "Aka" is unverifiable or made-up (eg. one of the daughters born to the King of Commagene, Mithridates III; was most probably born, raised and educated in Samosata; Aka II became known as Claudia Aka). If you can't identify what you want merged, with the attribution to the original author preserved, then don't vote merge at all. You could also explain (or cross out) your baffling remark that "Aka" is covered by those two sources (Chahin and Levick), when they do not say so much as a word about it. Avilich (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Furius (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (or redirect to her husband. Nothing about her is notable in her own right. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article should definitely not be merged or redirected. The content is essentially unverifiable, not even because this person is almost certainly nonexistent, but rather because even the coverage of this topic as a nonexistent person doesn't support most of what the article says (original research in other words). Compliance with V and OR shouldn't be negotiable here. Avilich (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The source is Cramer 1954, pp. 13, 94–95, 136. Page 136 has the family tree with Aka married to Thrasyllus. Page 94 has Tiberius in the marriage of Aka.
    • Cramer, Frederick Henry (1954). Astrology in Roman Law and Politics. Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society. Vol. 37. American Philosophical Society. ISBN 9780835758215. ISSN 0065-9738.
  • Cramer was a history professor (doi:10.1086/ahr/60.3.584). Kaplan 1978, p. 390 argues that Cramer "went one step too far" and on Kaplan 1978, pp. 49, 389 blames part of this on Honigmann 1958, p. 984 who made the daughter of Antiochus II link. Kaplan 1978, p. 99 thinks that Aka II is chronologically to have been the daughter of Antiochus III instead.
    • Kaplan, Michael Steven (1978). Greeks and the Imperial Court, from Tiberius to Nero. Harvard dissertations in classics (PhD thesis) (1990 reprint ed.). Garland. ISBN 9780824032135.
    • Honigmann, Ernst (1924). "Zu cig 4730". Hermes. 59 (4): 477–478. doi:10.2307/4473937.
    • Honigmann, Ernst (1958). "Kommagene". Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Suppl.). Vol. IV.
  • Mind you, this is all content for the article, and a reason not to delete it, but rather to include Kaplan as well.

    Uncle G (talk) 11:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The impression I get from Kaplan's snippets is that he doesn't think 'Aka' existed either. You're probably mistaking him for the somewhat outdated Cramer, who in p. 99 does have something similar, but with multiple question marks (evidently he's just speculating). Anyway, all these sources are doing is going back and forth about a single, dubious slot in a family tree. There's nothing that requires a standalone page. All you can really say after putting together all literature is something like: scholars have debated whether Tiberius's astrologer Thrasyllus married a member of the royal house of Commagene (whose name is sometimes given as 'Aka'), but this theory doesn't have much acceptance any more. I already added a similar notice at Thrasyllus of Mendes; Beck is already sufficient, but you can go ahead and add Kaplan as a citation there for good measure if you wish. Avilich (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Changed vote) I have altered my vote to redirect, as what is now already in Thrasyllus of Mendes is all we would need as a merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person was formerly thought to be the wife of the emperor Tiberius's astrologer Thrasyllus, but most modern scholars don't seem to think, anymore, that she actually existed. Not that we can't have articles about imaginary people, but I don't think that quite fits the bill here. She might be worthy of a brief remark in Thrasyllus' article. My view is that there simply isn't enough data available for a decent stand–alone article. Delete. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can this be ended already? Nobody wants to keep or even merge this, and what little can be gathered from the sources has already been added elsewhere anyway. If this is still up because because a redirect might be useful, then no, I don't think it will, since the title and the numeral may incorrectly imply this subject reigned as a monarch (yet another way this article can mislead readers). Avilich (talk) 14:30, 28 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 Canoeing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Men's folding K-2 10000 metres. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eugen Knoblauch[edit]

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

There are no sources on this article that probvide significant coverage. My searches only showed up Wikipedia mirrors. I searched in google books and google news archive and even google scholar and found nothing. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 21 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Dicaeosyna[edit]

Claudia Dicaeosyna (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)

Obscure woman named on a stone inscription, with no evidence of why she's important. Content of the article is basically unverifiable, the source only ventures a guess based on the husband's name, and so it's impossible to know for sure if she indeed married Tiberius Claudius Narcissus instead of someone else of the same name. Avilich (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's precisely one single source (a very old one at that) which does so, and even that is just a one-line speculation which the author didn't waste ten seconds with. I could find no other source which discusses her, so I don't really think she should be discussed in the main page. Presumably you didn't know back then that it was just a "possible husband", since the article is totally misleading in this regard. I think this should just be deleted for the same reason any article on some random freedman would be deleted, and for the same reason that most of the millions of freedmen who ever existed don't have redirects. If you disagree, then by all means vote redirect, but your time is solely yours to spend and to 'waste'. Avilich (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't really see why it matters if its one sentence speculation that you think the author didn't spend enough time on. Its still a plausible search term thats has been associated with Narcissus for over 100 years now, the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology is a very widely read work.★Trekker (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not very likely that anybody will even hear of this name before that of Narcissus himself, so nobody will search for it before already stumbling upon the meager information available on her. Anyway, the article has several misleading and unverifiable statements which makes it desirable to delete before redirecting. If you wish to recreate it as a blank redirect afterwards, then just go ahead, nobody will stop you. Avilich (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you were actually perfectly ok with a redirect to the possible husband, yet still decided to recreate the article just to delete it?★Trekker (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid this doesn't bring us any further than step zero, which is that a woman of that name existed and was married to some "Tiberius Claudius Narcissus". Lulu.com is an online print-on-demand, self-publishing platform, whereas the Alford source says basically nothing about her, aside from merely noting the inscription's existence and her name in it. The claim she was a freedwoman of Claudius is an unverifiable one that the Wikipedia article itself made without any authority: it is not corroborated by the source which the Portuguese article cites, so I think it simply took the information from Wikipedia and assumed it was true. Compare its publication date, 2015, with the date of the Wikipedia article's creation, 2007, and the date of its transclusion to the Portuguese Wikipedia, 2010. Avilich (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources found, not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, this AfD has dug up 4 sources, actually. I've included the new sources on the husband's page to say as much as possible about Claudia there. Do others think there's enough info there to merit a redirect? Ficaia (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I reverted it, because the sources aren't any good, as I explained above. Avilich (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources isn't any good. So I've restored my edit and removed the spurious source. Ficaia (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no certainty she was what this article claims. It could be conveying false facts at worst, and at best, it shows she was not notable enough to have more than a single inscription bearing only her name. Nothing else can be said about her. It would be too remarkably short for a stand alone article. (That was sarcasm.) Delete delete! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to establish consensus as to whether a redirect would be appropriate or edit warred over.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Once again, it's not even known for certain whether the subject was even associated with the redirection target, and the name is no less obscure than the million others that can be found in existing stone inscriptions, so it's unlikely to be a useful search term at all. Can this be closed already? I'm sure creating this article didn't take 3 weeks. Avilich (talk) 15:11, 28 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Blackmore[edit]

Jordan Blackmore (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 fall short of Wikipedia criteria for notability. Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:13, 21 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, move, then create redirect. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PKL[edit]

PKL (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 two articles, with Pro Kabaddi League clearly the primary topic here, the page views are several orders of magnitude higher. The dab page should be deleted and a hatnote placed on the kabaddi article. AryKun (talk) 15:01, 21 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Ray Sanders[edit]

Bob Ray Sanders (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)

Contested draftification. Fails WP:BIO FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 14:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject passes WP:JOURNALIST and WP:NBASIC. Ikemefuna Umeadi (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:JOURNALIST. There is enough significant coverage of the article's subject to warrant keeping the article. GoldMiner24 Talk 14:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. --Vaco98 (talk) 14:57, 21 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 14:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shashidal Union High School[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability guidelines for organizations and general notability guidelines. Source one is not about the school and the rest sources are neither in-depth nor reliable. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:06, 21 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 per WP:CSD#G3. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robinz[edit]

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

The sources do not show notability guidelines being met. Fails WP:GNG Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article for Robinz is a blatant rip off of the article for Harland Miller. This becomes even more obvious when you compare the first revision of Robinz to the latest revision of Harland Miller. Then what the creator of the article for Robinz proceeded to do is to change it slightly in an attempt to fool people into thinking it was a different article. What tipped me off was that the sources all mentioned Harland Miller, but none of them mentioned Robinz. I tried searching the internet for an artist named Robinz, but outside of a music artist on Spotify and an unrelated artist on Typepad named RobiNZ, I couldn't find anyone. This makes this article a blatant hoax and thus eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G3. Lazman321 (talk) 16:21, 21 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) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:54, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Love Hostel[edit]

Love Hostel (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)

