Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 08 February 10 >

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 Draftify. Basically a soft draftify. @Mccapra: (or anyone) you're welcome to strip this to its basic form and return it to mainspace if you feel the topic is notable. Ajpolino (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Temurkaev Nariman[edit]

Temurkaev Nariman (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)

Already moved back once to Draft space. If I did that again it wold be move warring. Fails WP:BIO FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 13:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sockmaster was not blocked at the time of creation, so WP:CSD#G5 does not apply.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 9 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 00:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DLR Group[edit]

DLR Group (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 corporate article has promotional issues and has successfully avoided scrutiny for so long. Most of the coverage about them are brief mentions or routine coverage like acquisitions etc. Per WP:CORPDEPTH, an in-depth coverage is required which is clearly lacking here. A WP:BEFORE search brought some mentions but again no in-depth coverage was found. Clearly fails WP:NCORP. Also, looking at the history of this article, WP:TNT maybe applicable. Belkstein (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that DLR Group has very clear promotional issues. I can see a justification either way for WP:CORPDEPTH. On one hand, the page does seem to be poorly sourced, promotional, and there are not a ton of secondary sources out there. One the other, their work with UNL and other awards could justify the page being present on the site, it is treading a thin line however. I could support a WP:TNT but the page is so short that it wouldn't be worth the effort. I'll ping the major players since they know more about this topic than me.
@Freechild:, (original creator) assuming you're still active, do you have any comments?
@Flatlanderks:, you are the primary contributor.
@David notMD:, You've been involved as well.
Etriusus 05:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I removed a paragraph listing acquisitions of other companies, which had included six of ten refs; what is left has four refs, of which $1 and #2 are the DLR Group website. Ref #4 is a deadlink to an 2018 interview with the CEO, so that does not contribute to notability either. Are there no useful publications about a large company that has been in existance for more than 50 years? David notMD (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @David notMD:, the more I look, the more I find that there are sources out there. I am relatively baffled that the page has been mishandled into its current state. There are locations all over the US and have done a number of high profile projects. There appears to be enough for a substantially well written article. My best guess is that people were looking up "DLR Group Omaha" and ignoring the other 2 dozen cities they operate in. A 12 year old article shouldn't be in such a state however, I am partially open to a WP:TNT, (or a hard revert if a decent version exists) but don't think deletion is a good idea. (Also, We'd be redlinking a ton of pages by deleting this article)
    Here's just one source [[1]] listing a few projects. They apparently built these buildings: Kings County Superior Court and Pinnacle Bank Arena
    Strong Keep Etriusus 06:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Late October 2018 the article included a list of buildings and a list of office locations, all sourced to the DLR Group website as hyperlinks, and in my opinion rightfully removed soon after, as promotiona, not contributing to notability, and not being independent from the company. Have "high profile" projects been written about? This article needs a savior, but it is not going to be me (retired biochemist). David notMD (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply I guess since the Wikipedia:WikiProject Nebraska was just revived, it can be brought up there. If it wasn't for the fact I'm embarking on the insanity that will be QAnon's GA review, I'd take point on bringing this article to a serviceable condition. Perhaps afterwards? @Blaze Wolf:, would this be manageable for you or someone else in the project?
    @David notMD:, I don't disagree with the cut of information on your end, the article is a veritable mess. "The Journal of the American Institute of Architects" has ample information and I'm finding mentions on NBC as well. In regards to local sources, there is a plethora. If we can't get anyone to take up the page, then perhaps WP:TNT is the best option. I am worried about the rather large (95) redlinks we'd make from this. Etriusus 06:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Etriusus: I'd prefer if someone else handled it. I'd prefer to not handle AFDs that are outside my general area of interest because usually I don't know enough to be able to support or oppose the AfD. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 11:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I ultimately bit the bullet and have substantially expanded the page in an attempt to rescue it. It's not perfect and realistically needs more attention but this is my best job at a patchwork solution for the time being. The page passes WP:NOTE with flying colors and hopefully, someone else can pick this up now that this page has somewhat of a foundation.Etriusus 05:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 9 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zacharie Mbenda[edit]

Zacharie Mbenda (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)

Footballer who has only played at semi-pro/amateur level with no apparent significant coverage. Soccerway has nothing for him. Google News has a few passing mentions. DDG similarly has a lack of detailed coverage. Not seeing enough for WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He actually fails NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played a game (yet); see here Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That site may not be reliable or have up to date info. HERE is proof that he has played at least one game. Also he is Top 3 signing for the team, See Here. Caphadouk (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note he has also played for Don_Bosco_SC, which is another professional team. Check the same citation above. Caphadouk (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Drafify due to discussions below. I feel he will meet WP:NFOOTBALL very soon, when he plays at least one professional game with the current team he is with. Caphadouk (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow the replies to Caphadouk to form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this is the article that says he played for Don Bosco. and this is the article that shows he played at least one game for Kenkre. All where added in the article, if you had just checked. Caphadouk (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you read it again the first article clearly says Don Bosco SC which plays in Sri Lanka, all of which is at WP:NOTFPL so that doesn't support NFOOTBALL at all. As I already said above, the game against Delhi was in the 2021 I-League Qualifiers so, again, means nothing. It was a playoff game from the second tier for teams trying to get promoted to the top tier, see also this report. If you believe that the Sri Lankan league and/or the I-League Qualifiers should be listed as fully professional then you need to take it to WT:FPL. Also, where is the significant coverage to support GNG? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But Kenkre is a current team in i-League, check here I-League and he is playing in i-League. The question now remains whether or not he has played at least one game with them in i-League. But even if he hasn't he could be very close to this, so if it it decided to delete the page, it is best to draft it instead until this happens.Caphadouk (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify would be a good solution, on the condition that he only returns to mainspace upon fully professional debut or meeting GNG Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Not a fully professional player, does not meet WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 15:29, 12 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. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 01:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cymdeithas Edward Llwyd[edit]

Cymdeithas Edward Llwyd (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 orginization. It doesn't appear to meet wikipedia's notability guidelines and should be deleted--Steamboat2020 (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 23:25, 9 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) Ab207 (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Soldier's Tale[edit]

A Soldier's Tale (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:NFSOURCES, WP:NFO and WP:SIGCOV; 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) 22:56, 9 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 23:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Green Institute[edit]

Green Institute (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)

Purely original research. Was unable to find verification of its existence, much less reliable sourcing to establish notability, on a Google search (Every "Green Institute" that showed up did not appear to match the organization described in the article). Thoroughly fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:V Sal2100 (talk) 21:34, 9 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 23:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Term (time)[edit]

Term (time) (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 currently a dictionary entry (a list of meanings of a term), and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I do not see any way an article with this title could be turned into a proper Wikipedia, encyclopedic article.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 20:30, 9 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 G7. XOR'easter (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Target Test Prep[edit]

Target Test Prep (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 far as I can tell, this fails WP:NCORP. The article provides links to references which only have a quote from the CEO, this type of coverage fails WP:ORGIND. I have done some searches myself but can't see any independent coverage that would be enough for WP:CORPDEPTH. Aside from that, I can't see any other actual claim to notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:23, 9 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 23:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revenue per mille[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:DICDEF that should just be a line in online advertising or internet marketing. ZimZalaBim talk 20:13, 9 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Poopdeflex[edit]

Poopdeflex (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:NMUSIC. Perhaps others can prove me wrong, but, I'm struggling to see how this subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article at this time. Missvain (talk) 19:28, 9 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. Technically ineligible for soft deletion, but this has been open for three weeks and it does not appear any input is forthcoming and there is no argument present to keep the article. Star Mississippi 02:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventurer (1948 film)[edit]

The Adventurer (1948 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)

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM, as only 1 book source cited and no others found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: as it's ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:17, 9 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 by nom. Rough consensus to keep article. (non-admin closure) Dunutubble (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed close per standard format (na"c") --Finngall talk 16:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pukekohe shooting[edit]

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

no evidence of continuing interest or general significance. Google brings up mainly other shootings in the town. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Strong Keep If you search up "Pukekohe massacre", you will find some. Additionally, there seems to be a lot of media articles on the subject that establish its notability. Massacres of such sort are relatively rare in New Zealand. Dunutubble (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to this, The New Zealand government website has an article devoted solely to this massacre. Dunutubble (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: searching up "Brian Schlaepfer" on Google Scholar will reveal a vast wealth of references to the mass shootings. Dunutubble (talk) 18:58, 9 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 23:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Universe Party[edit]

Universe Party (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 — 07 ● 💬 17:40, 9 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mubarak Haruna[edit]

Mubarak Haruna (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 autobiography about a college footballer. Fails to pass WP:NFOOTBALL as it appears he has neither played professionally nor on a national team. Bensci54 (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete doesn't a autobiography count as a self published source, and isnt that not allowed? Im really bad at this (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment As nominator, I don't disagree with deletion, but I just want to clarify. I refer to it as an autobiography based on the author's username starting with Mubarak. It was not sourced off of writings by the subject. The author did reference two sources, neither of which was self-published. However, both sources are primary sources: the actual website of the award he won, and the website of the team he transferred to. No reliable independent sources were provided. Bensci54 (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to pass WP:NFOOTBALL, as in has not played at the professional level (still in college sports). Separately, not an attempt at autobiography, just that the creating editor also has first name Mubarak, who has since explained on own Talk page is agent for Mubarak Haruna. The editor has been instructed to comply with WP:PAID. David notMD (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment i now understand the autobiography thing, but i still think it needs to be rewritten by someone not paid or deleted entirely Im really bad at this (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have very strong policies against people editing articles related to themself, and we need to enforce those articles. Wikipedia is not a platform for self promotion and we must delte swiftly and powerfully anything that reeks of that lest we become such a platform. This applies also to people working as agents for other people. You do not get to pay someone and then have them create material on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG--dashiellx (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG, and doesn't look to have played anywhere near the level of professional football which is generally needed to be notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Didn't even play a game in the NCAA Division I, yet alone at a level to be notable. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear COI article on a subject that doesn't even meet our minimum criteria as per all comments above Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As it fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Caphadouk (talk) 07:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletefails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:20, 16 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 1969 North American Soccer League season. ✗plicit 00:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NASL Final 1969[edit]

NASL Final 1969 (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 was no final or championship game for the 1969 season. Not sure there is a need for an article for an event that didn't take place? dashiellx (talk) 16:50, 9 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. per policy-based arguments. Star Mississippi 02:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Romans[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of fictional Romans (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)

Almost all refs are imdb or WP-articles, which may be intended as primary sources. An article like this should be based on secondary WP:RS, and there are none of those here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that there was an afd 10 years ago, but I think my argument has merit, so let's do it again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources are presented that actually discuss the overall topic of the list that would allow it to pass WP:LISTN, just the pieces of fiction themselves or non-reliable sources like IMDB being used to cite individual entries. None of these are blue-linked, and I manually searched through pretty much all of the entries and found that only two, Judah Ben-Hur and Titus Andronicus (character), actually have their own articles. The Keep votes in the prior AFD from 12 years ago were entirely based on a handful of sources that discuss portrayals of ancient Rome in fiction as a whole, and we already have a dedicated list/article covering this topic. There are no sources that cover this much more specific list of largely non-notable characters and trivia. Rorshacma (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a little look around to see whether anyone in the world outwith Wikipedia had come up with some sort of umbrella that covered Lurcio, Asterix the Gaul, and Marvel Comics' characters. I didn't find one. And we know from Cicero of the fictional Roman characters Chaerestratus and Eutychus in Caecilius Statius' Hypobolimaeus Chaerestratus. Presumably they and many other fictional Romans in actual Roman fiction are listworthy, too. Uncle G (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found one book that covers at least part of this topic, A Companion to Josephus by Honora Howell Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers (ISBN 9781444335330), which has "a bit of academic comic relief" about this very Wikipedia article on page 441. Of course that makes it a circular reference, and Google Books doesn't show me the following pages which may contain some independent material. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I looked at Fiction set in ancient Rome and there is a very long list of fiction which is a much better entry point into fictional Romans. From a practical perspective if the herculean task of listing characters from the creations on that page to this one then this page would soon become unwieldy and no longer useful.Gusfriend (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lists like these should only list items with actual articles.★Trekker (talk) 12:23, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I find myself baffled by two of the arguments presented here, neither of which is a valid reason for deletion. Firstly, works of literature (or television, movies, etc.) are perfectly valid sources for their contents. Therefore, any character whose description can be verified by reading or watching the work in which he or she allegedly appears is adequately cited for purposes of appearing in this list, whether or not any secondary sources can be identified. That's not to say that secondary sources are inappropriate or unhelpful when it comes to discussing the importance of individual entries—it's very desirable for them to be used. But the lack of a secondary source doesn't make any of the entries in a list such as this invalid, provided that the entry clearly identifies the work in which the character appears.
The second problem with this nomination is the argument that individual entries are invalid if they refer to unimportant characters, which here is being used to mean "characters who don't have their own entries on Wikipedia". This is not a legitimate argument for list articles, which by definition may include entries—perhaps numerous entries—for persons or things that individually do not possess sufficient notability for their own articles. In essence the argument is that a list does not meet general notability guidelines unless most or all of its contents meet general notability guidelines—a contention not based on any Wikipedia policy! This argument undercuts one of the basic purposes of list articles in general—the collection of miscellaneous but potentially encyclopedic material in a logical place, with a format that requires only minimal description or citation.

But the inappropriateness of these two main arguments for deletion doesn't provide a reason for keeping. It merely undercuts the case for deletion. There is, however, a good reason for an article such as this to exist: it allows researchers—whether academic, or merely curious—to view a cross-section of literature about ancient Rome and its people, and see how Romans have been treated as characters in fiction. It's true that readers would be able to find many, if not all of these characters by reading individual articles about the literary works containing them, but that would require them to read dozens of individual articles merely to encounter the names or basic descriptions of characters who can be listed more conveniently in one place, the way that a list of characters from Dickens or Shakespeare or Agatha Christie or Star Wars simplifies the process of searching through dozens of works—some of which may not even be adequately summarized as individual articles.

