Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 14 March 16 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Edwards[edit]

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

Appears to be an occasional comedian and jobbing actor. No major roles and no reliable, independent coverage about him that I can see. Personal info is uncited and the article relies heavily on YouTube and casting agents website. Fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William Kidney[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Could not find SIGCOV or RS on him. Natg 19 (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Wheaton Academy boys' lacrosse team[edit]

2022 Wheaton Academy boys' lacrosse team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS Troutfarm27 (Talk) 21:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Illinois. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A minor sport in a private high school? Not a chance. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the criteria by which something is judged a minor sport? The team under discussion is national level. Would the high school national champion in the sport merit a page? If so, a case could be made for the inclusion of this page. Mountlaxfan (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus was that the found sources were sufficient to warrant an article, passing WP:FILMMAKER. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Steindorff[edit]

Scott Steindorff (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 due to lack of coverage in secondary sources. The article cites only one source and reads like a press release. While films and shows he's produced are notable, Steindorff himself does not appear to be. If a movie or show is notable it doesn't mean that everybody who worked on it is automatically notable by association. JMB1980 (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Businesspeople, Television, and Minnesota. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Please see WP:FILMMAKER. Article needs cleaned up and/or tagged but the person meets the criteria of FILMMAKER. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that WP:FILMMAKER is considered "additional criteria" and that he would still have to meet the standard for WP:BASIC to be considered notable, which he doesn't. Considering the apparent lack of coverage in secondary sources, I don't think its possible to solve the main issues with this article, even if some of the smaller problems (such as the article's promotional tone) can be solved. JMB1980 (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It wouldn't make sense to have additional criteria that doesn't count for anything if you don't meet GNG, otherwise why have it???.Jupiteralien (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose it's because meeting the basic notability criteria alone may not be sufficient to determine whether or not somebody is notable.
    It's clearly listed under "additional criteria" on the notability page, with the word "additional" meaning it's supplementary to something else; in context, it's apparent that it's supplemental to the general notability guidelines. JMB1980 (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:SNG, Wikipedia articles are generally written based on in-depth, independent, reliable sourcing with some subject-specific exceptions relating to independence. The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia. And from the WP:BIO SNG, beneath the WP:BASIC section, at the top of the Additional criteria section: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. These are alternative guidelines for supporting notability, sorted into broad categories that can help guide research and discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on number of shows he has Executive Produced, such as Las Vegas, which was very popular on NBC. He meets WP:FILMMAKER. Jupiteralien (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I have reduced the content that did not have sources and added a few citations. Jupiteralien (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Yankı Yönel[edit]

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

highly promotional resume about an apparently non-notable radio presenter. Though he has quite a career, it doesn't appear he's received any significant in depth coverage. CUPIDICAE💕 18:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. PR... --Kadı Message 19:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ankita Gaba[edit]

Ankita Gaba (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 don't see how she manages to pass our notability guideline. the news article are as if the company is promote [1], [2] Cinzia007 (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC) struck statement by confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Salad Fingers. Despite the long discussion, nobody here is for keeping the article, but there is no strong preference for deletion as opposed to redirection to his series which is an obvious WP:ATD. Whether any content should be merged to Salad Fingers can be figured out through the editorial process. Sandstein 08:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Firth[edit]

AfDs for this article:
David Firth (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)