Love Hostel

Article about unreleased film that does not satisfy film notability guidelines or general notability guidelines. The article does not speak for itself (because there is no reception because the film isn't released). A review of the references reveals that they are simply advance publicity about the movie, not independent or secondary.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 Bollywoodhungama.com Announcement about film No Yes Maybe No
2 The Hindu Page is blank No No No
3 Bollywoodhungama.com Another announcement No Yes Maybe No
4 indiatvnews.com Announcement of start of filming No No No
5 timesofindia.com Announcement of start of filming. No No No
6 indianexpress.com Interview with filmmakers No No No
7 news18.com Interview with No No No
8 indiatoday.com Interview with filmmakers. Same as 6 No No No
Robert McClenon (talk) 08:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Can be created should it meet WP:NFILM. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 08:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per WP:ATD-I. May not meet NFF yet but would be just 4 days away from its scheduled release by the time the discussion closes. Alternatively, a relist would allow reviews to be explored so that the participants can ultimately evaluate its notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC) Updated 06:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support a relist. A quick search shows that five news stories have been posted in the last 4-6 hours, so I think that it would be good to wait and see if more sourcing becomes available. I'll try and see if I can improve the page as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm leaning towards keep on this one, but want to improve the article further. At the very least this should be relisted so that we can see if there are any new sources. The coverage for this looks to be plentiful enough as far as coverage of filming goes. There are puff pieces, but there is also coverage of some minor controversy - the filming was halted twice due to farmer protests. I have a strong feeling that there will be reviews once this releases. That's crystal balling, so I'm going to try and find more sourcing in the meantime. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've expanded the production section greatly and this seems to pass NFF at this point in time. I'm not entirely comfortable with the keep, so I would highly recommend that this be relisted to see if more sourcing becomes available. I'm also fine with this being draftified. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage seems to keep coming in and my keep is a lot firmer now, as a lot of the papers are falling over themselves to write about, interview, and otherwise cover the film and its actors. If this doesn't get at least a handful of reviews I'll honestly be shocked. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 21 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. Just to note that keep arguments based on GNG don’t address the requirements of NCORP. Delete voters have been given more weight as they have explained their reasoning. Some of the keeps by bare assertion simply cannot stand with refuting the central arguments. Spartaz Humbug! 17:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teachmint[edit]

Teachmint (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 NCORP as it lacks multiple, independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the company. The promotional writing style makes it look like it was written by someone associated with the company. M4DU7 (talk) 08:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:DMySon
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
The Economic Times Yes Editorially independent. Contains original and independent opinion and investigation and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Yes The Economic Times is a reliable reference per consensus. Yes While not primarily about Teachmint. Though the website is subscription based but the article contains two paragraphs about the subject. ✔ Yes
Forbes Yes Editorially independent. Contains original and independent opinion and investigation and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Yes WP:FORBES Yes The article contains two paragraphs about the subject. Independently written by Yue Wang. ✔ Yes
The Times of India Yes Editorially independent. Contains original and independent opinion and investigation and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject (themselves, they went there). Yes WP:TOI Yes The entire article that is written independently by Sindhu Hariharan. ✔ Yes
The Indian Express Yes Editorially independent. Contains original and independent opinion by the editor Yes WP:INDIANEXP Yes Significantly covered and written by K Rathna ✔ Yes
Entrepreneur India Yes Editorially independent. Contains original and independent opinion and investigation and fact checking. Yes Entrepreneur India is generally reliable. Yes Aawrds List distributed to multiple organizations ✔ Yes
The Hindu Yes Editorially independent. Contains original and independent opinion and investigation and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Yes WP:THEHINDU Yes Information on webinars and research from schools and colleges. ✔ Yes
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}}.
  • Forbes contributors are not acceptable per WP:RSP but the remaining seem ok. Zeddedm (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per detailed source analysis provided by Dmyson and the topic passes WP:NCORP. JackFrost987 (talk) 07:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Uh; that source assessment table has a number of faults. I'm not sure about whether the Economic Times piece is SIGCOV; it's paywalled and I don't have access. Other than that, none of the the sources listed meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The Forbes piece is a single paragraph that doesn't satisfy CORPDEPTH, TOI's reliability is disputed (did you even see what WP:TOI says?) and in any case is again a single paragraph that does not satisfy CORPDEPTH. The source that is supposed to be from the Indian Express is, in fact, from The New Indian Express which is a separate paper. I didn't find any discussions of the TNIE at RSP or RSN, though Fowler&fowler's comment (he's an expert on India-related topics) calls it the scum of the gutter here. Granted, it's a few years old, but from what articles I've read in the TINE I've read, I'm not seeing any reason to disagree with him; much of what I've read is heavily editorialised and very biased. I daresay a proper discussion is needed at RSN to settle the matter. The piece in The Hindu is a routine announcement of an acquisition, barely a paragraph long, thus again failing CORPDEPTH. And the piece in Entrepreneur India is a listing of awards won, and merely mentions Teachmint as having won an award. That reaches nowhere close to CORPDEPTH standards. I won't be commenting whether to delete or keep yet, as I'll run my own search for sources once; but I felt I had to point out the problems with the source assessment above. JavaHurricane 12:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And, as it appears, Teachmint is indeed notable:
    1. Financial Express (ref 2 in the article): reliable (arm of the Indian Express which is generally reliable), decently long and in-depth enough to pass CORPDEPTH, also secondary and looks independent too.
    2. The Hindu Business Line (source 11): reliable, in-depth enough, secondary, independent.
    3. Business Standard (found on Google): in-depth enough, secondary and independent. The reliability of the Business Standard isn't listed at RSP, but from my experience I think it is okay enough.
    The above three sources seem to be enough for Teachmint to pass WP:NCORP; keep, then. The promotional style is certainly a problem, but then AfD is not cleanup. JavaHurricane 13:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You JavaHurricane for the well explanation over my source assessment table. I agreed with your comments and in future i will try to improve my skills on judging the references. DMySon (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my assessment of the three sources:
  1. Financial Express - These 7 paragraphs do not satisfy the "significant coverage" requirement. The 1st paragraph is not about the company. The 4th, 6th and 7th paragraphs are quotes by the founders. The 3rd and 5th paragraphs are essentially claims made by the company that begin or end with "company officials inform" and "As per internal data collated by Teachmint". That leaves us with only the 2nd paragraph which is a glowing review of the product. Not sure if this article is independently authored as it is tagged "FE Bureau" (like most of these churnalistic startup stories are).
  2. The Hindu Business Line - More than 50% of the article is again quotes, aims and claims made by the company. The "Live-class feature" section of the article reads like a product brochure issued by the company.
  3. Business Standard - An "independently" authored article which is strangely similar to this "independently-written" piece in Times of India, giving me the impression that these papers may have republished the same press release by making minor modifications and calling it an independent report. Think about it, which journalist would write stuff like "The company is reimagining the infrastructure for education" and "This is highly optimized for education providers across the world" on an independently researched story. M4DU7 (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I missed the problems with the third one, should have more looked more deeply. I still think that sources 1 and 2 are in-depth enough to meet CORPDEPTH; a lot of coverage that I've read about people and companies is of that sort, featuring a good deal of words from the subject or representatives. I have fairly strict standards when reviewing sources about people and companies, especially due to my experience with spam and UPE in these areas. For my own part, I feel the first two sources are decent enough. JavaHurricane 11:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my !vote per analysis below, I was evidently wrong in characterising the sources. JavaHurricane 03:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promotional and `non-notable. Almost all. the references are just about funding or PR. The financial Express article is PR based, relying on what the founders say about their own company. Hindu Business Line, ditto. Business Standard is a copy of a press release published in some of the other "references". Nothing else is even remotely usable. To evaluate references, it is necessary to read them. ` DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with JavaHurricane's review of the source table and M4DU7/DGG's review of the three (FE, HBL and BS) other sources. I wasn't able to unearth any other WP:SIRS source from search engines. Hemantha (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article is good enough to pass WP:BASIC with reliable sources indicated and analyzed by DMySon. ASTIG️🎉 (HAPPY 2022) 14:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The source assessment table is designed for WP:GNG and is often abused when it is used for NCORP-related topics. This is a company therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. I'm assuming all the sources are reliable and the publishers are corporately independent (i.e. "Editorially Independent") from the topic organization - but there's more requirements than that for establishing notability.
  • WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content".
  • As per WP:SIRS, each reference must meet the criteria on its own, we don't look at the "volume" in aggregate
  • "Independent content" - something which has been ignored in the source assessment table above - in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
None of the references either mentioned above or in the article meet the criteria as they rely entirely on information provided by the company or their execs - as admitted by some Keep !voters above - and the remaining passages are not clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 08:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources provided in evaluation table above look good accept Forbes contributors are not acceptable per WP:RSP. Zeddedm (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete the references in the table aren't acceptable for a number of reasons and I don't see anything else that would be. That said, references do exist and some of them are borderline, like the one from multiple sources that might be based on a press release but there's really no definitive way to tell. So I'm not super invested in delete as an outcome. Although all things considered it would still probably be the "best" option. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:07, 26 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 14:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kairat Boranbayev[edit]