Doubtless only a small proportion of the characters in such lists are significant enough to merit their own articles, or could be found through categorization, which only helps with those characters who have their own entries. But few editors would contend that lists of such characters can only contain those who have their own articles—which potentially would negate the purpose of list articles—and there is no logical reason why readers would benefit more from having to search through dozens of articles in order to gather material that can be conveniently collected in one place. Nor would it be a reasonable argument that a list should be deleted because it is missing characters from important works that fall within its scope; that's no different from any other article that begins as partial and inadequate coverage of a subject, and is gradually improved by editors who supply missing details and otherwise address those deficiencies.

The argument that this list is unwieldy because it's large is equally absurd: surely the remedy to this is simply to sort the list into different categories—whether by type of source, or type of character (which, to some extent, it currently does), or potentially by splitting the list for further specificity—the remedy is to improve, not delete, the article. The more I look at these arguments, the clearer the result for this nomination becomes—the list is an obvious keep. By all means improve it if you can, but base arguments for deletion on actual Wikipedia policies, not contorted and invalid criteria that don't apply to list articles or their individual contents, and which if applied do nothing to help readers, but only serve to make information more difficult to find. P Aculeius (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius Please familiarize yourself with WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Also, WP:FICTION. Lastly, WP:OR. And Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Appropriate_topics_for_lists. Rule of thumb is - are such groupings - of fictional Romans - made by reliable sources, or is it a Wikipedia invention? As right now this appears to be the latter, the list is likely to be deleted. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't assume ignorance on the part of experienced editors and list a bunch of policies, some of which clearly don't apply here, while others are of only arguable relevance. A list of characters in literary works doesn't require a discussion in secondary sources to prove that they exist or that they constitute a group; the inclusion of any entry here can be verified by examining the work in question, so as long as it's clearly identified there's no question of original research. Nearly all of the works mentioned here are individually notable, which not only makes the contents easier to verify, but also rules out the direct application of WP:Fiction, which does not address the issues presented by this article. The General Notability Guideline says—in fact, it's a section header—"[n]otability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists". For more specific application, this policy points to the Stand-alone lists section for selection criteria, which says: "[w]hile notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles". Which is precisely what this article is for. The subject is valid on its face; most or all of the entries clearly identify the works in which the characters appear; the works in which the entries appear are mostly or entirely notable. You may have been thinking that WP:Listpeople requires notability here—it does not, in part because these are fictional characters; they do not need to be individually notable, nor do we need to verify that fictional Romans are members of a group of fictional Romans—if reliable sources can verify that they're fictional Romans, they're members of the group—and it's well-established that merely reporting the contents of a work of fiction—not analyzing it, or providing commentary—is not original research. P Aculeius (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete. I'm convinced by Gusfriend's point. Fiction set in ancient Rome is a better entry point into this topic. That article already lists hundreds of works set in ancient Rome. Each of those works is likely to have dozens of named characters. There's no way that this list satisfies the criterion at WP:CSC that "a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K)". P Aculeius suggests a remedy of splitting into sublists (presumably along the lines of List of fictional Romans in cinema, or List of fictional Romans of the late Republic). But I feel that's starting to get into WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory, unless these categorizations have "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", per WP:LISTN. I could be convinced to keep the article if the selection criteria were narrowed, for example by limiting to characters that have standalone articles, or ones which are discussed in secondary sources. Colin M (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not forget Mundus and Paulina from Confessio Amantis, who are presumably listworthy, too. Where's the sub-list for the other 22 centuries' worth of fictional Romans? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to fiction set in ancient Rome. As is there aren't any secondary sources to focus on fictional Romans, though the other topic may have some hope. As messy as the other list is, it makes this list more or less redundant, and it has a better hope of being improved into something that could meet our policies and guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it seems to fail NLIST etc. per my comment above. Could redirect to Fiction set in ancient Rome but that article is also in need of a WP:TNT treatment ORish indiscriminate catalogue, mostly unsourced (ping User:TompaDompa... we have our rewriting work out out for us, don't we?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a relatively harmless list. If some one makes a literary allusion to one of these people, it is useful to know what is alluded to. The list should perhaps be purged so that minor characters do not appear.
I assume this is intended only to refer to ancient Rome and its empire, not the medieval and later city. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSHARMLESS... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually read that page carefully, you'll note that it's not a policy, but an essay—general advice—and the section in question doesn't claim that "harmlessness" is cause for deletion. It says that an argument for harmlessness doesn't overcome basic Wikipedia policies, such as verifiability or notability. But those things have already been addressed in this discussion: the characters are cited to the specific works in which they occur, which makes them verifiable; works of literature are inherently reliable as to their own contents, so reliability isn't at issue, provided that this article merely summarizes the characters without adding commentary; most of the works are obviously notable and have their own articles, so if the argument is to be made that any of them are non-notable then that would have to be made on an individual basis; and the individual characters mentioned do not have to meet general notability guidelines, as long as the works containing them do. As Peterkingiron says, it may be that some characters are not important enough to the works in which they occur to merit listing; but that doesn't relate to a nomination for deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
most of the works are obviously notable and have their own articles, so if the argument is to be made that any of them are non-notable then that would have to be made on an individual basis. Absolutely not. Practically none of the characters are even notable themselves, and they don't inherit notability from the works they appear in. The only way this list can be shown to be notable is through secondary sources discussing (WP:NLIST) the extremely broad topic of fictional Romans, to such extent that it justifies listing everyone down to some minor characters in obscure novels or comic books. Avilich (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how this type of list article works. Of course persons insufficiently notable to warrant their own articles—including literary characters—can be included in lists with some other claim to notability—in this case a list of fictional Romans appearing in works that are individually notable. This has nothing to do with the principle that "notability is not inherited". By that reasoning, list articles could only include items sufficiently notable to warrant individual articles—essentially becoming categories with additional information. Yet Wikipedia includes thousands of list articles for persons, places, or things that may or may not warrant individual articles. See the General Notability Guideline: "[n]otability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists", or the guideline for stand-alone lists: "[w]hile notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles".
You definitely don't need a secondary source to say, "Quintus Arrius is a Roman senator in Ben-Hur"—anyone who reads the novel or sees the film can verify that—or an article saying that "the following persons are fictional Romans", any more than you need a secondary source to list the titles of chapters in a book—the book itself is a perfectly valid source for its own contents. As for the worry that "it justifies listing everyone down to some minor characters in obscure novels or comic books", multiple editors have said that the list could justifiably be edited to remove minor or unimportant characters—but that is a question of content, not whether the list itself should exist. Per Wikipedia's deletion policy, "[i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.... Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases." If there's a problem with the inclusion or exclusion of a character you think is or isn't important enough to include on a list such as this, then just add or remove that character. As Wikipedia's editing policy says, "[p]erfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." P Aculeius (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Literally all the characters in the list are minor or unimportant. There wouldn't be a list without them. So really, excluding the minor or unimportant entries would be no different then just deleting the list entirely. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's patently false. Many of the characters listed are the protagonists of the works in which they occur, or the main characters in the chapters or episodes that involve Romans. Your claim is essentially that there are no fictional Romans important enough to list—surely an extreme position. P Aculeius (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of these characters seem to be individually notable and there's no evidence from what I can tell that they are discussed in any reliable sources a group or set. So this clearly fails WP:LISTN. In the meantime, it's perfectly fine to mention a few of the clearly notable ones, which are really none at this point, in Fiction set in ancient Rome. There really doesn't need to be a separate list article for it though. At least not at this point, if there ever is a need for one. Personally, I doubt it. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider what the General Notability Guideline says about list contents: "[n]otability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists"; and what the guideline for stand-alone lists says: "[w]hile notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles." You're applying criteria that don't apply to this type of article. The individual entries don't need to be notable; and it's absurd to insist on a secondary source grouping them all when each of them can be cited to the source in which they appear; there is absolutely no need to cite a secondary source to say that a fictional Roman in a literary work is a member of a group of fictional Romans, any more than you need a secondary source listing all of the characters in Jane Austen or Shakespeare or Law & Order in order to have such a list on Wikipedia, from which characters not mentioned in said source would be excluded even though they can clearly be verified from the work in which they appear. P Aculeius (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I can sympathize with the spirited above attempt to defend this article, the fact remains that verifiability alone doesn't cause a topic to merit inclusion, and that the grouping as a whole needs to have been discussed in secondary sources. Else, lists of fictional elements just end up being textbook failures of WP:IINFO and MOS:TRIVIA. There are also probably too many characters that classify as 'fictional Romans' for this to be a maintainable standalone list (WP:SALAT). Although WP:SALAT notes that splitting is a way to fix this, I agree with the above argument that splitting wouldn't solve the existing problems due to the arbitrariness of, and lack of guidance from sources (per NLIST) on, how to do so. Avilich (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any arguments that this is original research surely also apply to Fiction set in ancient Rome. This is a useful list. If we can't keep it, can we at least copy the contents to Fiction set in ancient Rome? Ficaia (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFF are not generally considered valid arguments during an AFD. Simply copying the contents of a deleted article into a different article would not really be appropriate, as that would just be circumventing the consensus of the AFD, though if the article is deleted, you would probably be able to request a copy of it to keep in your draftspace if you wanted to try to preserve any of the content for future reference in editing other articles. Rorshacma (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fiction set in ancient Rome absolutely need secondary sources, there is very little referencing. Fiction_set_in_ancient_Rome#Works_inspired_by_Roman_history,_or_by_works_of_fiction_and_non-fiction_about_Rome really needs refs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:58, 16 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. Tone 16:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anna and Olivia case[edit]

Anna and Olivia case (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)

While this case was in the news for many obvious reasons, there's no indication this was a notable alleged parental abduction, nor that their deaths will result in changes to legislation or otherwise have a lasting impact. Star Mississippi 15:21, 9 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. Tone 16:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vickash Beni Kat[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited from the available references, fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Do not show significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. DMySon (talk) 06:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as this dance instructor is notable in one of the areas he grew from (Uganda) thus news from Uganda covered him and the Article has credible references and there is nothing that suggests it is not written in a neutral point of view, let's keep it.--Lubendera (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You posted "Keep" twice, once is sufficient. Geschichte (talk) 08:01, 15 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 14:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv Prakash[edit]

Shiv Prakash (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 subject is not passing WP:NPOL. A draft about the subject has rejected multiple times, Draft:Shiv Prakash. DMySon (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but another politicians equal to his stature has wiki pages, I'm providing the link of his collegue[1] and another for his junior[2].
There are many more others. Swamiji.email (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, He is in the topmost hierarchy of BJP National Organisation. BJP has only two Organisation secretaries, he is one of them and incharge of six Indian states(West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana). he is special mentioned and section on the BJP website[3]. Swamiji.email (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even BJP's Wikipedia page gave a mention to him. I'm attaching a screenshot image for the same. [4] Swamiji.email (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Swamiji.email, what is your relationship with Shiv Prakash. Please clear it. he is not the President of BJP. What may be important for BJP may not be notable for General public and Wikipedia. No reliable source has published full length article with biography of this person? Why? Because he is not relevant for the general public. Without an election victory, he may not have an article. Venkat TL (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Venkat TL, Venkat sir, I agree with your point that he is not the president of BJP and he hasn't contested any election. But I have mentioned a few other pages that are almost on the same scale or below that(i can mention many more). Wikipedia has a uniform policy for the same category or it is on basis of the case. Anyways i'm part of the general public and a regular follower of mr. shivprakash's intellectual articles on various socio-political issues. His articles publish in Hindi newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swamiji.email (talk • contribs) 17:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Venkat TL, Venkat sir, I guess Indian Express is a reliable source. they covered a full-length biography article which i'm mentioning [5]. With this, he has around 555k twitter followers and 100k Facebook followers which indicates his mass following. Indeed he has no base in south of india, but very popular in north indian states specially uttar pradesh, uttrakhand, west bengal, maharashtra and madhya pradesh. Swamiji.email (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Swamiji.email thank you for the link and the reply. I read the Indian express article. It covers the Bio of Siv Prakash in one paragraph only and then moved on to the main theme of the article which was the coverage of Bengal Election. It is customary to see such kind of coverage of politicians and spokespersons, and Wikipedia policy for notability demands much longer and in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources that are indpendent from the subject. Indian Express alone may not be enough. The number of followers does not mean anything for Wikipedia as the subscriber and follower count is not the criteria to create a WP:BIO. At least WP:THREE sources with in depth coverage and not paid articles will be needed to establish the notability of this person. Alternately, if he wins a state or national election, his bio can be created. I suggest you to wait for that to happen. Venkat TL (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Venkat TL, Venkat sir, Thanks for your reply. I agree with all of your points. but you are repeatedly ignoring my valid point about the pages of other politicians of the same and below his rank. Another Gen Sec Org of BJP Mr. B.L Santosh[6] ex gen sec Mr. V satish[7] and his junior National Sec Mr Sunil Deodhar [8]. These people never contested any election neither they have more media coverage then Mr. Shiv Prakash. Please give a fair and transparent reply. Swamiji.email (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._L._Santhosh
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunil_Deodhar
  3. ^ https://www.bjp.org/national-general-secretarys?field_national_general_category_target_id=502
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BJP_wiki_page_screenshot.png
  5. ^ https://indianexpress.com/elections/the-rss-men-fostering-bjps-bengal-parivar-7226005/
  6. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._L._Santhosh
  7. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V._Satish
  8. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunil_Deodhar
@Swamiji.email Yes, I ignored your point about other pages because of reason WP:WHATABOUTX. Other pages need to be discussed on other deletion discussions. Existence of one does not mean others will be created. May be BL Santosh had some achievements. I dont know. In any case, here on this page, we should only discuss Shiv Prakash. If you believe that their notability is questionable, you are free to nominate them for WP:DELETION. Based on the available links and lack of detailed coverage of Shiv Prakash I believe it is too early to create his bio. Other wikipedians will also judge the article and comment here my opinion alone is not enough for deletion. Venkat TL (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Venkat TL, Venkat sir, Thanks for your reply. let's agree to disagree. But I doubt your understanding of the Indian Political system. Anyways I have one question about policy, how many media coverage articles do you want me to show, and is it contains News Channel biography video too(in regional langauge Hindi)? Thanks, Sir. Swamiji.email (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The number of followers, friends or subscribers one has on social media does not establish notability. The numbers can be gamed or purchased. I'm not saying that has happened in this case but they are not reliable indicators of notability. Liz Read! Talk! 01:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, Hey Liz. After seeing his notability Twitter and Facebook gave him a verified account. This verification also comes under your "gamed or purchased" clause?Swamiji.email (talk) 18:32, 10 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 procedural keep with no prejudice against immediate AFD nominations for individual pages. ✗plicit 13:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G. Sylva[edit]

G. Sylva (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 group of articles involves athletes from some of the earliest Olympics for whom we have no significant coverage, and for whom significant coverage is unlikely to be available as we do not know key biographical information about these individuals that would allow us to find such coverage; the minimum that is missing is their first name and when they died, and most also lack information on when they were born.