Kairat Boranbayev (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 reliable sources, notability not shown. Fails to satisfy WP:GNG criteria. Bash7oven (talk) 13:09, 21 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 14:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nurlan Bizakov[edit]

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

Not good sources provided, resembles a resume or a spam. Notability is questinable Bash7oven (talk) 13:08, 21 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 13:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Schrodinger (Kittydinger)[edit]

Schrodinger (Kittydinger) (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 Pridemanty (talk) 12:34, 21 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 13:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Garima Arora (actress)[edit]

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

Fails GNG Pridemanty (talk) 12:34, 21 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 13:08, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plou, Aragon[edit]

Plou, Aragon (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 does not, in my opinion, meet WP:GNG Owen250708 (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Owen250708 (talk) 12:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has an entry. I suspect that they do not hunt partridges and hares there any more, though.
    • Parral y Cristóba, Luis (1907). "Plou". Fueros, observancias, actos de Corte, usos y costumbres: con una reseña geografica é historica del reino de Aragon (in Spanish). Vol. 1. Zaragoza: Est. tip. de M. Salas. p. 228. OCLC 14636427.
  • Uncle G (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:GEOLAND as a municipality. Here's an article in the Heraldo de Aragón about it, as an example of a source. eviolite (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Why was this nominated? I added two newspaper profiles easily. It is a legally recognized municipality.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Things are a little hard to search because "Plou" just means "town", but it's clear that it is a distinct municipality, and GMaps aerials show an obvious town at the spot. Mangoe (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is worrying, I mean, there are hundreds of small towns in Spain alone for which you can only find sources in local newspapers and certainly nothing written in English. Is this the start of a campaign to delete many other similar pages? --Jotamar (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at the nominator's contributions easily yields the answer "no". Besides, the municipalities are legal divisions and will all pass WP:GEOLAND, and it appears that other villages will do the same. Mangoe (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It complies with WP:GEOLAND.--Asqueladd (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep municipalities always pass GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per NGEO. Djflem (talk) 08:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Clearly a recognised settlement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:26, 23 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. Consensus is that while these articles might benefit from a bit of a cleanup and an improvement in the quality of sources, they don't fundamentally violate any provisions within WP:NOTNEWS and therefore shouldn't be deleted. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 08:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the war in Donbas (2020)[edit]

Timeline of the war in Donbas (2020) (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. This and similar articles for 2021 and 2022 are exhaustive lists of everything related to this conflict, and are subject to massive WP:TOOMUCH. The majority of the significant events are already covered in the main page on the conflict Unbh (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Timeline of the war in Donbas (2021) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timeline of the war in Donbas (2022) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep. WP:NOTNEWS comprises four items: 1) Original report: WP discourages the inclusion of "first-hand news reports on breaking stories"; it allows, however, topics of "historical significance that are currently in the news", like the current war in Donbas. 2) News reports: It deals mostly with "news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities"; clearly not the case. 3) Who's Who: on BLP news. Barely a couple of individuals are mentioned in this chronologies, and no bio data is included besides the links to the proper article, if that article exists. 4) Celebrity gossip: No celebrities involved (it could be the subject of some jokes, but iam not in the mood today ;)) Therefore, there is nothing objectable per WP:NOTNEWS in this WP:LIST. Same thing regarding WP:TOOMUCH; the dates are selected according to the amount of ceasefire violations and notable events, and not indiscriminately. Darius (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The war in Donbas is of historical significance, which is why it has it's own page. Every single action in the conflict being reported on a day by day basis as they are here entirely falls within point 1.Unbh (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not true that "every single action in the conflict" is "reported on a day by day basis". The chronologies only include the days of most intense fighting, along with the decisions taken by the now defunct Minsk group, and the different ceasefire agreements, international reactions and the political background, all of them relevant to the history of this conflict. Darius (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As long as they're sourced I see no problem with these articles whatsoever. Clearly encyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not encyclopaedic. It's a list of news reports of everything that happens without any analysis.Unbh (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And that is what encyclopaedias do. They present facts. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The articles are adequately sourced with RS's and are indeed timelines of the ONGOING War in Donbas. As timelines are supposed to do, they do a good job of covering new updates and developments in the frozen conflict and I see not much wrong or inadequate about the articles specifically. This important conflict is still ongoing, and has not concluded, and requires updates, so why delete? In summation, the articles are fine, they do the job timeline pages are supposed to do, and are inoffensive. So I see no good reason to just delete all of it. A better, less ridiculous solution to WP:TOOMUCH is to maybe trim some of the more overly-detailed entries for more concise, encyclopedic reading and to reduce redundancy. How about you put effort into that instead of erasing all of this sourced info on an ongoing conflict people clearly care about and is still very relevant? RopeTricks (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but editors should compromise in reduccing the size in the article in a 50%. I volunteer to keep an eye on it and start reducing its size in case the article is not deleted.Mr.User200 (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  This is in line with precedents, for example Timeline of World War II. Also a procedural objection: why is this nominated in isolation, ignoring that it’s part of a series of eight timelines listed in Timeline of the war in Donbas? —Michael Z. 17:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did list two of those - I went back as far as 2019 and found a gap - didn't realise there were earlier ones. They likewise should be deleted. THe whole thing is nothing like the Timeline of WW2 apart from having 'timeline' in the title.Unbh (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Something huge going on, 2022 probably contains a third of all incidents in this entire conflict. CR-1-AB (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what this seems to come down to on the side of keep voters is a combination of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. As most people should know none of those are valid reasons to keep an article. Especially the last one, which to me is the most glaringly nonsense reason why people would want this kept. As the article isn't really a "timeline of the war", but a non-neutral, bias, anti-Russia essay filled with news articles about every time anyone even slightly related to Russia did anything in the Donbas region. Which should be enough on it's own to justify deleting the article. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to spread propaganda or pick a side in wars by only covering one sides issues. Compare this to any of the timelines related to World War 2 and you'll see what I mean. For instance Timeline of World War II (1939) mentions multiple countries. Whereas, this article uses the word "pro-Russia" 124 times and "pro-Russian forces" 31 times. So the point of it is clearly to make Russia look bad and to make the war seem one sided. I'm not saying they aren't, or that it isn't, but that's not Wikipedia's job.
In the meantime, articles should be based on the analysis of a subject by reliable sources and literally nothing in the article comes from or is an analysis of anything. It's just random news stories, based on basic facts, and that are cited almost verbatim from the references. Again, compare that to any of the World War 2 timeline articles, which aren't and actually contain historical analysis of the war. Where's there's any historical analysis of this war the article by experts in the field or otherwise? Answer, there is none. So I say WP:TNT this until a non-bias article based on actual references can be created on it. In the meantime, Wikipedia isn't a news source and slanted articles like this one are perfect examples of why it shouldn't be one. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, "anti-Russian" bias is just your perception of things, just as the essays on WP policy you cited in relation to other users. You should know that many Russian news outlets are banned in practice from Wikipedia, thus is nearly impossible to fairly represent the Russian point of view. These timelines, however, made extensive use of a number of Russian sources like ANNA news, RIA Novosti, TASS and others, so the bias argument is plainly groundless. There is not need of too much analysis in a chronology (or list, or table), just the bare facts, and there is no WP policy discouraging this. As examples try List of conflicts in Europe or Timeline of the Croat–Bosniak War. Left the historical (sourced) analysis to the article about the war itself. Darius (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Darius: Obviously it's my perception. Literally everything everyone says in AfDs is their perceptions. Including your comment. We're literally here to give our opinions, not act like brainless robots. So What's your point? Also, I said the article was bias, not the sources. I don't really care if the sources are bias or not, what I care about is the quality of the article. I'm sure you get the difference. As well as why one matters and the others doesn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Timeline of the war in Donbas (2021) and Timeline of the war in Donbas (2022) - This series of timeline articles as they currently stand were created to reflect a recent renewal of a half-decade of frozen conflict. This renewal itself meets notability criteria, and is not excluded by WP:NOTNEWS, but separate timeline pages for each year do not justify this in their own rights - particularly the 2020 timeline, which unlike those for 2021-22, do not reflect the notability criteria outlined in WP:EVENT such as lasting effects or geographical scope (events of the War in Donbas 2014-2020 resulted in little strategic, political or territorial change and were very much localised to the same conflict regions). One might be able to argue for this renewed tension having greater relevance to a separate timeline than the other timelines of Timeline of the war in Donbas, but that does not innately extend to year-by-year coverage. At this juncture, merging the timeline pages would reduce the excess of unnecessary detail per WP:TOOMUCH while still retaining the timeline itself as a reasonable inclusion within Wikipedia's scope. Since at-least-provisional terminology for this period of renewed tension is already present in the form of 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, a Timeline of the 2021-2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis could be appropriate. Benjitheijneb (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- At a time when it is likely that a low-level border conflict may well turn into a hot war, this is not the right time to delete these articles. I think there may well be a case for pruning these, but this should not be done at present. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
see further vote below. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I don't know if anyone still remembers, but we've been here before. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the war in Donbass (January–March 2016), where the community decided to DELETE all of these timeline articles in 2019. While that discussion did not preclude the creation of new articles, these new ones are produced by the exact same people, and have the exact same problems as the old ones. Once again, I would argue that we should apply WP:TNT, as these are articles are irreparably flawed. They are a day-by-day recounting of news reports (see WP:NOTNEWS) from flawed, potentially unreliable sourcing direct from Ukrainian and Russian sources. No attempt is made to provide a narrative of any kind, nor is there any indication of significance or context for the 'information' displayed. These articles are not encyclopaedic, and should therefore be deleted. RGloucester — ☎ 19:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The outcome of that discussion was 'delete', but my proposal at the time was to write annual, summarized timelines, getting rid of unreliable sources and day-by-day reporting. It was accepted by a good number of users, even some of those who supported deletion. This is a link to an a posteriori comment from one of the editors that proposed WP:TNT. Exception made of a number of unreliable sources I later trimmed out, his impression on the new chronologies was favourable. Darius (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JzG, Pietadè, Miniapolis, David Gerard, Pigsonthewing, Crossroads, and WMSR: Pinging editors from the old discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 19:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into Timeline of the war in Donbas. I am generally not in favor of these timeline type articles. They cover every little detail and provide no context for the importance of such details. But, people seem to keep making and reading them, so they serve some purpose (even if to serve as an intermediate term dump for content that is unsuitable for the main article). Still, doing it by year makes for a lot of material, which I think could be cut down to one reasonable length article. Alternatively, I think they should be kept and revisited when the war is over (which I imagine may take years), and thus when we have better context for what events were noteworthy. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the existence of 8 articles in the series, as you can see at Timeline of the war in Donbas. Many of these are basically recreated versions of the articles that were deleted years ago, without any real consideration having gone into the matter. I presume you are proposing condensing these 8 articles into 1, which might seem reasonable, but this is basically impossible given the sheer amount of content (largely of questionable quality and little encylclopaedic value) present now. RGloucester — ☎ 19:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peterkingiron. I was notified of this discussion by RGloucester, and voted delete on the month-by-month AfDs; circumstances are now, to say the least, different. Miniapolis 20:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this is covered by Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Specialized_list_articles. Yes, these lists are excessively detailed for a casual reader. However, they are sourced and well organized, so that someone can easily find information if needed. Therefore, a do not see compelling reasons to delete. My very best wishes (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Sourced'? A cursory glance of the 2020 article shows two main sources: UNIAN, a Ukrainian source (normally of fine quality, but hardly 'neutral' on this matter), and ANNA News (originally Abkhazian Network News Agency), a Russian propaganda outlet. There is no way that this article, as it stands now, meets WP:V. RGloucester — ☎ 21:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are absolutely reliable in this context, with the proper attribution, per WP:PARTISAN. This has been extensively disscused with other editors. Darius (talk) 21:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
UNIAN is just a biased RS, so it can be used. "ANNA News" - no, that is an outright disinformation outlet, anything sourced to this should be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you do not understand WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV. At present, we have a situation where two types of sources, Russian and Ukrainian, are positioned in a balance. In fact, a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Wikipedia is meant to present a clear narrative, an encyclopaedic narrative, that represents the consensus of reliable source. It is NOT supposed to present 'two sides' that give the reader no indication as to what is actually happening. The present situation with these articles is intolerable, and no different from in 2019. RGloucester — ☎ 21:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK, but this discussion on RS has nothing to do with WP:NOTNEWS, that is the rationale invoked by the user who proposes deletion. Darius (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Daily news reports from unreliable sources...most certainly, this has everything to do with WP:NOTNEWS. Most of the information present in these articles is not WP:NOTABLE, which is demonstrated by the fact that no RS are used to indicate such notability. RGloucester — ☎ 21:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I insist, RS was not the rationale invoked by the proponent, just WP:NOTNEWS and TOOMUCH. Darius (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is not just a case of WP:FALSEBALANCE, but a case of using unacceptable sources. The solution is as usual: using only sources that can be reasonably viewed as acceptable. My very best wishes (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These timeline articles are necessary to prevent the article itself from getting too large.XavierGreen (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In “current” (<8 years) changing geopolitical situation they are more than suitable, imho; as for sources: OSCE provides data (e.g., https://covid19.gov.ua/ — protects itself from online attacks...“of mine, when updating COVID table”...); UNIAN has not been strictly adequate (even factual errs during last years); but there are other reliable sources too, though used on rear occasions.☆☆☆—PietadèTalk 06:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Same problem as the last time these timelines were discussed. After the entire series was deleted, all of the timelines were resurrected on a year-by-year basis instead of the former four articles per year. The editors did make an effort to remove the worst unreliable sources but then continued to add unreliable sources like TASS indiscriminately. I just edited ([15], [16]) some of the recently added content using reliable sources but what's the point if other editors continue to hide what's important under endless compilations of "small arms, automatic grenade launchers, anti-tank recoilless rifles and 82 mm mortars", citing TASS. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Those issues can be resolved by further editing and removal/replacement of non RS, no need of WP:TNT hysteria like in the former monthly timelines. And remember that the rationale disscused in this AfD proposal is NOTNEWS and TOOMUCH. Darius (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because I noted NOTNEWS and TOOMUCH does not preclude the discussion of other problems with the articles when editors come to assess them. This isn't a court where the lawyers can object the accused isn't on trial for another crime.Unbh (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These annual timeline articles do need to have unreliable sources removed, some meaningful compression should be done, some WP:RELTIME copyediting is needed, but deletion is not justified: WP:NOTPAPER - Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. The reports from the OSCE SMM daily ceasefire violations tables appear to be rather systematically missing. The OSCE SMM is, by construction, a more neutral source than either Russian or Ukrainian sources. Timeline of the war in Donbas (2020)#July-September does match the dramatic drop to nearly zero of OSCE-SMM-recorded ceasefire violations in late July 2020, so it's consistent with the OSCE SMM sources. Boud (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC) OSCE SMM reports. Boud (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See WP:NOTCLEANUP. A per-year breakdown on a timeline family of articles seems reasonable, and deletion isn't a substitute for cleanup. Merger doesn't need approval at AfD. VQuakr (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it will get long very quickly. Abductive (reasoning) 21:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / or not — m'2nd "arrival", yet, currently (in 24 hrs or so; at 00:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)) the situation is evolving so fast that it seems appropriate to rename this part (timeline) to something like the 22th centuries 1st serious (or not) nuclear threat on democracy.
    Targeting the richest (both in monetary and nuclear sense) person inevitably leads to 3rd WW, one way or other; so, my compiling of some 10 different (16-17th century) Italian versions of Il Principe (along with commented translations) some decades ago, those who like to kill, proceed anyway, in spite of, various "serious" attempts ☆☆☆—PietadèTalk 00:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with Timeline of the war in Donbas (2021) and Timeline of the war in Donbas (2022). The article is of popular interest. Solatido 09:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or at worst merge). We have in Timeline of the war in Donbas a list article giving the successive annual articles and a list of the principal events. I do not like the idea of merging as this will involve merging a long series of articles, which will result in one that is unmanageably large. My preference is to retain the existing structure. A lesser preference should be merging all articles 2014-22 into a single article. The criticism is made that there is a dearth of references, but the appropriate course of action in a list article is not to have direct external references. as these clutter up what is essentially a list article. However the listed articles should of course be ones with a full apparatus of references. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Benjitheijneb. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now but eventually Merge with other articles. The entire topic is conflict which has to violate NPV and therefore I think this "vote" is ridiculous without knowing the positions of the voters. But from a historical perspective, these are useful details that should not be lost, and there should be no rush to lose or "misplace" any of this information. (And this voting mechanism should be improved, too.) (So what is my viewpoint? I'm curious about what's going on in Ukraine and I'm inclined to regard invasions of other countries as wrong. So far it sure looks like an invasion to me.) Shanen (talk) 18:43, 27 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) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aage Leidersdorff[edit]