This absence of significant coverage is reinforced by reading the summaries that some of them have at Olympedia, which include lines such as "We do not know much about ..." and "We know nothing else of ...".

In some cases, this lack of coverage extends to their participation in the Olympics, with us not knowing which event they competed in, and in one case not knowing if they did compete.

These articles are nominated for deletion as a redirect is inappropriate as these names consisting of an initial and a last name are reasonable search terms for many notable individuals, while prod is not appropriate as most of them meet WP:NSPORT through various criteria.

G. Karagiannopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
V. Van Hamme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. J. Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W. R. Gibson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
S. Abdul Hamid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
P. Baur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)} -->
P. Ritter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
L. Legru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
L. Lescat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
J. A. Gardiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
J. Baillot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)}
J. Bérard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
J. Defert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
J. Dubois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
J. Haller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)}
J. W. Dowling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
H. Duke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
H. MacHenry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
E. Gauthier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)}

BilledMammal (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural concern. I am concerned that there is insufficient commonality to mass these all in one AfD. They are from different countries and completed in different sports (ranging from weighlifting to sailing, gymnastics, track, swimming, tug of war (really), and lacrosse). Cbl62 (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, at least one (S. Abdul Hamid) is already a redirect. Cbl62 (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if they didn't medal, how is it that most of them would satisfy NSPORT, thus making prod inappropriate? Cbl62 (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The commonality is that we don't know basic biographical details, which means that it will not be possible to find the significant coverage that we currently lack. Given that, I don't believe the differences matter enough that we need to split this discussion.
As for the redirects, those were created since I nominated these articles.
Regarding NSPORTS, despite the change to NOLYMPICS many of sport-specific guidance includes participation in the Olympics as an indication of notability - I've had a number of prods rejected on those grounds. I would also note that some of them did medal. BilledMammal (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I do still question the commonality for mass nominating 30 biographies of such disparate persons. Cbl62 (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
31, if you count G. Sylva. I understand the concern, and would generally share it, but I believe in this case the lack of basic biographic details (WP:V) is sufficient commonality. BilledMammal (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep. Each needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. The 31 articles here lack the commonality required by WP:BUNDLE. The nom includes medalists who may have a better chance of standing on their own merits. E.g., W. J. Ross and W. R. Gibson - silver medal in lacrosse. It also includes individuals from disparate time periods, sports, and countries. Many or most of them may lack notability, but I can't support the procedural device of a single nom for all 31. Cbl62 (talk) 15:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would note that I believe WP:BUNDLE has been met, both through the commonality discussed above and because articles have been reliable deleted on this basis, including gold and silver medal winners.
I would also say that going on a case-by-case basis here would waste a lot of time, but if there is a consensus that that is needed I will nominate all of these after this discussion has closed. BilledMammal (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the frustration of dealing with such a huge mass of micro-stubs. The progress is slower by dealing with them separately, but the procedural concerns are real. If and when separate noms are made, I am happy to look at them again. BTW, the AfD has already resulted in progress, as about half have already been changed by the article creator to redirects. Cbl62 (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to being out of process, those redirects are not good, and should be reverted. As an example, anyone searching for P. Ritter would probably be surprised to find themselves at an article in which no Ritter is mentioned; even moreso when they are most likely looking for one of these people. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wjemather: Absolutely correct. Striking my comment describing the redirects as "progress". Cbl62 (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep, way too many articles nominated at once. They should be discussed individually, not 31 at once. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For those !voting "Procedural Keep", can you find significant coverage for even one of these? If you can, then you are correct that this bundle is inappropriate, while if you can't it would suggest the bundle is appropriate and it would be a waste of time to have 31 separate AFD's. BilledMammal (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment fails to appreciate the procedural objection. The asserted absence of SIGCOV is not the sort of commonality that supports bundling. See WP:BUNDLE. Cbl62 (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, that lack of significant coverage isn't why I bundled these together; if it was, this list would be much longer. The reason I bundled them together is the lack of basic biographical information that allows us to determine who these people were, as without that we cannot find significant coverage on them. BilledMammal (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important procedural note I have removed from the listing those articles which seem to have been (already? prior to the start of the AfD?) been redirected. That leaves a fair amount fewer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Some while starting the AFD, some after starting it. I have no objection to their removal, but I would note the discussion by Wjemather and Cbl62 above. BilledMammal (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That still leaves the fact that many of these would require different outcomes (some should actually be redirected; others should probably deleted because there is no single plausible target and usually this kind of "redirect-from-partial-name-to-disambig-page" (P Ritter being a prime example - see the half dozen actually notable persons at Ritter (surname)#P) isn't really a thing, and the sheer number was a bad idea in the first place). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe most don't have appropriate redirects, but there is no reason they can't be closed similar to the test AFDs for A. Albert and A. Wilcocks where the closer leaves open the possibility of the redirect being recreated. I also don't believe there is any option other than "redirect" or "delete" for any of the se articles. BilledMammal (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If the redirects are similar to P. Ritter, they are inappropriate for the reasons stated by Wjemather. I reverted the redirect on Ritter. Cbl62 (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of these still seem OK, for ex. there's no other notable "F Verdonck" (see Verdonck). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've restored S. Abdul Hamid, per Abdul Hamid. I haven't reviewed most of them yet though. BilledMammal (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also restored J. Haller, J. Baillot, and E. Gauthier. Some of the others have issues with not being mentioned at the targeted page. BilledMammal (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all clearly none of these meet the minimum requirements for meeting GNG so that we can have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most Ok, after taking a look at each one of the remaining ones, there are a fair few for which redirecting would not be a sensible option because there are many people with the same initials and no sensible target (and redirecting from a partial name to a disambig page seems unproductive, as that's where the search function should lead anyway). However, amongst the seven remaining once those are accounted for; there are the following:
    1. H Duke
    2. J Defert
    3. L Lescat
    4. L Legru
      N Katravas
    5. P Baur
    6. V Van Hamme
  • The first one of these could plausibly have one single target (Henry Duke, 1st Baron Merrivale), but whether it is really worth having that redirect (in light of the search function) is dubious [I'll note that there are plenty of historical figures for which we do have such redirects, and in some cases those abbreviations are also commonly found in actual usage, ex. J. S. Bach. Whether those redirects are truly necessary for most figures is another question]. The others are technically unambiguous, so those could be redirected. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which part of "per above"? Despite the large size of the nomination, per above (including my own comment and those of others), most of the articles are indeed in a very similar situation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment N. Katravas has an article on the Greek wiki . His given name is Nikolaos and they have further sources. Jevansen (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anybody can object, so I've boldly A) checked the Greek language article just to be sure; b) moved the article and c) removed it from here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 20:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found a Belgian newspaper article about V. Van Hamme, indicating his first name was Victor: Trainer Victor Van Hamme, die zelf een knap gewichtheffer is geweest en verscheidene Olympiaden zooals Antwerpen, Amsterdam en Parijs heeft medegemaakt voor ons land, kon nu terug zijn kunde demonstreeren aan de nieuwelingen.[5] gnu57 02:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking for that name I'm able to find this, but it is impossible to guess whether this is the same "Victor Van Hamme" or not. In any case, all of this is still far short of SIGCOV. I'll move the article to the full name, but that's about all that can be done for now. It should probably be redirected. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep Per the concerns stated above. I'm sure some do merit deletion, but that needs to be determined via individual AfDs. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. This bundle is too big and diverse to obtain consensus in a single AfD. They need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. One size fits all does not work here, per editor comments above. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 16 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 Eternal Champion. (non-admin closure) — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrich von Bek[edit]

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

Not notable, seemingly unverifiable. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 13:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG and violates WP:OR due to lack of sources to satisfy WP:V: the name doesn't seem to come up outside of Wikipedia mirrors and book resellers. Pilaz (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC) edited: Pilaz (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Eternal Champion; bibliography at the least should be reflected there. Many aspects of the Eternal Champion are not notable; not all of them are Elric. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (I'll note that Michael Moorcock's bibliography and characters have overall terrible coverage and could use some serious attention--trimming, merging, and referencing--to bring them up to current standards) Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge This is not at all "seemingly unverifiable", as more or less all of it is verifiable by looking into the primary sources. In addition, it is not correct that "the name doesn't seem to come up outside of Wikipedia mirrors and book resellers". Has there been done a proper WP:BEFORE search, as required in the deletion nomination process, which included Google books and Google scholar? Such a search turns up this academic article as well as a number of secondary sources in book form like [6], [7], [8], [9] and more. Those could be used to verify existing content and go a long way towards establishing notability. The only reason my !vote is not a clear keep is, that in a quick look I did see more plot summary than analysis. So I would be fine with either keeping the stand-alone article or merging it to the Eternal Champion, until someone can point to more analysis. Daranios (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Eternal Champion. The content is clearly notable, as is a redirect, but I'm not sure if it needs a separate article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Eternal Champion unless rewritten. The current version classifies for WP:TNT. If this is rewritten, ping me and I'll reconsider my vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a fallback to merge, but the recurring von Beks turn up enough that it would be nice to have an article focused on them. Artw (talk) 16:44, 15 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. Tone 16:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Augustine's College (Malta)[edit]

St. Augustine's College (Malta) (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)