Aage Leidersdorff (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 of WP:SIGCOV in the article, in the Danish article, or generally - fails WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Denmark, I will say it is a "well-known and significant award". World wide maybe not, but in Denmark, yes. [17] --- Løken (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tabloid award; not much different from The Sun giving such an award. And that example you provided is of the countries Badminton organization writing that a Badminton player had won the award; it's not indicative of the award being significant today, let alone in 1945. BilledMammal (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While the newspapers billed as tabloid in Scandinavia have their flaws, media scholars would not assess them on quite the same level of untrustwhortiness as The Sun or the German Bild. Geschichte (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with Lugnuts and if they received this award it's reasonable to conclude that the newspaper would have covered the subject significantly in the year in question, we just don't have the access. Jevansen (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep almost certain they received WP:SIGCOV when selected as sportsperson of the year. NemesisAT (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No one has shown any sigcov of this person. If the award was truly a major honor, we would be able to find sigcov of recieving it. Tabloid issued awards are not signs of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the attempt to disparage the award rests on a false premise about "tabloid" sources. Geschichte (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The premise is that awards from a tabloid are unlikely to be well-known and significant. I believe that is a reasonable premise; the most recent award has received very little coverage, and I don't believe any of them constitute WP:SIGCOV, with the possible exception of this article. Given that the award is clearly not significant today, it is unreasonable to assume it was significant in 1945 when there was less coverage of these topics. BilledMammal (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note for the next closing admin that this was closed as keep by Liz on 12th Feb, before the nom requested it to be reopened.. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Link to request for convenience; Lugnuts link is to my subsequent response to Liz, after she agreed to reopen the discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I verify that this is true. I closed this discussion as a "Keep" and was asked to revert and relist which I did. I was hoping that more time could make this decision more conclusive. Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And given the lack of additional participation, I'd still close it as "Keep". Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Lugnuts. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BeanieFan11: Can you explain why you believe the award to be "significant and well known", given how little coverage it receives? BilledMammal (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - digitised Danish newspapers are freely available after 100 years, so currently up to 1922. After that, access is restricted, apparently to academic researchers located in Denmark: see here, here and here. So accessing coverage for 1932 and onwards is not straightforward, and until it has been properly examined it's not possible to reach a safe conclusion about the existence of SIGCOV, as with similar articles about Danish Olympians. There is after all WP:NODEADLINE. I must add that I thought Liz's previous Keep closure was correct: I don't agree with this relisting.
If however the decision here were not to keep then the article should be redirected - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, you are !voting "keep" for ten years until sources might be convenient to access? And if it turns out there are no sources, I assume you will want to keep for another 14 years, until sources from 1945 are convenient to access? BilledMammal (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry I was not clear: I am !voting "keep" because I think the previous AfD closure was correct and should not have been challenged, and because I agree with the other "keep" !votes. In addition, however, I am pointing out that establishing SIGCOV is made difficult here because the principal probable sources, which is to say the contemporary Danish newspapers, are restricted in access for 100 years unless a Denmark-based researcher cares to tackle them. Otherwise NOTPAPER and NODEADLINE. Ingratis (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming by agreeing with the other keep voters you mean you believe the award meets WP:ANYBIO, can you explain why you consider it significant given the evidence I presented above that it is not? And WP:NODEADLINE also applies to creating the article; we don't need to assume there WP:MUSTBESOURCES, we can wait until we can check in 2045 and create an article then, if the sources actually exist. BilledMammal (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you searched carefully enough for there to be "evidence" of anything. Here are three Danish press reports of the 2021 B.T. Guld Prisen: Politiken, DK Nyt and Avisen Danmark, and this is not nearly an exhaustive search. It is thus clearly not correct that the award is insignificant, as you claim. As for Leidersdorff it is also not insignificant that the 1945 award in the last year of the war and the Nazi occupation went to a Danish Jewish sportsman, and that won't have passed unreported. There is enough here to warrant keeping this as a stub with every prospect of expansion in due course as the Danish copyright period unrolls. That makes more sense to me than deleting it now with a hypothetical note in a non-existent diary to look again 2045. As for WP:MUSTBESOURCES it's an essay, not even a guideline, and doesn't apply here in any case as the sources are so highly probable. Ingratis (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you read above, I did find a small amount of coverage of the current award, but not enough to make the award "significant or well known", which is a higher bar than "has coverage". And while WP:MUSTBESOURCES is an essay, WP:V is a policy - and you need to make your claim that Leidersdorff is sufficiently notable for an article verifiable. BilledMammal (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found more coverage than you did (links provided), enough to show that the award is significant and well-known (at least in Denmark) and it is established that Leidersdorff won this significant and well-known award. There is enough here for a stub, with a prospect of expansion in due. And that's it. Ingratis (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But what is not established is that the award is "significant and well-known", which is a higher bar than receiving a small amount coverage. And I believe the coverage you found is the same coverage I found. Regardless, WP:ANYBIO doesn't provide a presumption of notability, it merely suggests that they are likely to be notable - WP:GNG still has to be met, which means you need to show these sources you believe exist. BilledMammal (talk) 06:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've had your say - you don't need to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion for those who don't agree with you. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:08, 25 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Julie Weflen[edit]

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

I am unable to find evidence that is a notable missing persons' case. Coverage is limited to possible updates, none of which have panned out. The lack of a locker search doesn't make it stand out, unfortunately. Star Mississippi 13:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:50, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copying comment from talk where @Joticknor: wrote Keep - per the Charley Project entry ... "The true crime author Ann Rule included a chapter about Weflen's abduction in her 2004 book, Kiss Me, Kill Me.". Just want to be sure it's not missed by closing admin. Star Mississippi 14:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:11, 21 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 Disambiguateifyize. I hope I did it right. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:12, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly right, I modified the lead to match the title. Thanks for action taken! Sda030 (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Educational organization[edit]

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

This article is unnecessary as there is already an Educational management article that is more developed. This stub will likely lead to duplicate information. Although there is a minor difference between management and organization, it is way too early to consider such a split. Also, nothing has been done on this since 2009. Sda030 (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguationize - agree with the above that's the most sensible approach. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:00, 22 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 12:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faria Abdullah (actress)[edit]

Faria Abdullah (actress) (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 personality, no multiple lead roles in movies. Juggyevil (talk) 08:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 The Hindu Interview No Yes Yes No
2 New Indian Express Interview No Yes Yes No
3 Telugu Cinema A story about the filming of a film Yes Yes Yes No
4 Telangana Today Another interview No Yes No
5 Times of India Publicity about an upcoming film Yes No No No
6 Telugu News 18 Publicity and glamour photos No No
7 Fashion World Hub Glamour photos of subject and other actresses No No No
    • The filmography does not support acting notability because it lists only one significant role, a minor role, an item number, and an unreleased film.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as per Robert McClenon's assessment above. Does not meet WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 TT me 16:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per G4. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:30, 25 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:CSD#G11. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Josh “Yasyszcjosh” Bieuz-Yasyszczuk[edit]

Josh “Yasyszcjosh” Bieuz-Yasyszczuk (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 promo, non-notable personality. fails notability. Juggyevil (talk) 08:34, 21 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. Nomination effectively withdrawn with "keep" by nominator. —Bagumba (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kronick[edit]

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

No sources, very few people on the list meeting notability requirements. TylerBurden (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the full edit history and it seems like the article was basically hijacked in September 2020 and turned into whatever it was before your edit and then just never fixed, before that it was a bit of a stub but probably an acceptable state. I thought it had always been like this, but that is my mistake not having checked before nominating. --TylerBurden (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now that it's been cleaned up it seems useful. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I should have properly combed the history before the nomination, altough unfortunate that it was in such a state for almost two years, the article seems fine in the current state. --TylerBurden (talk) 06:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there several disambiguate links. Pakhaetaey (talk) 07:27, 21 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 Postal codes in Austria. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of postal codes in Austria[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of postal codes in Austria (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:NOTDIRECTORY: consensus to delete "just a list of postal codes" articles demonstrated in previous AfDs ([18], [19]). This has non-list content, but Postal codes in Austria already exists and already covers this, so this article is redundant. asilvering (talk) 05:03, 21 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 Draftify. Points brought up about draftifying makes it seem like a better solution than deleting, especially for the creator of the page. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 12:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Zellgert[edit]

Andrew Zellgert (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 of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I am unable to find multiple reliable sources discussing the individual. ... discospinster talk 04:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia editing. I recently interviewed Mr. Zellgert last year in December at his house. Besides my interview notes, I have pulled all of the sources I could find regarding him including his website, his listings on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Goodreads, Google Books, etc, and any other source I could find. I do not understand why the page I created is being marked for deletion? Could somebody explain this to me? This would be much appreciated. ~Draftabillman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draftabillman (talk • contribs) 05:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I realize now that I cannot write about local celebrities on Wikipedia and I am going to request closing the article. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. ~Draftabillman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draftabillman (talk • contribs) 06:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Draftabillman You are perfectly entitled to write about local celebrities provided they pass our notability criteria FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:28, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: The creating editor has made a good first attempt, but needs guidance. I believe they, and thus Wikipedia, will benefit if this article is moved to Draft space where they can work on the very obvious shortfalls at leisure, submit it for review, and engage in the iterative process of learning whether and in what form Zellgert can have an article. In this I have not considered whether he passes WP:NAUTHOR FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 20:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Theroadislong (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "having a good start" isn't justification for keeping unencyclopedic articles on Wikipedia in any form. They simply aren't notable and this appears to be an attempt at (self?) promotion and is unlikely to become an article in the future barring some sort of explosive coverage. CUPIDICAE💕 17:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify as it is a good start for the article. Whilst in draft form the author might ask for help at one of the Science Fiction related WikiProjects. Gusfriend (talk) 08:06, 1 March 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kine Ludvigsen[edit]