Issues with notability Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 10:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He copies and pastes almost the same message into every AfD related to secondary schools in the western world, universities, really spin the wheel, and never provides the references he claims exists either. Even though there are supposedly easily enough of them to satisfy WP:GNG. Most of the time the his "votes" are ignored by whoever closes the AfD. So it's not a super big deal, but it is a bit pedantic if not borderline disruptive. I'm hoping someone will report him to ANI for it eventually, but it's better to just to ignore him in the meantime, WP:DFTT. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm afraid I don't copy and paste. And stop the suggestions that editors whose opinions differ from your own should be reported to ANI, which is arrogant in the extreme. As I have said before, Wikipedia is becoming a deeply unpleasant place. Try not to contribute to it. And, incidentally, how dare you suggest that I am a vandal or a troll per WP:DFTT! This is a clear breach of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I would suggest you take a look at my contributions to this project. A vandal or troll I most certainly am not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could quote at least a dozen times in the last couple of months where you've said almost the exact same thing in your "votes." I'm not going to bother though because they are pretty easy to find. In the meantime maybe you can tell me how the essay on your user page is a presumption of good faith, contributes to a pleasant environment, and doesn't come off as extremely arrogant. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not copying and pasting. That's saying the same thing because that's my opinion, as I am entitled to do without being accused of being a vandal or a troll or it being suggested that I should be "reported" for daring to express an opinion that is different from yours. The essay on my userpage reflects how I feel about those who come here to delete rather than expand and the unpleasantness that results if they are challenged, and I stand by it. I have been here a long time; I have seen how AfD discussion has got nastier year on year and how those who want to delete react when their views are opposed. And I am not directing an attack at anyone in particular. You clearly are. Kindly desist and do not accuse me of things that are patently untrue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you equated me saying I hope someone reports you eventually for repeatedly making un-constructive comments in AfDs into me suggesting you should be reported for "daring to have opinions that are different then mine" but whatever. I could literally give a crap if you have different opinions then me. That's not my issue. Outside of that, it's kind of weird that on the one hand your being so adamant that I should respect your opinions and feelings, while on the other your insulting me over mine by calling me arrogant and making such a brew haha over this. Why not just respect my opinions and feelings about it instead of insulting me? If your so concerned with AfDs being civil, then don't call people names or make a massive issue out of nothing like your doing here. I was reading a guideline or something about trolling the other day, and it said something along the lines of "trolls make non-constructive edits because they are powerless to do anything else" or something like that. Which I think perfectly describes what your doing in AfDs about schools. Your free to disagree though. I could really care less. Obliviously the term troll is subjective and people are going to have differing ideas on what constitutes trolling. So maybe don't attack me for "daring to express an opinion that is different from yours" about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you genuininely can't understand why a long-serving and highly productive editor may not be particularly keen on a comment directed straight at him which says "Most of the time the his "votes" are ignored by whoever closes the AfD. So it's not a super big deal, but it is a bit pedantic if not borderline disruptive. I'm hoping someone will report him to ANI for it eventually, but it's better to just to ignore him in the meantime, WP:DFTT", then I have nothing further to say other than learn to moderate your language and reread WP:AGF and WP:NPA. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about your "standing" or how productive of a user you are. This isn't an elite tennis club in the Hamptons or whatever. Being a longstanding, "highly productive" editor doesn't exempt you from the obligation to provide references in an AfD when you claim they exist. Nor does your "standing" justify the clearly insulting user page essay. Tone it down, support your claims of notability with some evidence, and I wouldn't have an issue with you. In the meantime it's hard to take your complaint about me saying your trolling seriously when your fine using the term on your user page. Which is literally the only reason I brought it up. If you think the term "troll" is a personal attack and bad faithed, cool, then don't use the term and I won't either. It's that simple. In the meantime though, I'm not to concerned about using a word to describe your behavior that you clearly have no issue with. WP:AGF and WP:NPA aren't one way streets. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't get the difference between a comment on an AfD page aimed squarely at an individual editor and an opinion essay on a userpage which mentions no particular editors. Never mind. I'm sure most other editors do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I get the idea that your are still in complete denial over the outcomes of the 2017 RFC about notability of schools. The Banner talk 18:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I get the idea that you didn't read my first comment and the comments of almost everyone else on this AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree with @Necrothesp on this one. Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 15:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever our personal opinions or the outcome of this particular AfD, there's been multiple ANI complaints in the last couple of months where people were sanctioned or warned for writing extremely similar messages in AfDs and not backing them up with evidence. From what I remember of those people got a pass because of their success rates either. Let alone because they were long-time contributors or whatever. Personally, I don't care that much about it, but the wider consensus is clearly against people writing two or three sentence votes that lack any sort of supporting evidence. Also, I think if people are going to participate in AfDs they should at least be willing to put the minuscule amount of effort into this that it takes to copy and paste a reference they say exists. Otherwise, leave it to other people who are willing to and work on other areas of Wikipedia. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
there's been multiple ANI complaints in the last couple of months where people were sanctioned or warned for writing extremely similar messages in AfDs and not backing them up with evidence. From what I remember of those people got a pass because of their success rates either. Let alone because they were long-time contributors or whatever. Really? Because I can't find a single ANI case like this "in the last couple of months". Care to provide us with a link to at least one of these "multiple ANI complaints in the last couple of months where people were sanctioned or warned for writing extremely similar messages" so we can see what you mean? I've never known an editor to be sanctioned for expressing their opinion at AfD so long as it was not attacking another editor. I've seen the occasional editor who doesn't like their views being challenged call for such sanctions (probably not at ANI, however), but I've also seen those calls dismissed out of hand as ludicrous. I would be extremely worried about the direction in which Wikipedia was heading if such sanctions or even warnings were imposed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been accused of malicious intent recently because I almost always vote keep, but the editor never replied when I challenged their accusations. NemesisAT (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately you have to get used to it (you shouldn't have to, but it's become the nature of "debate" here). It's been happening to me for several years now. I tend to have a live and let live policy. I'll vote keep if I have strong feelings that something is worth keeping, but won't usually bother voting delete if I don't because I don't think that AfDs where you don't really have strong feelings either way are worth the hassle. It really upsets deletionists, who seem to think it means I want to keep everything. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I can't find the ANI complaint right now, but someone was topic banned from AfDs for three months a few days ago for repeatedly asserting things were notable without providing evidence, among other things. There was also the ARS members who were either blocked or warned for similar things. One of which was repeatedly asserting that things were notable and being unwilling to provide references when people asked for them. Personally, I'm not really upset about how you vote. Really, I just think that providing references when you say something is notable shows respect for the process and other users. Plus, I really hate to see things get deleted just because keep voters can't be bothered to click a mouse button. Really, if we are all in this to improve Wikipedia I don't see how not providing a reference does that. Wouldn't it be better to provide the references your able to find so they can be added to the article? I don't think that's such an unreasonable request. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So neither you nor I can find this or any other incident on ANI. How very odd! Especially given there are, according to you, "multiple" cases over the last couple of months. However, I suspect you may be referring to this. A case where an editor merely posted "Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article" on every AfD in which he participated. Which, as I'm sure you will appreciate if you read it, bears no resemblance to anything I have posted on AfDs. But, of course, that's just one of the "multiple" incidents you claim have occurred. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what your talking about when you just found one of the incidents and I was pretty clear about the other one involving ARS members, which is easy to find, but sure dude. Neither of us found anything. Right. Anyway, as far as I'm concerned there's only a superficial difference between repeatedly saying "Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article" and repeatedly saying "keep because clearly this is notable." To quote from ANI complaint about Davidgoodheart's behavior, "it casts serious doubt on this editor's review of the deletion discussion and source material," "clearly not at AfD to individually assess each article's merits," "Davidgoodheart clearly has difficulty understanding how to participate usefully in deletion discussions," "I have been discounting these comments due to their obvious pro forma nature once I noticed it was the same wording repeated in multiple AfDs...this approach to commenting is inappropriate and has gone on far too long." Literally all those quotes could apply to you. Especially the last one. Your literally repeating the same thing over and over. Nothing in how you vote shows that you are assessing articles on their own merits or reviewing the source material either. Let alone is your participation in AfDs discussions at all useful. You just get ignored and someone else provides the references. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep quite a lot of sources available through a Google search, I've added some to the article. NemesisAT (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has coverage in Times of Malta added to the article together with other reliable sources coverage so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question -- Most of the article implies that it is only a primary school. If so, surely it is NN. Whatever it is, this is a poor stub of an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears to be both a primary and a secondary school. Primary schools may still have articles if they pass GNG, they are not "surely" non-notable. NemesisAT (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from what I can tell the references are extremely trivial, passing mentions and related to mundane, non-notable facts. Outside of that there is nothing that would constitute the in-depth, direct coverage required by WP:GNG. Sorry, but there isn't really a scenario where a Wikipedia article about someone stealing a public address system from the school would work. let alone be encyclopedic. Same goes for them temporarily moving into a different school building, which three references in the article are about. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The school has existed since 1848. Given the level of sourcing available online I think its highly likely newspaper sources exist from earlier as well. The problems with the premises are far from mundane and appear to have been controversial. There are several articles already cited that focus on the subject, which establishes notability per WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assume your comment of the "controversy" relates to what I mentioned about someone stealing the PA system. I wouldn't exactly call that a controversy. Except maybe to a couple of mom's at a soccer game, but then anything would qualify as controversial. Personally I prefer standards of notability that don't include things a couple of mom's at a soccer practice would gossip about, which is literally everything. Really, the whole "controversy automatically equates to notability" thing is ridiculous in the first place. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. We aren't here to provide people the latest news on celebrity dating gossip or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the controversy surrounding the expansion of the school, which seems to have gone on for several years. I'm not aware of a PA system being stolen, perhaps you're thinking of the article where computers were stolen? NemesisAT (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, OK. It didn't seem like that was a controversy. Yes, computers, a PA system, and I think a few other things. In case your wondering, I singled out the PA system being stolen because computers and computer parts regularly get stolen from schools. PA systems though, not so much. So I think the PA system being stolen is slightly more notable then the computers. Although both are still extremely mundane and probably not worth mentioning in a Wikipedia article. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis please. Assertions and grandiose statements are as useful in determining a consensus as a bucket of warm spit would be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 11:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/marsa-state-school-building-to-house-st-augustine-primary.460618 Yes Yes Times of Malta is a long-running print newspaper, appears to be reliable Yes ✔ Yes
https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/old-medical-school-to-be-transferred-to-st-augustine-college.435876 Yes Third-party perspective discussing the school and government's actions Yes Yes Article focuses on the school ✔ Yes
https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/house-committee-approves-transfer-to-st-augustine-college.437582 Yes Yes ~ Very short article, but does focus on the school ~ Partial
https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/1-792-student-vacancies-in-church-schools.397277 Yes Yes No Passing mentions ✘ No
https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/medical-school-building-offered-as-solution-to-st-augustine-school.409756 Yes Yes Yes Article focuses on the school ✔ Yes
https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/Heartbreak-for-students-as-new-computers-stolen.551324 No Article based on account from a member of staff at the school Yes Yes Focuses on an incident that happened at the school ✘ No
https://newsbook.com.mt/en/st-augustine-college-to-restore-historic-home-to-extend-secondary-school/ Yes ? Small website with little information available on it Yes Article focuses on the school ? Unknown
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}}.

Please see the source assessment table above. I was perhaps being a bit harsh on Newsbook, I have no reason to beleive it isn't reliable. Meets WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as there is sufficient significant coverage to meet GNG; it does all come from a single source, when multiple sources are typically preferred, but I believe we need to take into account the size of Malta and the fact that there are less reliable sources there than there are for other countries. BilledMammal (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NemesisAT. Sourcing is sufficient to meet minimum requirements of GNG. --Jayron32 14:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep regardless of the endless swirl around schools/ORG and my personal feelings therein, it appears that this particular school meets the GNG. Beyond the ones IDed above, I found this, which provides some history worth adding/sourcing. Star Mississippi 18:27, 9 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 snow delete. Geschichte (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of athletes who won a golden medal on five consecutive winter Olympics[edit]

List of athletes who won a golden medal on five consecutive winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A "list" of one is not a list, but a "cutesy" way to highlight an achievement which is already included in many Olympic lists and other pages on enwiki. Fram (talk) 11:29, 9 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. Tone 16:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feyzullah Aktürk[edit]

Feyzullah Aktürk (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 nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to pass GNG, and doesn't meet NSPORTS. Onel5969 TT me 23:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting that consists solely of sports results and an article about the state of Turkish wrestling do not constitute significant coverage of this particular individual. Papaursa (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does, if the individual is a major part of the articles.
  • Delete. The sources provided in the article and AfD are routine and not SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per Nom, and users Geschichte, Papaursa, and JoelleJay. Screwing GNG would likely fall under "Arguments to avoid". The five points of GNG are inclusive and not discretionary and help determine if a subject has passing or lasting and sustained coverage. A BLP needs more than fan coverage and sports scores. Also, multiple use of the same sources count as one towards notability. It is likely just too soon unless there is more independent coverage out there than I could find. -- Otr500 (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG though lack of significant coverage; I agree with the source assessment table. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www-milliyet-com-tr.translate.goog/skorer/feyzullah-akturkten-altin-madalya-2886462?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp Yes Yes No Routine youth sports reporting: "According to the statement made by the Turkish Wrestling Federation, 97 kilosFeyzullah Akturk, defeated Moldovan Radu Lefter by pin and became the owner of the gold medal." ✘ No
https://www-fanatik-com-tr.translate.goog/feyzullah-akturkten-bronz-madalya-2082184?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp Yes Yes No Routine youth sports reporting: "National athlete Feyzullah Aktürk won the bronze medal in the men's freestyle 97 kilos at the World Youth Wrestling Championship. The national wrestler won the bronze medal by defeating his Chinese rival Reheman Rusidanmu, who came from repechage after his US and Ukrainian rivals, with the point key (11-1)." ✘ No
https://www-fanatik-com-tr.translate.goog/feyzullah-akturk-bronz-madalya-icin-yarisacak-2012461?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp Yes Yes No Routine youth sports reporting: "In the World Youth Wrestling Championship, national athlete Feyzullah Aktürk won the bronze medal match. At the World Junior Wrestling Championship held in Slovakia, national athlete Feyzullah Aktürk won the bronze medal match. Feyzullah Aktürk lost his chance to play for the gold medal by losing to Russian Magomedkhan Magomedov in the semi-final match of 97 kg. The national athlete will face his opponent from the repechage in the third place match." ✘ No
https://www.milliyet.com.tr/skorer/feyzullah-akturk-dunya-ucuncusu-oldu-2495473 Yes Yes No Routine youth sports reporting: "National wrestler Feyzullah Aktürk, who hit the mat at 120 kg, defeated Bulgarian rival Daniel Milanov Veselinov 3-0 in his first match, and lost 3-1 to Iranian Naeiim Rahim Hassanzadeh in the quarterfinals. Playing in the repechage match after his opponent made it to the final, the national athlete won the bronze medal by defeating Polish Jakub Brylewski 2-0 and in the fight for third place, Mongolia's Erdenetulga Davaadorj 3-0." ✘ No
https://www.haberturk.com/kahramanmaras-haberleri/93079462-turkiye-serbest-gures-sampiyonasi-sona-erdiagir-siklette-feyzullah-akturk-altin-madalyanin Yes Yes No Routine sports reporting: " In the heavyweight division, Feyzullah Aktürk won the gold medal in the 92 kilograms category," ✘ No
https://www-trtspor-com-tr.translate.goog/haber/diger-sporlar/gures/akturk-lapsekide-ciceklerle-karsilandi-246678.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp Yes Yes No 4 sentences about his winning a medal and being congratulated by a mayor, plus a quote from the mayor. ✘ No
https://www.haberler.com/kirkpinar-baspehlivanlarindan-feyzullah-akturk-14263866-haberi/ Yes Yes No 4 sentences about his winning a medal and being congratulated by a mayor, plus a quote from the mayor. ✘ No
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/sports/turkey-wins-1-gold-7-bronze-in-junior-world-wrestling/1559245 Yes Yes No Name listed among others ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Coverage is exclusively routine and offers nothing in any depth (or even anything more than 4-5 brief sentences reporting match results). Fails GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:GNG though lack of significant coverage as per the source assessment table above. Cassiopeia talk 05:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't really like these source assessment tables. Just because something is presented more elaborately, it doesn't make it true. The only point that the table makes is that the coverage of this person in RS is WP:ROUTINE, but there is no actual argument to back up this assertion - no, providing quotes doesn't make this an argument and just the fact that scores are reported doesn't mean that this is routine coverage. In fact, I would say that the coverage is explicitly non-routine e.g. looking at Milliyet's coverage of the World Junior Wrestling Championships, we see that they do not routinely report on this event, but only choose to report when there is a notable accomplishment by a Turkish national. The coverage is not there because Milliyet routinely reports on this tournament, it is there because Aktürk had a newsworthy accomplishment. This is the case for all the other news articles, and it is possible to weave together a decent, well-sourced biography using these sources. Remember that WP:ROUTINE covers "Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it" - I don't see evidence of such planned coverage here. I also fail to see how these articles don't meet WP:SIGCOV - there is clearly no need for original research to extract information about the individual, and there is definitely more than a trivial mention of the person in these articles; his accomplishments are the main focus. I am also easily able to find other sources e.g. [10] - note that Aktürk won the Kırkpınar Wrestling Tournanment (which has been held for over 600 years) and earned the title of başpehlivan, which is the most prestigious title in Turkish wrestling. I know this isn't in NSPORTS (although I don't truly see a difference from e.g. College Football Hall of Fame), but it does indicate that further sources are highly likely to be found. --GGT (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your giving such a thorough response. The quoted text in the table constitutes the entirety of the text on Akturk in a source, not just a snippet of it, and in most of the articles his performance is mentioned alongside that of all other Turkish competitors. SIGCOV is not achieved with three-sentence tournament recaps, and certainly not with the single sentence on him in Millyet (this is especially true for media coverage of youth athletics, which have stricter notability requirements). The Haberturk article you linked is syndicated ("All Çanakkale news, which is covered by Anadolu Agency, DHA, İHA, is included in this section as it comes automatically from the agency channels, without any editorial intervention by Haberturk.com editors") from the same İHA source as the penultimate two sources in the table. It is local routine signing coverage, and the lack of a byline additionally suggests it is a press release (other AA/İHA articles name the author). Syndicated articles are not intellectually independent of each other; a local paper changing the original news agency headline to highlight a local athlete's performance doesn't suddenly make the coverage non-routine or make him the main focus of an article. JoelleJay (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for a detailed reply. The bottom line regarding SIGCOV is that there is no need for original research to extract the content from the article and that it is a non-trivial mention. WP:SIGCOV explicitly states that we are not looking for him to be the main focus of the article - we're definitely not expecting a biographical treatise, and there is no arbitrary cutoff for the number of sentences needed to count as SIGCOV. Of course I'm not denying the brevity of the coverage in each individual source, but there is enough of it across various sources to weave together a good biography without any original research, entirely based upon reliable and independent sources - and that's all we need to clear GNG. Sports articles by Turkish news agencies do not regularly feature author names, so I disagree that this suggests that it is a press release in this instance; on the other hand, it does indicate a judgement of newsworthiness by a national news agency. Local wrestling signups aren't usually picked up by national news agencies as far as I can tell. I should finally note that I'm not too comfortable with the liberal use of copyrighted quotes in this discussion. They're not necessary to make the point and the amount quoted for some articles constitutes a rather significant part of the original work. I'm not convinced that these quotes can be regarded as fair use, so I suggest that you remove them. --GGT (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So, I realize there is a lot of interpretation as to what SIGCOV means, and I think it's helpful to look at it in the context of the NSPORT guidelines as well as the consensus across other athlete AfDs. Firstly, it is extremely difficult for youth competitors to meet NSPORT, particularly because achievements at the youth level are almost never considered encyclopedic (else we would have articles on every Little League World Series player right off the bat sorry). Nothing beyond brief mentions of his final results would be WP:DUE in an article on Akturk, not that there was much more info on him in any of the news reports anyway. And, per WP:YOUNGATH, NONE of those sources could contribute to notability: High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is: (1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage... The second clause... especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability (emphasis mine).
    Secondly, there are millions of people who do not meet any sport-specific notability guideline (SSG) but DO appear in a tremendous number of signing/transfer/draft/injury articles. If this was sufficient for SIGCOV the criterion for meeting basically every SSG would be "college athlete, or varsity HS athlete at a highly-ranked institution". But the community has come to the consensus that such material is not SIGCOV, and that is why sports scores (which is exactly what the first 5 sources are; they are strictly relaying the match outcomes announced to press agencies by the Turkish Wrestling Federation) are explicitly mentioned in WP:ROUTINE.
    Regarding the AA agency link you provided, both the article and its picture are bylined: Suha Gur and Serhat Çağdaş, respectively. National news agencies have local chapters where material of local interest is reported, often directly from PR groups ; the IHA article on Akturk meeting a mayor is specifically curated in "Local News -- Canakkale", alongside an announcement that the president of a regional amateur sports league was reelected as its chairman and a report of someone being detained for growing marijuana (with a picture of the seized goods and adorable "[s]ensitive-nosed drug-seeking dog 'Roket'"). JoelleJay (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as some others have said, Junior level is not enough. He can have an article once he has made his name at the Senior level championships.-Imcdc (talk) 07:05, 13 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. Weak keep is keep. Tone 16:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguay–Vietnam relations[edit]

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

Previously deleted. Fails WP:GNG. Could not find significant coverage. 3 of the 6 sources merely confirm embassies (or non resident embassy). The fact that Uruguay sells beef to Vietnam is hardly noteworthy given Uruguay sells beef worldwide. LibStar (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lean Keep (in between Weak Keep and Keep) - there were some other visits, like the MFA of Uruguay to Hanoi in 2010, the visit of the deputy PM of Vietnam to Montevideo [26], a 2014 scientific agreement [27], a trade and investment agreement in 2016 [28], so I think an encyclopedic version of it all could have its place in the encyclopedia. I think that should be enough for a start-class article. There was also a study that I read while browsing that covered Latin America-Vietnam relations and had two paragraphs about the Vietnam-Uruguay relation, but I can't seem to find it at the moment. Not seeing presidential visits, though, and that's why I'm only lean keep. On the economic front, we're well over the keep mark, though. Pilaz (talk) 18:26, 13 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. Tone 16:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Myanmar tricolour (Disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary disambiguation as the creator of the article has not proven that such a distinction exists in English (and that such a disambiguation is needed). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burmese Tricolour for more details. CentreLeftRight ✉ 08:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EconomicCalendar.com[edit]

EconomicCalendar.com (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 website, fails WP:SIGCOV. Most of the coverage is directory based/primary. Nothing significant. Jared Duckett (talk) 08:05, 9 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 13:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Wilson (soccer)[edit]

William Wilson (soccer) (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:NFOOTBALL--Alza08 (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dasman Model School[edit]

Dasman Model 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)

I beleive the article fails notability per WP:NSCHOOL and WP:ORGCRIT as I have not found multiple, independent, reliable, and significant sources. The article references only the school's own website, and a search of the internet revealed only trivial mentions on lists of international schools and recruiting posts by the school. These sources do not satisfy significant coverage or independent as required. While the school is listed on international school accreditations, there did not appear to be sources justifying it having its own article. Lenny Marks (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:43, 2 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! 07:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of significant coverage as "Dasman Model School" or "Dasman Bilingual School" and even the school's website is unreachable. There is a possibility that there may be sources under the school's Arabic name but I can't search for that without some indication of what to use as the correct Arabic search term. If such exists, perhaps ar.wiki can find out. The corresponding article there, however, doesn't give any indication of better sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:50, 15 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 13:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Choudhary[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG plus WP:TOOSOON. ManaliJain (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ManaliJain (talk) 06:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do think this was eligible for CSD G4, as there seems to be very little difference between this page and the previously deleted version, which, incidentally, was moved to draft and is still hanging around at Draft:Priyanka Choudhary. The mainspace page was previously salted, however as Shikagami03 is now extended-confirmed, they were able to recreate it. So if we want the salting to stick, it'll need to be full-protected. Since this was both tagged for speedy and an AFD was opened, I thought it better to let the AFD play out rather than to delete it without discussion. Shikagami03, please participate in this discussion. Please add more sources to the article to demonstrate that she meets the notability requirements for actors. If this ends in delete, please work on the version in draft space rather than recreating the article in mainspace. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the creator has extensively edited the draft, it's disheartening to see them just creating the article, and I'm betting it's a copy-paste from the draft which has an extensive edit history going back over a year. The last AFD was April 2021, so they really should be respecting that consensus, and go through the draft process, not ignoring that consensus as they've done. I warned them on Feb 4 [29] about doing just this, obviously that warning didn't take. Add in the copyrighted image for Priyanka they uploaded, this may be time for ANI. Ravensfire (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I think a lot of the concerns raised on the April 2021 AFD are still valid. She's appeared a several movies that don't have a lot of notice, which is not helpful for meeting WP:NACTOR. A lot of the sources are from Times of India which is generally discounted as you can't tell paid from unpaid (and that's especially true around entertainment!). Several of those are interviews, which can be good for information, but not as much for notability. Links to trailers and official videos, likewise. I'm still seeing only the one significant role. I've pulled out some of the name-dropping and puffery from the article, and some unsupported "parallel lead" stuff. Ravensfire (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: NACTOR needs multiple significant roles in notable productions backed up by reliable sources, which I'm not seeing here. Most Indian TV shows themselves rest on shaky notability, so solid sources are needed to claim significant roles in them. -- Ab207 (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:30, 16 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 01:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Goans Party[edit]

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

A newly established political party does not satisfy WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. DMySon (talk) 06:43, 2 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! 06:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. Just announcements, not yet shown to meet WP:NORG. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG — DaxServer (t · c) 09:21, 14 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 13:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P5tv[edit]

P5tv (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)

Community cable channel fails the WP:GNG. Side note: their website is "down at the moment sorry". Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Can't find any significant coverage about this television station. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:BROADCAST and WP:GNG. From what I can tell, there are not enough independent or reliable sources to support the text of the article. Not to mind to establish the notability of the subject. There are apparently no mentions of the subject, at all and under any of the names offered, in national media. Like the Irish Times: [30][31]. There is some coverage in industry-specific media. Like this IFTN piece: [32]. And there are some mentions in hyperlocal sources. Like this parish newsletter article: [33]. But that is about it. None of this adds up to SIGCOV. Otherwise the only possible sources, to support the text that we have, are things like the subject's own website. Or at least the archived version: [34]. (Given that it seems to be "down" since 2014...) Personally I'm not seeing how WP:BROADCAST or WP:GNG are met. Mine is a delete recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it is not notable. No significant coverage about it anywhere. ThePremiumBoy (talk) 13:24, 9 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 Interstate 85 in Alabama. the history is under the redirect if anyone finds there's sourced material worth merging Star Mississippi 02:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 685[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Interstate 685 (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)
Advanced search for: 
"Montgomery Outer Loop"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library

Another case of "don't write the highway article until you see the signs posted on the side of the road", this stretch of road was built, but it wasn't called I-685; it's just an extension of I-85, and I find it hard to imagine that it will ever be redesignated. Possibly redirection to a section on building this segment is in order, but as it stands, it's another example showing why we have WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Mangoe (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that if content is merged, then the outcome would be to redirect, as deletion is not possible per WP:ATTRIB. --Kinu t/c 17:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Interstate 85 in Alabama per now (with merge if there is anything to add that is not already there). The history of this article will presumably be useful (and needed, per WP:ATTRIB) if/when the designation changes after the rerouted I-85 alignment is constructed and this article is spun off. --Kinu t/c 17:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CFEG-TV[edit]

CFEG-TV (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 community channel; fails WP:NBROADCAST; no sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:06, 9 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 13:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CHET-TV[edit]

CHET-TV (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:NBROADCAST; no sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CHVC-TV[edit]

CHVC-TV (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:NBROADCAST; no sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:58, 9 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 (move over Draft:Laththi). Sandstein 08:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laththi[edit]

Laththi (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)

Laththi

Unreleased movie that does not satisfy guidelines on notability for future films or general notability. An article should speak for itself and show why it satisfies general notability. This article does not. It should not be necessary to check the references to see if there is content. However, the references are predictably unhelpful, and include 404 errors, and publicity stuff.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 Times of India 404 error No Not usually
2 Times of India Another 404 error No Not usually
3 Telegraphstar.com Announcement about film No Probably No
4 Pinkvilla Nothing that seems to be about film No No No
5 Pinkvilla Story about production of film No Yes No

There is a draft in draft space at Draft:Laththi which has been nominated for deletion. The draft should be kept because it is this article that is too soon and should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Does not meet NFF yet but the draft should be worked on until it releases. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-draftify. It fails my criteria by a whisker. It has completed principal photography, great, but it is not sufficiently scheduled for release, the reference saying only "is likely to be released in August 2022". When the theatrical release data is locked in, then mainspace the draft. -- SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Histmerge into the draft, since the main space article seems to have been created by copy paste moving the draft in multiple stages (e.g. the first revision of this article has a clean-up template that has been copied from the draft). 192.76.8.77 (talk) 19:08, 9 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. Tone 16:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

K (miniseries)[edit]

K (miniseries) (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)

Verifiability in question, likely a hoax. I performed WP:BEFORE I can't even verify that it exists in online Philippine news archives, Google books and the IMDB. There's also a lack of information on cast and crew, making it even more difficult to verify its existence. --Lenticel (talk) 05:37, 9 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. Tone 16:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kwisp[edit]

Kwisp (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 band fails to meet any of the notability guidelines in WP:BAND. The only source cited is about another band, Fifty Foot Hose, and does not mention Kwisp at all. Could not successfully find any good sources. Mkcaldwell (talk) 04:45, 9 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. Although Cullen328 and Valjean make very persuasive arguments for why this singer is likely in fact notable according to our guidelines, I must also take into account another argument that underlies many "delete" opinions: that cleaning up an article about a borderline notable singer and defending it against promotional sockpuppets and other shenanigans is not a wise use of our volunteers' time. As such, there being good arguments on both sides of the debate, I have to go with the numbers and find a rough consensus in favor of deletion (and salting). Sandstein 07:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Evans (singer)[edit]

Brian Evans (singer) (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)