Kine Ludvigsen (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 topic not has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.Trivial mentions are not enough. Malikul Mout (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is already in-depth sourcing from referencing from reliable sources such as Vårt Land, Østlendingen, Nettavisen, and NRK already within the article An additional WP:BEFORE search quickly brings up further referencing such as this. To say that "trivial mentions are not enough" and just copy-paste an AfD rationale from your previous nomination is frankly irresponsible. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per statements above. The article definitely needs work, but AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice. I worked on cleaning up the page.Addisonson (talk) 12:33, 28 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 Jester. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jester's privilege[edit]

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

I see no particular reason for a page separate from the "Political significance" section on the Jester article for this particular concept. Right now, this is a redundant page that contributes nothing of encyclopedic value. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Jester; not enough here for a standalone article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect (with a rename?): Not enough to stand alone, but I see that it is a thing, verified by some useful sources, and there isn't a lot of coverage of it in the Jester article. I didn't look into the history of how it came to be called "privilege". All of the sources said "license". I see it as akin to the (employed or contracted) "white hat" hacker's ability to probe and break into computer systems and networks, without being charged criminally. Not a privilege, but an important license to have. So I could see moving the material to maybe even a separate section in the Jester article, and having a redirect from Jester's license, if that's even necessary. I expect anyone searching for Jester's license would be resourceful enough to check out Jester to find what they were looking for. signed, Willondon (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree -- Merge as suggested. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:13, 22 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 12:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bothell Hell House[edit]

The Bothell Hell House (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 lasting coverage, barely any coverage initially from RS, and not independently notable. SounderBruce 04:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 04:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Citations to local TV news, Woodinville Weekly and iTV News show clearly WP:SENSATIONAL stories and not serious, in-depth analysis. As for the rest: Den of Geek, Scientific Establishment of Parapsychology, Coast to Coast AM, Supernatural Magazine, American Supernatural, Travel Channel's "My Horror Stories", Liminal Earth and Phenomenal Magazine are not WP:FRIND independent WP:RS. The Salon citation doesn't mention the subject at all. This may deserve one or two non-credulous sentences at List of reportedly haunted locations but it's not ready for a stand alone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the sources cited aren't considered reliable. This could perhaps be a few lines in an article about the town/location where the building is, it's more of a "local lore" story than anything else. Frankly I wonder if the TV show just makes up things. Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT Delete SounderBruce and others should let the reader decide what's considered reliable and unreliable. News articles, TV Media(Travel channel)., books written by independent authors are good source material for an individual reader to decide what's reliable and nonreliable. PAGE SHOULD BE DELETED based on skepticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macqdor (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT Delete I'm not sure why deleting this WIKI is up for discussion. There are almost more verifiable links on this WIKI page than all the other poltergeist WIKi pages combined. This case is most recent as far as reports, news articles, interviews, TV shows, etc goes. The case did receive international attention as stated in the WIKI. Skepticism and validity from a skeptic should not be reasons why a page is deleted. There is no self-promotion going. Just references to the story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macqdor (talk • contribs) 17:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Striking duplicate KEEP vote. You can only Vote once in an AFD. Feel free to comment, however. Liz Read! Talk! 19:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreliable sources. Agree this possibly warrants merger into an article about the location/area. Paul W (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't come close to meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 16:21, 25 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. The argument for deletion is that the content is unverifiable, and the only other opinion, although advocating for a merger, admits as much. Because unverifiable content must not be retained (WP:V), a merger is ruled out by policy, and a redirect makes little sense because the subject is not mentioned in Ó Fathaigh. Sandstein 10:15, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tadhg an tSleibhe Ó Fathaigh[edit]

Tadhg an tSleibhe Ó Fathaigh (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)

Unverifiable. There are some references to people nicknamed "Tadhg an tSleibhe", though it is not clear what they have to do with the subject of this article. There doesn't seem to be any source for a "Tadhg an tSleibhe Ó Fathaigh". Sources used in the article, e.g. the first one, have at first glance some connection to the general topic, but when looking more closely don't seem to mention our Tadhg at all. Suorce 2 has some Tadhgs, but not this one it seems. Source 3 is an unpublished manuscript, seemingly from the 20th century, and is not a reliable source. Source 4 doesn't concern itself with a Tadhg. The same goes for Source 5. The book "The Surnames of Ireland" doesn't mention any Tadhg[20]. And I haven't been able to find any sources (apart from Wikipedia mirrors and rip-offs) which mention "Tadhg an tSleibhe Ó Fathaigh". At best a non notable figure, or an article that belongs at a completely different title if this is about some notable person who is known by another name. But looking for other combinations doesn't yield anything either, e.g. this. Fram (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/redirect - The vast majority of the content (and effectively ALL the sources) deal with the Ó Fathaigh family generally. And not the apparently titular subject specifically. (The castle which predated the subject, the battle that predated subject by ~300 years, etc). There is otherwise insufficient reliable sources to support the text about the subject. Not to mind establishing the subject's notability independent of the Fahy family as a whole. I don't see how the available refs can support a standalone article. The content should be merged. Likely to the Ó Fathaigh. If the title is retained, it should be redirected to the same article. Guliolopez (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 21 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 as follows:

– North America1000 08:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Fortson[edit]

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

As with the recent delete verdict for Deirdre Hamilton, being on the National Mediation Board doesn't get much more than announcements of nomination or Senate approval in the media, far short of satisfying WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Linda Puchala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ernest W. DuBester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comment (see below for comments on each individually) - I think these should be discussed separately as they each have different degrees of coverage. What is the process to separate out the discussion? DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Chicago Tribune article on Puchala is WP:SIGCOV[1] DuBester is cited by the New York Times multiple times during the 1995 negotiations with Metro-North. I haven't dug into Fortson yet, but I don't think this can be conducted as one discussion for all members of the board. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Puchala Her work is covered in a book on women and unions,[2] and in articles about her past position as president of the flight attendant union[3][4][5][6]
Keep:DuBester His work on averting strikes has been covered in the New York Times.[7][8][9]
Delete:Fortson I have been less successful at finding coverage of her, though her role on the Mexico Labor Expert Board was covered by Politico.[10]
DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Johnsson, Julie (30 March 2009). "A new player awaits seat". Chicago Tribune. p. 1.19.
  2. ^ Nielsen, Georgia Panter (1982). From sky girl to flight attendant : women and the making of a union. Ithica, NY : ILR Press. p. 135. ISBN 978-0-87546-093-2.
  3. ^ Karim, Persis (16 November 1985). "People's World 1985-11-16: Vol 48 Iss 46". Longview Publishing Company, Inc. Retrieved 9 February 2022.
  4. ^ "AFL-CIO News 1984-03-03: Vol 29 Iss 9". American Federation of Labor and. 3 March 1984.
  5. ^ Serrin, William (27 February 1984). "REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK: LABOR AND THE ISSUE OF LEBANON". The New York Times.
  6. ^ Greenhouse, Steven (1 September 1985). "RESHAPING LABOR TO WOO THE YOUNG". The New York Times.
  7. ^ Lueck, Thomas J. (14 July 1995). "Invitation To Strike:". The New York Times.
  8. ^ Zuckerman, Laurence (1 July 2001). "FIVE QUESTIONS for ERNEST W. DuBESTER; In Defense Of the Oldest Labor Law". The New York Times.
  9. ^ Greenhouse, Steven (26 March 2000). "ATTENDANTS UNION IN TENTATIVE DEAL WITH US AIRWAYS". The New York Times.
  10. ^ Palmer, Doug (January 4, 2021). "USTR set to impose tariffs on French goods in tax dispute". POLITICO.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fortson; keep Puchala; keep DuBester. These are tricky because there are so many trivial mentions to wade through, and I wish that they hadn't been nominated for deletion en bloc. But on balance, I've reached pretty much the same conclusions as DaffodilOcean, although for slightly different reasons. I agree that Fortson isn't notable: there are quite a few trivial mentions, but nothing substantial. I also agree that Puchala is notable: sources like [21], [22], and [23] point to a WP:BASIC pass, particularly when combined with other less in-depth sources. DuBester is a close call, and I've gone back and forth on him several times. The New York Times articles mentioned above don't cut it for me: one is a non-independent interview and two are non-significant trivial mentions. But importantly, DuBester has also served on the Federal Labor Relations Authority, a higher-profile agency than the NMB. That means we have sources like [24] and [25], plus coverage of various decisions of his (e.g. several noteworthy dissents during the Trump administration). I think he probably passes the notability threshold as well. As always, I'm glad to reconsider any of these positions if there's something I've missed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ: - I don't have access to newspapers. com, and the clips for Puchala are strong additions to the page. Is there anything about Fortson at newspapers.com? DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DaffodilOcean, not that I could find. Searching for "Kyle Fortson" gives me 100 results, but the grand majority are about some unrelated high school basketball player in Indiana. As best I can tell, none of them refer to this Kyle Fortson. (By the way, you can get free Newspapers.com access through the Wikipedia Library: it's really useful, especially for 20th-21st-century American topics.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary Writ - OK, further support of the delete vote for Fortson, thanks for the update (and the tip about newspapers.com). DaffodilOcean (talk) 23:10, 28 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 keep per WP:SK#4. ✗plicit 02:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aravan Festival in Coimbatore[edit]

Aravan Festival in Coimbatore (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 festival related article I2karankiran (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:26, 21 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 no consensus. No discussion in 3 relists. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (denomination)[edit]

Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (denomination) (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)

Lacks notability. I can find more about the "Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church" which formed in Canada in the 1970s[26] or about individual churches with this name, than about this small splinter group. Most sources are primary or not reliable (conservapedia!). I presume this is the same denomination as the one here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, but a new discussion after all this time won't hurt. Fram (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Fran!Indeed, the denomination is small in number of churches. However, there are several independent sources that cite much of the information in the article, so it is not based solely on primary sources. Ex:[27], [28] and [29]. The fact that the denomination has only 4 churches does not disqualify it, since several other denominations with practically the same number of churches (or less) have articles on Wikipedia. Ex: Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States, Reformed Congregations in North America, Covenanting Association of Reformed and Presbyterian Churches, Federation of Reformed Churches, American Presbyterian Church (founded 1979). The denomination is mentioned, with links, in several wikipedia articles, such as the List of Presbyterian and Reformed denominations in North America and Presbyterianism in the United States, in order to search for information about it. It has a history, a doctrine, and even relationships with other denominations. Also, the number of Presbyterian denominations in the US is limited. This is practically the only denomination in the country for which there is still no article on Wikipedia. In addition to everything that has already been mentioned, the same article exists on the Portuguese-language Wikipedia, with the same sources and there it was not deleted. Therefore, I suggest keeping the article.--Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources are very short mentions though, just indicating that a church with 50 members in Paramaribo is part of the Covenant. That's not really sufficient to speak of "significant" coverage about the denomination. Fram (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are two other sources that mention information about the denomination's doctrine: [30] and [31]. The latter also mentions the church number and the history of the denomination, where it came from (PCA). Therefore, independent sources explain: history, doctrine and number of churches. Little information depends on primary sources.--Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That second source is one line in a spreadsheet of denominations, from a source where I can't judge its reluiability at all. Doesn't add notability. But at least it's better than the first source, where all you have is a mention in footnote 39, "see also" followed by a list of denominations where this one is included. That's really scraping the bottom of the barrel... Fram (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fram, the first source mentioned above talks about groups within US Presbyterianism. She explains that denominations like PCA, OPC are conservative and mentions CRPC in footnotes as a denomination similar to them. The second source is actually a table and is for comparing Reformed denominations in North America. However, I found one more source that covers a lot of information about the denomination: [32]. This paper covers the 2004 CRPC General Assembly. It mentions its attempt to merge with other denominations such as RPC-HP, ARPC and CARPC on page 15. In addition, it mentions the departure of PCA pastors to CRPC on previous pages. That is, it is not just a few independent sources, but several, that mention the denomination. Each covers a bit of information about the denomination.--Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I note that User:Daniel Silva Mendanha created this page today, using a different name to the previously deleted page, after I had proposed the deletion of the Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States, which he states in his new CRPC article to have originated as a split from Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (denomination). Deletion of WPCUS was previously proposed in 2006, but in the meantime the denomination and its website have disappeared, and WPCUS appears reduced to Brian Schwertley, one of the ministers of the previously existing denomination, preaching privately (no advertised public church service location, but sermons online). User:Daniel Silva Mendanha edited the page to show it as past and to remove its website links, and then removed my proposal for deletion. --PeterR2 (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good night Peter! Yes, I edited Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States, because I like to keep the information. I updated her status as extinct, as it was already in the article in Portuguese. I removed the deletion request because the warning itself said that if the page was enhanced with sources, it could be done. If I've done something wrong, I can undo it. Regards,--Daniel Silva Mendanha (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 21 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 Islamic Azad University. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Azad University, Ahar Branch[edit]

Islamic Azad University, Ahar Branch (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 a non-notable branch of Islamic Azad University. So I'm nominating the article about it for deletion. I'd suggest a merge/redirect as an ATD but I don't think it's worth doing either one considering how poor the article is. That said, someone can pretty easily copy whatever content in the article might worth retaining. Adamant1 (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to parent institutin. I agree there is not enough to warrant a merge.TheLongTone (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 21 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 06:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Stone (lawyer)[edit]

Charlie Stone (lawyer) (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 lawyer and television producer, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for lawyers or television producers. The notability claim here is essentially that he's had jobs, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself, and the referencing consists of one very brief blurb in a local film industry WP:BLOG and the self-published primary source website of a television show he was involved with, neither of which are notability-building sources. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of a lot more WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him and his work than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:55, 21 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 03:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mission: Organization[edit]

Mission: Organization (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 about a television show, not reliably sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As always, TV programs don't get automatic inclusion freebies just because they existed -- the notability test involves the reception of third-party coverage, in sources independent of itself. But the only "references" here are its own (deadlinked) self-published website about itself and a (deadlinked) TV schedule listing from 2010, which are not notability-building sources, and even on a search for archived media coverage that wouldn't Google I still just got television listings grids rather than any evidence whatsoever of analytical coverage by television critics. Bearcat (talk) 03:38, 21 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) NasssaNser - T 12:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Rhodes Lynx football team[edit]

2013 Rhodes Lynx football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This is a season article about a low-level, Division III college football team. The top 32 teams in Division III were invited to participate in the 2013 Division III playoffs; Rhodes was not ranked among the top 32 teams and did not participate in the playoffs, making this a run-of-the mill Division III season. The only source in the article is a url link to the school's own schedule table which is neither SIGCOV, nor is it an independent source. Cbl62 (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I realize that there is game coverage (e.g., here, here, and here) in The Commercial Appeal (the hometown newspaper for Rhodes), but we need to put things in perspective. Do we really think that a team that didn't even get ranked in the top 32 of Division III warrants stand-alone season articles? And WP:GNG asks for SIGCOV in multiple source. I have not found SIGCOV from any paper other than The Commercial Appeal. Cbl62 (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, and American football. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw for now. The coverage is more extensive than I thought. Needs more WP:BEFORE. Cbl62 (talk) 11:19, 21 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 03:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aditi Chatterjee[edit]

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

It looks like the subject does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ENT. A WP:BEFORE search reveals that no reliable secondary source covers the subject. It could be also WP:TOOSOON. And if we are seeing from the notability point of view, then it certainly doesn't pass WP:NBASIC. There could be a chance of WP:UPE as well, since articles like this (whose subject doesn't have significant role or coverage) are generally created in return for payment. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 02:59, 21 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 03:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Albany[edit]

Inside Albany (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 about a local television show, not reliably sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As always, TV shows don't get an automatic notability freebie just because the article asserts that they have existed -- the notability test requires some evidence of third party coverage and analysis about the show, in sources independent of itself, to externally validate its significance. But existence is the only notability claim being made here, and in almost 15 years the article has never had any sources in it but the show's own self-published website about itself (which is not support for its notability.)
As I don't have access to any archive in which I could retrieve 12-year-old media coverage from New York state, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to such resources can find enough to salvage it -- but we don't keep unsourced articles just because it's possible that better sources might exist, we keep unsourced articles only when somebody can prove that better sources do exist. Bearcat (talk) 02:44, 21 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 Steve Adubato Jr.. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Trenton[edit]