Can we assess notability on this user. User:Liz believes he fails GNG. I think that he may pass it marginally. It is important to point out that I changed this from a PROD, which anyone can remove, to an AFD due to almost a decade of self promotion sockpuppeting found Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Croonerman. This way a true community discussion can be held with minimal disruption by socking. The current active sock/meat puppet is User:Joan4505A and the investigation has been updated as such. Unbroken Chain (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think one element that should be noted here is that Unbroken Chain is the page creator and 9 years ago he, and Hirolovesswords went to great lengths to write an article that met Wikipedia's standards. Then sockpuppetry and threats of lawsuits happened over the years. Editors should judge this article based on its current condition but Unbroken Chain's critique of the tortured history of this article is worth noting. Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Long-winded keep vote by confirmed sockpuppet
  • Do Not Delete The statements made by Hell In A Bucket and indeed someone named "Liz" are not worthy for deletion. With no evidence, statements are made about Evans as facts by these two editors. In fact, "Liz," who removed photos of Evans and all of the celebrities he has opened for, which is specifically sourced on the very page she claims is simply "Evans with Celebrities," is ludicrous. He was all of their opening act and it's sourced right there on the page. In addition to the well sourced news articles that substantiate why the photos were on Mr. Evans page, a simple Google search confirm this. I have personally reached out to Wikipedia regarding what I've seen today and I vote that this page not be deleted. It is my opinion that this is a personal issue with these two editors, and not factual based on Evans well established career, which is duly sourced throughout his page. For these two editors, who have provided no evidence that Mr. Evans has ever added information to his page, is suspect. They both make statements, not alleging or assuming, but stating as fact what they provide no evidence for. Additionally, and most outrageously, "Liz" makes the claim that Evans is more known for lawsuits, than the plethora of well sourced information on his page, including literally being added to The National Baseball Hall of Fame. I'm sorry, but this is an attack on this artist, and even myself, who has nothing to do with him and have edited other pages completely unrelated to him. Even I, as an editor, without any factual basis other than the vendetta of these two editors against this man, for whatever reason, certainly not based on anything factual, have even alleged that I am him. I would suggest that anyone reviewing this page really take a look at the years of effort of "Hell In A Bucket" and now more recently "Liz," who actually claims Evans, a member of The National Baseball Hall of Fame and who has recorded historic music videos that are well sourced as "more known for lawsuits," is very concerning. These editors have no right, and no basis, to make claims of fact when what they are really doing is alleging with no evidence to back it up. I have never seen anything like this as an editor, nor have I ever been accused of "sock puppet" activity until I decided, when editing Corey Haim's page, to work on this page, which is what Wikipedia requests. All anyone reviewing my vote on this need to do is Google the name of Brian Evans and his work with the legendary producer Narada Michael Walden, who produced the likes of Whitney Houston, and now is producing an artist for Evans. Evans also obtained 39 United States governor Proclamations for Sleep Apnea Awareness. As I said, I have reached out to five different sources that I know at Wikipedia to look at the activity of these two editors. Evans also has a verified Twitter page which displays all of the celebrities he has opened for, and those very celebrities following Mr. Evans personal Twitter account and in many cases even "Tweeting" about him. In one comment, "Liz," with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, responds to a comment made by, frankly, it could be anyone, as "Brian." I am also copy and pasting this entire comment to send to Wikipedia in the event that, as history has shown, anything positive about Mr. Evans is immediately removed so that, for example, the assessment by "Liz," who makes an absolutely astonishingly uneducated and unsubstantiated remark about this artist that he is "known more for lawsuits than his career" is simply shocking to me while his music is literally, as of this writing, on the show "BoJack Horseman," and numerous others on Netflix and others. For example, they don't claim "we think Mr. Evans did this or did that." Instead, they say that he is personally responsible for whatever it is they conjure up backed by no evidence to support those statements. I would suggest you look strongly at this, as I am having Wikipedia do, again, through multiple sources I know there and have in the past had direct contact with. Anyone looking at this page, the sources, or a simple Google search (not to mention the article citing Evans as one of the most relevant crooners of this generation in Grammy Magazine), will find that Mr. Evans has done more than many artists I've seen who have a page on Wikipedia. As an individual who lives in Mexico, I assure you that I am not Brian Evans. For these editors to make that claim, not as a claim but as a final judgment, is outrageous. Evans, the first artist ever to film a music video at The Bates Motel with comedian Carrot Top made history when he did so. Now, I normally would not say as much as I have here, and I certainly am not attempting to attack any Wikipedia editors the way these two editors have done to this man, but when I look at the statements that are meant to say that Evans simply "has pictures with celebrities" when the very Wikipedia page they are attempting to delete sources media that contradict her statement, and make allegations that he is "more known for lawsuits than his singing career" is beyond the pale. All one need do is look at the page, the sources, or search his name on Google or YouTube. The statement by "Liz" would be laughable if it was not so egregious. His work with William Shatner has garnered him millions of views on YouTube, the same work that got them both added to The National Baseball Hall of Fame and indeed the Baseball Almanac, all of which any of you can search on their very own websites. I've never seen this much attention brought to a single artist who on Amazon, has over a dozen albums and over 150 songs recorded. He has obviously also had legal issues which I don't dispute as they are also well sourced, but you do not see either of these editors deleting any of those, just the well sourced items that give Evans any credibility. Again, I have copied and pasted this entire statement and forwarded it to those I am in communication with, who know I am not associated with Mr. Evans personally, at Wikipedia for their review of what these two editors have done to Mr. Evans, and that is simply how I see it. How on Earth do you claim Mr. Evans is simply posting photos of himself with celebrities when the celebrities themselves are tweeting about him, and are by a simple Google search utilizing him as their opening act. Absolutely appalling behavior by these two Wikipedia editors. You cannot call it self-promotion if independent sources confirm what is being said. I have my own theories related to these editors intentions, and some may actually have to do with those lawsuits he was involved in. That's my opinion, those are big corporations that Evans has taken on so I would not doubt anything. The editor "Liz," in this particular matter is totally out of line. Just read what she says, then Google those very celebrities and who their opening act was: Brian Evans. Totally ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joan4505A (talk • contribs) 07:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC) — Joan4505A (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
(Redacted) Unbroken Chain (talk) 14:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That comment above is 1,233 words with no paragraph breaks. See also a similar 1,230-word paragraph at Liz's talk page. That sure is a lot of verbal vomit from someone who claims to have no conflict of interest, and I've never seen so much butthurt agony from one person when a totally different person (ahem) is criticized. I'm sure it's just a coincidence. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like his evasion and disrespect for our policies but this is more then likely a sensitive issue for him. We should respect that as much as possible. I really didn't intend for this to be a bashing section on this man's character. Unbroken Chain (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Respect for "this man's character" would be easier if he admitted his own words rather than pretending to be someone named Joan. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Appears to fail WP:NPOL. This is slightly off-topic, but I would like to note that the comment added by the SPA above is a staggering 1230 words long. I've written essays shorter than that. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 08:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails NPOL. Probably an edge case for MUSICBIO and GNG and in other circumstances I might be persuaded to fall on the other side. It is really hard to separate the notability judgement from the wider issues of COI and self promotion. In truth, if anything, this article should just be a stub. It seems detrimental to the project as a whole to keep this page and waste editors time monitoring and editing an article of such marginal interest and notability. Therefore I believe on balance it should be deleted. Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing to establish notability. Snow close please to enforce WP:DENY. This topic has become a magnet for an obsessive sock puppeteer. The outcome is no longer in doubt. Jehochman Talk 13:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly passes GNG. We need a "purpose" policy that can be cited when it's violated because bogus AfDs like this that undermine GNG should not exist. The only question to ask at an AfD is whether the article passes GNG. AfDs like this are at odds with our purpose here, which is to document the sum total of human knowledge. All other problems with the article are covered by WP:PRESERVE, which dictates that fixing and improving, not deleting, is our goal here.
If a policy allowing deletion because of PROVEN sockpuppetry, OWNERSHIP, promotion, whitewashing, COI editing, and other claimed problems and abuses (that were proven) were created, then we could consider retribution/punishment as a reason for deletion, but such a policy does not exist. GNG is the only thing to consider here, and, even after so many RS have been deleted, there is still enough RS coverage and mention to pass GNG. That doesn't mean that a number of editors and IPS shouldn't be blocked for abuse. That's still a problem. -- Valjean (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Valjean, That's a fair outlook on GNG. I don't think of this as retribution or a punishment, simply a stopping of the drain on editors. I do think that IAR does exist for at least the conversation we are having here though despite your concerns in that regard. It's better then say an admin board where the drama is amped to 300 percent of where we are now. If the article is kept then so be it, I noted in my own opinion it was a tenuous argument. I'm curious as to what Reliable sources were removed? Today I removed PRnewswire (which isn't RS I thought?) but I'm curious if I made some other mistake you might be able to show me so I can rectify that, if it was me that did it all. Unbroken Chain (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You did the right thing by deleting PRNewswire, which is a terrible source. I had taken a quick sampling of edits going far back and saw that RS were deleted and restored, often with dubious arguments from both sides. Nothing about you particularly. It's just that there's been a battle going on that is really nasty, with violations on both sides. We allow far less notable people, cartoon insects and animals to pass GNG here, but this guy has made his little mark in the world with some popular songs appreciated by lovers of crooner style, such as Shatner.[35] Give him that much. "At Fenway" is now at nearly 12 million views, and Shatner played a role there too, as well as in other videos and concerts by Brian. Shatner's obviously notable for far more, but he's a figure in this guy's life and music videos, and that too lends some notability to Brian.
I agree that IAR may apply here, especially if Brian makes good on his legal threats, but we don't have a policy that justifies deletion on those grounds, and, without that policy, deletion based only on IAR would set a bad precedent. Instead, the legal tussles would be documented in this article. Assholes have articles here, sometimes just because they are notable for being assholes (and I'm NOT calling him one!). Just sayin'. GNG works that way. We should err on the side of inclusion because that's our goal here, to document the sum total of human knowledge as found in RS, and there are enough RS about this guy. -- Valjean (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt, that was the vehicle to getting the stub published. I think it's a delightful song, I've commented as such on wiki even. As to civility I've missed the mark in that regard more then once and one that I've tried with some limited success to improve as I age. I joined this site a young man and now I'm not as young ;) Thanks for the reply and do believe you raise good points for the closer to consider. Unbroken Chain (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Croonerman/Archive, one wonders about the character of someone so intent on self-promotion. From his mother's description, this has been his life's goal since about two years old when he grabbed a microphone. Still, that is not grounds for deletion. Only GNG counts. -- Valjean (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think at the very least I can respect the persistence. I do have respect for having to promote oneself especially in that business, just not here. Unbroken Chain (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Fails GNG - the subject of the article is making a living in the arts and entertainment field, but is not notable. The major contributors have COI. The subject of the article clearly is part of the editing process of this article. Vague legal threats and personal meanness by editors are contradictory to Wikipedia policies. I don't think this nomination is bogus. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Fails GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:NPOL. The subject has worked with notable people, but is not himself notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. At best this is an attempt at notability by association. Given the editing history and presumed sockpuppetry therein, it's likely self-promotion. I disagree that WP:GNG is met, and despite the WP:REFBOMBing at the article, my opinion is that the subject fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NPOL. --Kinu t/c 21:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Alas, I am compelled to admit that I am undecided on Mr. Evans's notability. He really does have an association with the Baseball Hall of Fame, he has gained some notice as a comedic opening act, he has commendations for sleep apnea awareness, and he was noticed as a failed politician. But this article is clearly a conflict of interest and shamelessly (even pathetically) self-promotional, no matter how many fake accounts are used. Mr. Evans has simply added Wikipedia to his desperate quest for publicity. He might just merit a VERY short article here. But axe the promotional text, and kick all associated sockpuppets out of here. He will appreciate the opportunity to milk his rejection from Wikipedia for more publicity. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have basically come to the same conclusion as you but the self promotion (both in sources and in the article) makes it really hard to distinguish the notable from the fluff. The Baseball Hall of Fame thing seems notable but in reality I have no idea what it means for someone to have a song they wrote added to the library of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum. According to their website they have a pretty big archive including "hundreds of baseball songs" (and compost buckets). Really it probably means very little but has been touted as something by Evans himself. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject of this article does not meet any of our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article in its current form is very bad. The history of the article is awful. The conduct of the subject and his supporters is horrible. That conduct includes harassment of good faith Wikipedia editors and legal threats against editors, which are especially chilling since this person has a significant history of suing people on the thinnest of grounds. Many of the claims in the article and by those defending this article are spurious. It is a perfect example of how aggressive editing by accounts with glaring conflicts of interest and promotional intent results in really poor quality articles. But such articles should not be deleted if the topic is notable. Instead, the bad aspects should be removed by uninvolved neutral editors, transforming such articles into something neutral and acceptable. If this article is kept, I recommend that it should be under extended confirmed protection for years to come, so that experienced, uninvolved editors can prune away all the garbage, resulting in a dramatically shorter article that neutrally summarizes what the actually reliable and independent sources say about this entertainer. No puffery allowed.
Why do I think that he is notable then? Consider this 1999 article in the Las Vegas Sun, which simultaneously devotes significant coverage to Evans and also describes behavioral patterns that we can still observe in 23 years later. Right before the turn of the century and two years before Wikipedia was created, we read that Evans was seemingly obsessed with the trivial factoid that he was the only singer to record a CD at a certain Vegas casino that has since been torn down. Evans and his management team are conveying that point with all the subtlety of a box of bricks, peppering media outlets from Rolling Stone magazine to Reuters to TV Guide with the fact that Evans is the ONLY act to issue a live recording from the D.I.. On the other hand, this is a 20 paragraph review of his 19 song CD that includes grudging praise such as By comparison, "I Left My Heart In San Francisco" is refreshingly more subdued than Bennett's grandiose rendition, showing that in some cases, Evans knows his limits. Same with "New York, New York" and an Evans favorite, "Blue Velvet," which fit his vocal range perfectly. On the third hand, this 1998 piece in the same newspaper seems to be a credulous recapitulation of his press releases, with no evidence of independent reporting. There was a lot of that in Las Vegas in the 1990s and a whole lot more of it everywhere today.
This Boston Globe article about his Fenway Park song is also a point in favor of his notability, while also providing indications of his relentless self-promotonalism. The repeated claims that somehow he is in the Baseball Hall of Fame just because his song was accepted into their library is both ludicrous and bizarre. As if someone quoted at length in the Congressional Record is somehow in Congress. That is the kind of never-ending promotionalism that we are up against. But it is a fact that this song received significant coverage in reliable sources, and that is an argument in favor of keeping this article.
Let's debunk some of the other spurious claims in the article. He is not notable as an actor, because all of his roles were bit parts and no reliable independent sources devote significant coverage to his acting, although a few parrot his filmography as presented in his press releases. He is not notable as a politician because he has never held political office and has been trounced in every election in which he has been a candidate. He is not notable as an author because his books have only received coverage obviously generated by press releases, or on the "Kirkus Indie" site, which is "pay for play" and the exact opposite of a reliable source for books. He is not a big band singer since his bands usually consist of four instruments at most. He is not notable because he has been an opening act for clearly notable entertainers. Notability is not inherited by opening for stars or getting photographed with stars. He is not notable because of alleged Asian big hits referenced to reprints of his press releases, or alleged Canadian big hits cited to Las Vegas Sun recapitulations of his press releases. The Asian and Canadian sources for these extraordinary claims are nowhere to be found. He is not notable as a criminal, because his Casey Kasem scam was mundane and long ago. He is not even notable as someone who files a lot of lawsuits, although that is a verifiable fact. His lawsuits are of little consequence. He is borderline notable as a singer, or nightclub crooner, to use the slang term that he has embraced. He is, as the newspaper that has given him the most coverage describes him, a battle-scarred, beaten-down lounge lizard.
So, let's keep the article, identify the actual independent reliable sources that devote significant coverage to this entertainer, neutrally summarize what those sources say, and vigorously remove everything else. If "Crooner" Evans or his meatpuppets pop up to promote him again, they should be blocked on sight. Cullen328 (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very Persuasive. Thank you for the comments in favor of keeping the article. I hope that if the article is kept (I personally think Valjean and yourself will be instrumental in that with excellent keep rationales) then it can be put into a readable shape. It really is like cutting our nose to spite our face. My plans after this AFD is to remove this article from my watchlist and disengage again as I did since 2020 as hopefully the community and various admin will have this page watchlisted. That will be a win-win for everyone. Unbroken Chain (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I greatly appreciate the care and thoroughness of your evaluation of this article, Cullen328, but your argument convinces me more about his overwhelming lack of notability in music, politics, acting, crime, lawsuits, closeness to more important celebrities, if you took out his lack of importance and the irrelevant, promotional parts of this biography, you've removed basically 95% of the content of the article. Is the slim bit of notability that you state is present really enough for more than a stub article? And, if so, who wants to take on the work of cutting this article down to that kernel of what DOES make him notable? Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 15 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. As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Lawrey. Whether a redirect is appropriate (with this title) is a matter for editors to decide. Sandstein 07:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

E. J. Jones (rugby union)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG through lack of significant coverage, though due to a silver medal in the 1908 Olympics as one of the two team competing in the event as prod is not appropriate.