Inside Trenton (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 about a local television show, not reliably sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As always, TV shows don't get an automatic notability freebie just because the article asserts that they have existed -- the notability test requires some evidence of third party coverage and analysis about the show, in sources independent of itself, to externally validate its significance. But existence is the only notability claim being made here, and the article has been tagged as unsourced since 2009 without ever having a single source added since.
As I don't have access to any archive in which I could retrieve 12-year-old media coverage from New Jersey, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to such resources can find enough to salvage it -- but we don't keep unsourced articles just because it's possible that better sources might exist, we keep unsourced articles only when somebody can prove that better sources do exist. Bearcat (talk) 02:40, 21 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. I have given apparently canvassed votes less weight, especially as they are arguing through the SNG rather than providing sources struck per arguments on my talk page. I wasn’t aware that delete votes had followed the same notification, which invalidates this comment, I feel on balance that the consensus was delete anyway as even those voting to keep acknowledge that sourcing isn’t here. There is are ongoing arguments about whether NSPORT wins over GNG but I rely on my earlier conclusion that language around GNG passing trumping NSPORT failure means that its clear when there is tension between the two which one wins. That is also consistent around many other discussions and conversations across the whole project. We can’t have a permissive rule in one area that doesn’t apply elsewhere. Spartaz Humbug! 17:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jock Mungavin[edit]

Jock Mungavin (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 former professional American football player, after searching through 22 pages of newspapers.com I can find no WP:SIGCOV anywhere. Please, anyone feel free to expand. Here are the newspapers.com links: James Mungavin and even less for Jock Mungavin. No WP:SIGCOV from a quick Google search either. All sources listed are WP:ROUTINE coverage from a database. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Wisconsin. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Unclear if it's the same person, but there was a boxer in the 1920s called Jock Mungavin. See here, here. Probably not since the boxer was a featherweight? Cbl62 (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, played several games in the National Football League (then APFA), and thus meets NGRIDIRON, which states players and head coaches are presumed notable if they: Have appeared in at least one regular season or post-season game in any one of the following professional leagues: ... the National Football League. And NSPORTS says in bold: The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. That's an or. Considering this is an encyclopedia, and that every MLB, NBA, and NHL player also have an article, I believe those of the National Football League should as well per my previous points. I will also note that coverage from this period is extremely difficult to find, even if you do have Newspapers.com access (because it seems that website has trouble identifying results from the period in which Mungavin played), so I believe coverage likely does exist of him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Passes WP:NGRIDIRON with playing in the NFL. The argument about WP:ROUTINE does not apply because that applies to events and not people. I am not shocked that a football player from the 1920's didn't turn up in "a quick Google search" --Paul McDonald (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BeanieFan11 has violated WP:CANVASS by posting a non-polite message to WP:WikiProject National Football League, and the audience of the NFL wikiproject is partisan as well. Has also failed to note here that the user made that notification. See here. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read in that page you pointed me to: An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion. I do not see how I "violated" it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't see the WikiProject NFL is a partisan audience I can't help you very much. There is also a politeness requirement that you violated by writing "Ugh", see WP:CANVASS "Notifications must be polite". Hopefully that elucidates you. Therapyisgood (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I re-wrote the notification to be more "polite." See [33]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see no violation of Canvass. Placing a notice on project pages is specifically allowed. Further, WP:CANVASS is only a "behavioral guideline" and not a policy. BeanieFan, don't "ugh" like that and thanks for the re-write. Everyone now please move on.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BeanieFan11. WP:ROUTINE doesn't apply to biographies. NemesisAT (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NGRIDIRON. Sources may be difficult to find for this time period, but given this player played in the NFL's first season, coverage exists somewhere. But again, NGRIDIRON is enough for this to stay. SPF121188 (tell me!) (contribs) 17:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets NGRIDIRON. Not surprising that there is not many online sources for a 1920s football player, but it's likely they are out there. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 17:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources, and it doesn't follow that those are likely to exist offline either. Professional football did not receive the kind of media attention then than it does now, not that someone who played in three games in one season would receive much attention now either. Mackensen (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comment. User:Mackensen has pretty much summed up my thoughts as well. I agree that WP:ROUTINE doesn't apply, but FAQ No. 2 of NSPORTS states that "the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline." FAQ No. 4 says there's no fixed deadline to come up with WP:SIGCOV and that some leeway is warranted in granting adequate time to find sources for historic figures. But in this case, the article was created in 2009 -- giving us 13 years of leeway to find something. So far, I've yet to see anything that would come close to SIGCOV. Unless some SIGCOV is found, I don't see how we can support keeping a 13-year-old substub sourced only to comprehensive databases. I urge those advocating "Keep" to try to find something; my searches unfortunately did not come up with anything significant. Cbl62 (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Cbl62. I'm having a tough time understanding standards for inclusion as it pertains to NGRIDIRON or NSPORTS. Given that the database referenced in the article shows that this subject played in a few regular season NFL games, and meets NGRIDIRON, there still needs to be additional significant coverage? I understand that a lot of tension is built up around this issue so I don't mean to stir up the pot, I'm just having a tough time keeping up. I'm not asking to be condescending or anything, just so I know for future reference. Seems like I hear different opinions depending on the users preference. SPF121188 (tell me!) (contribs) 18:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's not 100% agreement on the point among football editors, but the FAQs are pretty clear that articles passing NSPORTS/NGRIDIRON must eventually provide sources showing GNG compliance. There is some grey area as to what "eventually" means, but in this case I think it's hard to argue that 13 years is not enough time. Cbl62 (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. It's gotten dizzying trying to follow the discussion but this is helpful. Thanks! SPF121188 (tell me!) (contribs) 19:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's also WP:IAR which states: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. I personally believe that getting rid of an NFL player article is the opposite of improving WP, and so I base my "keep" position partly on that guideline. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The deepest coverage I've found so far is a 1916 article (here) when Mungavin was a freshman. It says: "Mungavin is going to give all the ends a fight. He is a crack tackler and fast." Game accounts are available for the 1920 Chicago Tigers, but I don't find anything discussing Mungavin's contributions. Just a roster listing here and a passing reference here ("Mungavin ot Wisconsin will be at end.") Cbl62 (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mackensen and supported by the comments by Cbl62. There is a lack of significant coverage within available sources to meet our WP:GNG. I will stress again, that our sports notability guidelines are more applicable to today's NFL, where there is significant coverage of all NFL players to warrant a general inclusion criteria. But the 1920s NFL was a different landscape, one where it played second fiddle to college football. "Pro" football was a second job and the coverage was notably lacking, especially when looking at a wider net then local newspapers. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mackensen and Cbl62. I looked for additional sources myself, and specifically tried to find coverage of Mungavin's time playing for Wisconsin, since players who only played a handful of NFL games often had more notable college careers. I didn't find anything more significant than the one two-sentence piece Cbl62 found - there are a few articles like this and this that at least mention he played for the team, but those don't even give him a full sentence. And it's worth noting that the Wisconsin State Journal and the Chicago Tribune, the local newspapers most likely to cover his college and pro careers respectively, both have full archives on Newspapers.com, so this isn't a case where he's likely to have more coverage in newspapers we don't have access to. We can't write an article if we don't have any coverage to base that article off of in the first place. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication that GNG is met, and per NSPORTS passing NGRIDIRON is not sufficient - GNG must be met. BilledMammal (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only one quibble ... GNG must be met "eventually" ... and this one has had 13 years. Cbl62 (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its existed 13 years. No, users have not spent that long trying to find sources. In fact, its only been one day. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but (a) it's really stretching the bounds of reason to say that an article can remain a sub-stub for 13 years and still not qualify for deletion under the "eventually" clause, and (b) we have now had several capable researchers (including you, me and TheCatalyst31) scour Newspapers.com (including newspapers in Chicago and Madison, WI) and come up empty. I don't like deleting NFL players, but we have to either play by the guidelines as they're written or try to change them. Cbl62 (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would you change your mind about deleting the article if I expanded the page and/or found SIGCOV? For I can do both... eventually :) BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you can prove they are notable through SIGCOV, I would change my mind. BilledMammal (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I share BilledMammal's position. Given significant coverage, I would reconsider. I simply doubt whether such coverage exists. Mackensen (talk) 18:12, 22 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 14:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Connie Romano[edit]

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

No notability. No references per google. How has this article been around this long? WexfordUK (talk) 02:27, 21 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 keep – withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Our Italian Husband[edit]

Our Italian Husband (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:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pas WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 01:49, 21 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 01:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sher-e-Jalandhar[edit]

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

It is a sports team. I didn’t find a lot of coverage for it. So, I do not think it is notable. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:04, 21 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 01:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Punch-out (boxing slang)[edit]

Punch-out (boxing slang) (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 SEO on this phrase obviously isn't great, but I just looked through a number of boxing terminology books/articles and couldn't find anything on this. WP:NOTDICT Alyo (chat·edits) 00:37, 21 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, withdrawn. Geschichte (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eternity (1990 film)[edit]

Eternity (1990 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. Needs two or more sources to pass NFO and NFSOURCES. I found no suitable or reliable sources or reviews to pass WP:NEXIST in a WP:BEFORE and no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. The Film Creator (talk) 00:31, 21 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 01:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of high schools in Central, Paraguay[edit]

List of high schools in Central, Paraguay (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 list Jax 0677 (talk) 00:17, 21 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_21&oldid=1096380577"