It is unlikely that significant coverage will be found, due the limited information we have about who he was, and Olympedia ending a single paragraph of coverage with the statement "Nothing more is known about Jones’s life."

A redirect is not suitable, due to the disambiguated title and due to this article being confused with other rugby players with similar names, such as Eddie Jones BilledMammal (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails sigcov. The "Olympic medalist" criteria was written on the assumption that there would be more than 3 teams in any competition, not with the early competitions where sometimes there were 3 or less in mind. It was also written with individual not team, especially large scale team, competitors in mind. It was also clearly not written with any attempt to show that even mealists would in greater than 90% of cases meet GNG, so it was really not written well at all. Sports SSNGs explicitly say GNG must be met, so we should delete this article that lacks sigcov.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Won a silver medal at the 1908 Olympics, so passes the updated WP:NOLY guidelines. At worst should be redirected to Rugby union at the 1908 Summer Olympics. Not seeing a valid reason why this one shouldn't be redirected per WP:ATD due to the disambiguation. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Due to the previous confusion between them and Eddie Jones, as well as the existence of multiple notable people with those initials, such as two with the name Evan John Jones. BilledMammal (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let us not abuse words. One does not "win" a silver medal when they come in 2nd in a competition with 2 teams. Also, we need to stop team wins like individual wins. A logical view of Olympic notability is that in theory we should have articles on every team that won a medal. Just because you were on a team that won a medal does not mean you as an individual pass notability guidelines. However even this needs to be paired with passing GNG, which pre-1920 is not a guarantee.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with deletion due to failure to meet notability requirements and general lack of information about them. I am undecided about putting a redirect in place. Whilst I would normally suggest a redirect when I saw the title I was wondering why anyone would Afd a page for Eddie Jones (rugby union) which makes me consider the confusion that a redirect could have.Gusfriend (talk) 07:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NSPORTS, which states "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." The criteria at WP:NOLYMPICS, as currently written, are part of that and Jones is a medalist. If the criteria changes, then the issue can be revisited. Attempts to get around this resemble WP:WIKILAWYERING rather than following the intent of the policy. Additionally, I have added at least some basic biographical data, although a proper page move can wait to see if this kept. Canadian Paul 07:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:N also suggests that meeting either GNG or an SNG is enough for presumed notability. NemesisAT (talk) 22:03, 15 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. WP:NSPORTS establishes only a presumption of notability, which can be rebutted if people look for and do not find substantial coverage, as in this AfD. The "keep" opinions, which limit themselves to pointing to NSPORTS and do not address the sourcing situation, must therefore be given less weight. Sandstein 07:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A. Lawrey[edit]

A. Lawrey (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)

Meets WP:NRUGBY due to playing in one of the two rugby teams that competed at the 1908 Olympics (making this article unsuitable for a prod) but fails WP:GNG through lack of significant coverage, similar to the recently deleted A. Wilcocks.

It is unlikely that significant coverage will be found, due to us not knowing his first name, date of birth, or date of death, and due to Olympedia finishing a single paragraph of coverage on him with the statement "Nothing more is known about Lawry’s life." BilledMammal (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we lack adequate sourcing to show noltability. When you are on a team that comes in second out of 2 teams in a competition, the fact that you are given a "silver medal" is not really a sign of notability at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Won a silver medal, so passes the updated WP:NOLY guidelines. At worst it should be redirected to Rugby union at the 1908 Summer Olympics as a valid WP:ATD to preserve the article history. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were only 2 teams in the competition. Calling someone on the loosing team in a 2 team competition a medalist seems to be an abuse of the term. Plus you are ignoring the clear langauge on sports SNGs that they do not allow us to keep articles in the face of not meeting GNG, a view that was affirmed at an RfC.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NSPORTS, which states "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." The criteria at WP:NOLYMPICS, as currently written, are part of that and Lawry is a medalist. If the criteria changes, then the issue can be revisited. Attempts to get around this resemble WP:WIKILAWYERING rather than following the intent of the policy. Additionally, I have added at least some basic biographical data, including his first name, 71although a proper page move can wait to see if this kept. Canadian Paul 07:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • NSPORT requires GNG to be met. It's not sufficient to !vote "Keep, meets NOLYMPICS", you need to provide WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep having won an Olympic medal, and new information about the subject has been found, including their full name and dates of birth/death. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The medal was to the team, not to individuals. Also there were only 2 teams in the competition, so it is hard to say coming in second constitutes winning a medal. Also pre-WWI it is highly questionable that the Olympics received enough coverage that we can assume anyone is notable just for winning a medal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no I in team. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, so being a part of a team should not gaurantee articles on all members of the team.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the point, Lambert. Without the individuals, there would be no team... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:N makes it clear that an article only has to meet either WP:GNG or an SNG to be presumed notable. As WP:N is our principle notability guideline, that feels like the appropriate page to follow. NemesisAT (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Cooper (boxer)[edit]

Brent Cooper (boxer) (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:NBOX and WP:GNG. Never won or even challenged for a title. His appearance on the reality TV show does a little to help his coverage, but it's not nearly enough in-depth coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 03:54, 9 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 02:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uday Mandal[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Uday Mandal (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 subject doesn't not pass notability criteria. The subject has no significant political role in politics so fails WP:NPOLITICIAN دَستخَط، اِفلاق (کَتھ باتھ) 02:14, 9 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 02:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hubbard, Indiana[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hubbard, Indiana (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)

Another case from back when we didn't know better, this GNIS spot shows no sign of being anything beyond a flag stop where the rails cross the road, if that. There are no buildings around as far back as I can go, which is quite a long way in this area. Mangoe (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 04:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find any evidence this was ever a community, much less that it "is" one. Reywas92Talk 04:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. –dlthewave ☎ 05:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arcadia Publishing has this. "Hubbard Town" (originally to be named Terre Coupee), how it was renamed to "Hamilton" (the one just to the north-east of New Carlisle, Indiana, not Hamilton, Indiana), and how part of the property was deeded to a church to turn into the Haven Hubbard Memorial Home are all in Groves 2010, pp. 11–13. Further confirmation of comes in Stoll 1923, p. 528, Arthur L. Hubbard: "[…] Hubbardtown (now village of Hamilton) about three miles northeast of New Carlisle […]".
    • Groves, Dana (2010). "On the prairie". New Carlisle. Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9780738577395.
    • Stoll, John B. (1923). An Account of St. Joseph County from Its Organization. History of Indiana. Vol. 3. Dayton Historical Publishing Company.
  • None of that's in this article, of course, which is verifiably false in its statements about an "unincorporated community".

    But once one knows this, one finds that we already have an article for the Haven Hubbard Home.

    Uncle G (talk) 10:12, 9 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. by Kinu per G12 (non-admin closure) McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meysam eddie[edit]

Meysam eddie (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)

Can't find sources that indicate notability. Seems to fail WP:SINGER as well. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user have problem with me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.156.31.147 (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Speedy Delete - The investigation by Uncle G above indicates a desperate promotional effort by the musician or his management. He exists, as seen in some basic music directories and social media sites, but the article is clearly an attempt to add Wikipedia to the promotional blitz for an unknown amateur entertainer. He hasn't been noticed anywhere reliable, and he has not earned the notability to be noticed here either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:09, 9 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 01:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Li[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG: the only independent coverage in the provided sources is a review of the subject's 2009 book, Lily in the Snow that does not provide much biographical information about the subject. Searching for more coverage in general internet searches, on Google Books, and Google Scholar, I was only able to find coverage about unrelated Yan Li's ([36] [37]).

On the WP:NAUTHOR front, having been a finalist for Amazon.ca First Novel Award does not strike me as being quite enough, and the Confucius Institute at University of Waterloo does not appear to be notable. Thus, I think that restoring the pre-existing redirect to Li Yan is appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 01:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 01:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 01:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 01:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 01:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 01:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per Rosguill's comment, this person does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. 01:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't think being a finalist for this award alone counts (though perhaps it does?), but I do just want to make it clear that this is a prize with money donated by Amazon; it's not a nothing award given by the online retailer for sales figures or something. The first book is definitely notable and I'll add some sources in a minute, not 100% sure about the second and not inclined to rabbithole right now. Redirect is no good - she'd be getting redirected to a dab page and nowhere to go from there. If it turns out she doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR it should redirect instead to an article on Daughters of the Red Land. -- asilvering (talk) 02:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The reasoning for the redirect is that Yan Li is a plausible or equally-valid alternate spelling for most of the entries at Li Yan. If a redirect about this subject is necessary, it can be made as Yan Li (novelist) or an equivalent. signed, Rosguill talk 03:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article creator here. Nominated for an independent prize, author of several novels that received reviews in independent publications and appear in academic monographs and thesis in literary studies. Searches poor-quality because name is common; looking into Canadian or Chinese sources shows plenty of sources Sheijiashaojun (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

：　if you want to convince yourself of Chinese sources: http://www.baidu.com/s?ie=utf-8&f=8&rsv_bp=1&rsv_idx=1&tn=baidu&wd=%E6%9D%8E%E5%BD%A5%E3%80%80%E5%8A%A0%E6%8B%BF%E5%A4%A7&fenlei=256&oq=%25E6%259D%258E%25E5%25BD%25A5&rsv_pq=b1ddaf570003b3dd&rsv_t=b2acJs0hq%2BnQe23Hu7ROfIMBS2vRibyPLjY0GoOUtzFBI3uj6zmdFDEjfNY&rqlang=cn&rsv_enter=1&rsv_dl=tb&rsv_btype=t&inputT=2717&rsv_sug3=22&rsv_sug1=11&rsv_sug7=100&rsv_sug2=0&rsv_sug4=4033

  • Keep In addition to the extensive Chinese sources listed above, the final reference in the article is to the 1996 review of a different book, which the AFD nomination seems to ignore. But there's more - what about the extensive and detailed 1998 Ottawa Citizen article about Li? This nomination fails WP:BEFORE - see ProQuest 240171767. Nfitz (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD nomination "ignores" the final reference in the article because it wasn't there at the time. -- asilvering (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with this being kept on WP:HEY grounds at this point, although I find it a bit amusing that I'm accused of not doing WP:BEFORE when I detailed the exact steps I took for a WP:BEFORE in the nomination statement. signed, Rosguill talk 15:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Nowhere in WP:BEFORE does it say "make sure you check proquest newspaper databases". -- asilvering (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine why one wouldn't check Proquest before though - perhaps time to revise Before? On that thought, I've just created WT:AFD#Is it time to amend BEFORE? Nfitz (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, not everybody has ProQuest access to check ProQuest. People can only do any BEFORE in resources that they have access to. And yes, ProQuest access can be gained through Wikipedia too, but first one has to know that — so perhaps the most appropriate update to WP:BEFORE would be to add a link to The Wikipedia Library, because it offers some really excellent additional research resources. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only those with less than 6 months or 500 edits don't have access to Proquest - so that's not a big barrier (that they can likely ignore if necessary). Nfitz (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sure, but that's where the "you have to know that the option exists in the first place before you can use it" part comes in. Anyway, I've added a bullet point to WP:BEFORE to encourage the use of The Wikipedia Library. Bearcat (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just saying, it's six months and 500 edits, not one or the other. It's an insurmountably high barrier to all IP editors and anyone with an account younger than six months old. -- asilvering (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really want newbs creating AFDs? Also, not a barrier, nothing would preclude doing one anyway. Still pointing to it rather than mandating it may be best solution. We should probably be talking about this at the Talk on that page. Nfitz (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Searching for the author is difficult as her name is so common, but searching for her book titles shows that her novels have been discussed in scholarly books and journals, so she passes WP:NAUTHOR#3 as the creator of a significant body of work. pburka (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There was a problem with the sourcing at first — I even tagged the article for primary sources and explained to the creator on their talk page what was actually required — but the creator clearly listened to my advice, because the sourcing has been improved. The Amazon.ca First Novel Award is certainly a significant enough literary award to count for something, as well: it obviously isn't so highly meganotable that the mere existence of a nomination would "inherently" exempt a person from having to have any quality sources, but it's enough for an article that can be sourced properly, and the sourcing is already considerably better than it was when I discussed it with the creator last night. (Also, incidentally, Amazon wasn't even the corporate sponsor of the award yet at the time Yan Li got her nomination for it — so you really have to be careful to keep your feelings about Amazon as an entity out this, because it was the Chapters First Novel Award in 1996 and Amazon didn't take it over until more than a decade later.) We can discuss whether the page should be moved to a disambiguated title very separately from having to delete it, by the way. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the page history, it seems that it was asilvering who deserves the credit for finding the additional sources. signed, Rosguill talk 20:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, although the creator has been directly involved too. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I appreciate everyone's interest and work. It might just be worth urging caution on nominating deletion re: Chinese people/names if you can't read Chinese because a) most sources will be in Chinese and b) pinyin ambiguity will get many names drowned in similar search results. It's different than Roman alphabet. Unlike French or Indonesian, say, a search in English just won't pull from Chinese-language sources. Bearcat's tag and explanation were very constructive, and thanks to them. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks Pburka for finding another review for Lily in the Snow. I was reluctant to try to build a keep case out of the one definitely notable book, the award shortlist, and her relationship to the plagiarism controversy, since that could easily head towards WP:UNDUE territory; but now it looks like it's a more comfortable WP:NAUTHOR pass. I also really get the sense that there is more in Chinese-language or maybe China-based journals that aren't turning up in my simple database checks. Someone interested in digging for more might go through the bibliography on that PhD thesis. -- asilvering (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. She's written several other books in Chinese that aren't even mentioned currently. pburka (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hope that someone who reads Chinese can expand from the info and sources in the zh.wiki article. PamD 08:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. VocalIndia (talk) 09:14, 15 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 01:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Hellmann[edit]

Rudolf Hellmann (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 was draftified; it seems marginal enough that I figured it was better to send it here. A search shows very few sources related to the subject himself, and nothing that seems to give WP:SIGCOV other a general biographical entry. Corresponding article in German doesn't have much more meat [38]. However, I'm unsure if I'm missing his notability because of the language barrier, so I figured it would be better to toss it to the community. Curbon7 (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He was awarded the Order of Karl Marx, the top civilian honour in the DDR. He also has a national encyclopedia entry linked in the article ([39]), though as this isn't "the" national encyclopedia of Germany so I'm not entirely sure if that counts for notability. So that's WP:ANYBIO #1, and maybe #3. He'll come up as at least a passing mention on most long-form writing on sport in the DDR and especially anything mentioning the doping scandals (an English-language example here, just a brief AP bulletin [40]). -- asilvering (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definitely passes WP:NPOL as well as WP:GNG. Quite a few books discuss him and there are news articles. The nominator is probably correct that there would be more sources in German. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the article should be kept. I created the article and I intend to work on improvements in the next weeks. However, I am not able to do so the moment, as I am on vacation. Let me give you a short background to the article: The article was basically translated from German Wikipedia, with minor changes. That is not the best way to write an article. But I chose the easy way in this case because I think it was a shortcoming that Wikipedia did not have an article about such an important politician in East Germany (he was the head of a department of the Central Committee and one of the three most important politicians in East German sports.[1]) Most (almost all) of the facts presented in the in the article can be found in the first article under "Further reading" ("Biography of Rudolf Hellmann, Federal Foundation for the Reappraisal of the SED Dictatorship"). I feel confident that I can find sources for the rest, and I intend to do so. I would also like to add that the Federal Foundation for the Reappraisal of the SED Dictatorship is a German public foundation founded by the German parliament. A presentation of the foundation can be found here: [2]. Kindest regards./EriFr (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see that a lot of improvements have been made to the article. Great job! /EriFr (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.bundesstiftung-aufarbeitung.de/de/recherche/kataloge-datenbanken/biographische-datenbanken/rudolf-hellmann
  2. ^ https://www.bundesstiftung-aufarbeitung.de/de/foundation
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Esther Brown[edit]

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

References and web search don't indicate this rises above routine coverage. Star Garnet (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep Before commenting I read what meets the criteria for routine events. This is absolutely not routine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Routine_coverage CT55555 (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:MILL, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Star Garnet (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see we're essentially having the same conversation on two delete pages, but they may not be closed by the same admin, so I'll say it here too: I'm open to being persuaded, but I'm inviting you rather than to link to policies, be really specific about which part of them you say applies here. I've read the NOTNEWS and I've read the GNG and I've read ROUTINE and this event is not routine, and it's not original reporting and it's not a news report and it is generally notable, so if you wish to persuade me to change my mine (and I'm open to being persuaded) then please really spell it out clearer please. CT55555 (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • On a world-scale, the media covers thousands of murders/killings/unnatural deaths at a high level of detail annually. It is not WP's place to compile that information, or even the few hundred that were covered most closely. Wikinews, sure. The four articles I nominated for deletion after browsing through the 30-odd 2021 murder/killing/death of X articles fall short of the others in level of news analysis and impact on outside events (I'm also skeptical of plenty of the others, but I could at least see a competent argument for them meeting at least one of the WP:EVENTCRITERIA). While they certainly received signicant coverage in the media, that is in the form of news reports. We don't have the secondary sources to satisfy SIGCOV. Could this incident gain notability through a book, law, or otherwise? Sure, in the way that some of today's paintings may get articles in 40 years. But until they have gained that secondary coverage, these are WP:NOTMEMORIAL material. Star Garnet (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I respect your good faith AfD here, I'd like to hear other opinions before opining further myself. I remain "keep" having downgraded from "strong keep" and will be open to being persuaded, hoping that others join in. For now, I'm watching and listening. CT55555 (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Putting aside whether or not the 'significant coverage' that the event received qualifies as SIGCOV (the sources are reliable but not secondary), I would suggest you look at WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Particularly this paragraph: "Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article." Star Garnet (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A murder with rape of an old person in their own home by a sex offender they did not know is not "a routine murder". It is atypical and is the sort of crime that results in political campaigns being started or commissions of inquiry to pin the blame on somebody. Allow this article time to evolve for a few years. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 81 women killed in 28 weeks (Guardian) is the only WP:SECONDARY source I have found, and it only mentions Esther Brown, in a list. Beccaynr (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because it has significant coverage and is completely not routine. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - significant coverage, good sourcing. Per WP:GNG at this point. BabbaQ (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - after WP:OR/WP:SYNTH was removed, there is no indication of enduring notability. This subject also does not appear to objectively meet the GNG, e.g. fn3, It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works and the brief burst of coverage is not WP:SUSTAINED. Beccaynr (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more consensus on NOT NEWS/Notability and depth of sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/Comment I already opined above, so don't double count this, but I also waivered, so restating for clarity. Also noting that specific feedback was sought on [WP:NOTNEWS] here goes. I see that NOTNEWS gives four things to avoid. 1 - Original reporting. This is not original reporting, everything is cited. 2 It warns against creating articles for routine news of "announcements, sports or celebrities", my anlysis is that trivial content should be avoided. I don't think this article makes that mistake. 3 NOTNEWS tells us to make it about an event, not a person, as this article does. 4 NOTNEWS tells us to avoid celebrity gossip or diary type stuff. This article is not that. To me, this article clearly does not make any of the mistakes that NOTNEWS warns to avoid. And it meets the GNG. I'd also say that this event was covered in The National, the BBC, Sky News and the Glasgow Times. The quality of the Glasgow Times I am uncertain of, but the others are credible news sources with their own employed journalists and editors, the suggestion that some newspapers in some places just copy each other's content is not credible, in this context, to me. This article meets the GNG and none of the comments above, which I've considered carefully, convince me otherwise. CT55555 (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NOTNEWS also states, Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events, and per WP:N, Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics, which per the GNG, should include WP:SECONDARY sources to provide the most objective evidence of notability, which would distinguish this article from a brief burst of news articles about a tragic event. Per WP:SBST, Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage, and this is why this 12-sentence article does not appear to meet the GNG. Similarly, the WP:EVENT guideline states in the nutshell section, An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time, and this criteria also does not appear to be supported by the available sources at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already commented earlier, so really tried to avoid repeating my points and focus on the specific point that the admin? wanted input ons, but now you have brought other points up, so I'll comment on them: On notability, every source cited is secondary, they are journalists commenting on events that they were not involved. On WP:SBST, this is not "routine" nor a "press release" and while one source was tabloid, neither the National nor BBC are tabloid. There is one aspect of WP:SBST that I'll acknowledge doesn't support my argument to keep, and that is the need for there to be analysis, the sources do all tend to say what happened without analysis, so I'll concede that point. But I don't think the length of the article is a point to argue on, there's plenty that can be added to it and AfD is not the correct process if we think the article is too short, the correct response to that is to work on the article (I did add a bit to it some days ago, I might do more later). The question of if reporting on the event will continue with time - it's a bit early to tell, we can speculate, it could be argued either way. As someone said above, the brutal rape and murder of an older person by a stranger is an exceptionally uncommon event and it's reasonable to assume that public commentary will be sustainable, but we could speculate either way, Wikipedia does have articles about recent events, so that is no reason to delete. So in summary, I see the things you are pointing to, I accept some validity to the lack of analysis and I acknowledge the unknown about the sustainability of interest. And I remain in my opinion to keep. (I got an edit conflict, as I posted this, so replying to the first version) CT55555 (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where this clearly runs afoul of NOTNEWS is part 2. This is simply a series of news reports strung together. This isn't the fault of the article; there's nothing but news reports to draw from. There are no SIGCOV-passing sources. 95%+ of media coverage (reports, interviews, human interest stories, breaking news, editorials, investigative reports, etc.) is not SIGCOV-passing coverage, and does not contribute meaningfully to GNG-worthiness. In this case, it's straight reporting of facts, with negligible analysis. The set of events isn't generic, but murder and/or rape of older people is hardly groundbreaking, and it isn't noted as being so. There's nothing to suggest that this event will have a meaningful impact on larger events, which is the essense of notability as it relates to societal topics. Star Garnet (talk) 05:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I respect the point you are making, even if I don't share your conclusion. I won't add more, as it would be repetitive. I'm confident the closing admin will give both our different conclusions fair consideration, along with hopefully more perspectives. All the best to you. CT55555 (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTNEWS applies. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yes this is absolutely not routine and surely should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.102.255.40 (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe this incident escapes the confines of WP:NOTNEWS due to the unique circumstances of the attack, which was perpetrated by a repeat offender who had been released from prison. Besides for the ongoing coverage leading up to and including the perp's conviction in court, the case has a WP:LASTING effect due to politicians weighing in on it, such as "The Scottish Conservatives are now calling for greater transparency around parole decisions." [41] StonyBrook (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - coverage is good, event is significant. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:35, 16 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 01:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tobi Atkins[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Only 1 major role. Being related to someone notable doesn't add to notability. LibStar (talk) 01:06, 9 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 01:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fenn Haven, Indiana[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fenn Haven, Indiana (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 first nomination came before it had really sunk in how unreliable GNIS can be, and aside from a surprising number of false hits the searching is characteristic of an unimportant placename, with one exception: this snippet which fits in with the single house visible in the oldest aerials, soon to be surrounded by tract housing and eventually demolished. Fenn Haven is just a suburban development, not a town. Mangoe (talk) 01:00, 9 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 01:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Compensation methods[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, mostly original research, and largely just repeats what is already sufficiently covered at Online advertising. How is "compensation methods" a valid encyclopedic topic, and why would such a topic be so limited to the online advertising industry? Having this as a (long) article doesn't make any sense at all. ZimZalaBim talk 04:14, 2 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! 00:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete all point raised by nominater are valid, in fact, its refrence section has a line with no source what so ever, and only one of the four refrences (one not being a real page) one is a advertisment, one is just a google search, and only one is a news site,, so delete or remake Im really bad at this (talk) 18:58, 9 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 as blatant hoax. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Peters[edit]

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

Appears to be a less-obvious hoax. Everything seems to be fabricated, including songs, connections to Melanie C and the Stone Roses, death, etc. Star Garnet (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've raised this at AN/I.Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:24, 9 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 01:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Declan Sheehan[edit]

Declan Sheehan (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)

Easily fails WP:GNG. One Super League appearance would technically pass WP:RLN, but I'm not sure he actually played in the game that the article claims anyway (he is not in the squad in this match report or the club's team news). J Mo 101 (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Robert Delgado[edit]

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

References and web search don't indicate this rises above routine coverage. Entry at List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, April 2021 is sufficient. Star Garnet (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 00:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see a lot of reliable media coverage of this event. It is notable and therefore meets the criteria for inclusion. CT55555 (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:MILL, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Star Garnet (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • To expand: On a world-scale, the media covers thousands of murders/killings/unnatural deaths at a high level of detail annually. It is not WP's place to compile that information, or even the few hundred that were covered most closely. Wikinews, sure. The four articles I nominated for deletion after browsing through the 30-odd 2021 murder/killing/death of X articles fall short of the others in level of news analysis and impact on outside events (I'm also skeptical of plenty of the others, but I could at least see a competent argument for them meeting at least one of the WP:EVENTCRITERIA). While they certainly received signicant coverage in the media, that is in the form of news reports. We don't have the secondary sources to satisfy SIGCOV. Could this incident gain notability through a book, law, or otherwise? Sure, in the way that some of today's paintings may get articles in 40 years. But until they have gained that secondary coverage, these are WP:NOTMEMORIAL material. While this incident may have initially appeared to have the potential to have a WP:LASTING impact, that has not been the case, and seems unlikely to. Star Garnet (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This police involved shooting is not a routine "killing". Since the death of George Floyd, Police legitimacy in the USA has become subject to protests as well as some commentary by academics. If this article is deleted then it is likely that content will be inappropriately added to articles like George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon. Keeping this article provides a home for this content, rather than having it added elsewhere. Because of the current high profile of police involved shootings in the USA, it is likely that more article like this are going to be created by contributors. Give this article time to develop, as there is probably more to come on the subject. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input needed especially as it relates to news v. notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Usama Nadeem Satti[edit]

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

References and web search don't indicate this rises above routine coverage. Star Garnet (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Star Garnet (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Star Garnet (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Star Garnet (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dawn have a full article on it, it's a notable event reported on by credible press. CT55555 (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:MILL, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Star Garnet (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • To expand: On a world-scale, the media covers thousands of murders/killings/unnatural deaths at a high level of detail annually. It is not WP's place to compile that information, or even the few hundred that were covered most closely. Wikinews, sure. The four articles I nominated for deletion after browsing through the 30-odd 2021 murder/killing/death of X articles fall short of the others in level of news analysis and impact on outside events (I'm also skeptical of plenty of the others, but I could at least see a competent argument for them meeting at least one of the WP:EVENTCRITERIA). While they certainly received signicant coverage in the media, that is in the form of news reports. We don't have the secondary sources to satisfy SIGCOV. Could this incident gain notability through a book, law, or otherwise? Sure, in the way that some of today's paintings may get articles in 40 years. But until they have gained that secondary coverage, these are WP:NOTMEMORIAL material. Star Garnet (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is not simply a "killing", it is an extra-judicial killing by police/security forces that has provoked a good deal of protest in Pakistan, as well as evidence of a police cover-up. It is also interesting to have this article to compare with similar article concerning police involved killings in other countries. This article has a number of lines of development apparent in the sources that are not yet covered in the article. The current article content does not determine notability. Also, possible future coverage should be considered. Existing reports indicate there is more to come in this story, so it should be allowed to develop. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it is well sourced, but the article does need more expanding. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more time for policy based input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:06, 9 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_9&oldid=1072356951"