After having done my WP:BEFORE, I just don't see the significant coverage by reliable independent sources necessary to warrant a standalone article per WP:BIO. When it comes to sourcing, nothing much seems to have changed since the article was last deleted. Instead of deletion, this article might be redirected to his popular internet series Salad Fingers. For anyone voting to keep, please provide sources upon which one would be able to construct a viable article as I would be happy to improve it. Throast (talk | contribs) 17:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: They did not. As I have already outlined in my rationale, the most recent nomination was successful because there was consensus that the subject failed to meet WP:BIO. Actually, the only nomination that failed was arguably decided not based on the quality of arguments but on the sheer number of votes. Keeps did not substantiate their arguments beyond "meets WP:BIO".(talk | contribs) 19:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, "the most recent nomination" was 14 years ago? What did the article actually look like, then? So we can make a valid comparison. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the article looked like back then is irrelevant to this discussion. I'm arguing that the sourcing (meaning the sources available) has not changed in a way that would meet notability guidelines. The rationale is the same as it was 14 years ago. Throast (talk | contribs) 23:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'm saying it's wholly relevant, if you wish to say "because there was consensus that the subject failed to meet WP:BIO." On my Talk page you say "The article has seen no significant improvement since it was first created in 2004 or so." So, just to be clear, you're saying that the article is 'no better now than it was in 2008? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This thread is pointless. I've stated my rationale for deleting the article very clearly in the first sentence: I just don't see the significant coverage by reliable independent sources necessary to warrant a standalone article per WP:BIO. That's the thesis you should refute if you're voting to keep. Let's stop needlessly cluttering up this page. Throast (talk | contribs) 09:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible merge with Salad Fingers, except that David Firth seems to be a wider topic than Salad Fingers, and so should be preserved as the main article, i.e. Salad Fingers should redirect here. But would first advocate a discussion at the Talk page to clarify that no more sources can be found. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you're voting to merge Salad Fingers to David Firth, you're essentially voting to keep, hence the burden is on you to prove that the subject is notable. Throast (talk | contribs) 10:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how Salad Fingers can be notable and David Firth not, when he has created much more than just that one series. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not inherited but has to be proven for each individual subject. Just because a person has done (or in this case created) something notable doesn't necessarily make themselves notable. Throast (talk | contribs) 13:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see, so we're really dragging this out. That source would be about David Firth. It's also promotional because it advertises an event of his and hence probably shouldn't count as an independent source (It literally has a "Buy tickets" button at the bottom). Throast (talk | contribs) 13:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you describe as "dragging this out", might also be seen as relevant discussion about possible sources. What about this one? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure you've accidentally put in a wrong link. That article has nothing to do with David Firth. Throast (talk | contribs) 13:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article is obviously centered around Salad Fingers and mentions Firth only in passing. It's also promoting a tour of his. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That source is, in essence, also about Salad Fingers. It's also an interview, hence a primary source, which generally shouldn't be used to base notability on. For more on that thought, see Wikipedia:Interviews. Throast (talk | contribs) 14:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously. Significant coverage of Salad Fingers, not of Firth. I guess it would be better to compile multiple sources into one response instead of asking me about each one individually. I also can't imagine that you're this oblivious about what constitutes "significant coverage". Throast (talk | contribs) 14:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this this one from Pitchfork is really about "Locust Toybox" or is promotional? Surely reliable sources are intended to support only relevant claims? I suspect there are very many BLP articles at Wikipedia which have very many sources for small pieces of information, about individual works or projects, and none that constitute "significant coverage" of an entire career (perhaps until that person dies and gets an obituary). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like you might be very busy, then. Gosh, as if I would ever want to "voice grievances". But yes, that guideline may be a bit too general. I'm sure it's far easier to find "significant coverage" of a single series like Salad Fingers, than it is to find comparable coverage of the whole life of the person who created it (and many other things). This discussion seems to demonstrate just that. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. So, can we agree that, until you've gathered consensus to eradicate "significant coverage" from GNG, this article should best be redirected to Salad Fingers for now? If we can agree, I can withdraw the nomination, as not very many other editors seem to be interested so far. Throast (talk | contribs) 15:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would strongly suggest that no decision is made before other editors have had an opportunity to express a opinion and offer arguments, with any sources if they have them. This nomination has not even been open for 24 hours yet? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can only find one short article almost about him, in The Scottish Sun. It gives his date of birth and where he's "from" but the rest of the article is about his works. The WP article mainly uses non-independent and non-reliable sources, and these need to be removed, especially references to his tweets. What we seem to have here is a pretty comprehensive biographical article with no reliable sources for the biographical information - Twitter, IMDB, Youtube, ISSUU (which is a pay-to-play site for artists). It just can't stand as it is. Lamona (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long Comment - Hey @Throast:, this is PantheonRadiance commenting on this AfD outside of my account. I saw the arguments you proposed and I have a few concerns about them.
First off, I wanted to address your use of WP:Interviews. It seems you dismissed the Narc magazine interview as a primary source seemingly because it contains statements directly from him. While I’m unsure of the reliability of this magazine, I don’t think it automatically qualifies as a primary source for that reason. From what I’ve seen, text-based interviews are a double-edged sword; they can either work as primary or secondary sources, or sometimes blur the lines between both. However, to dismiss an interview as an unusable source for establishing notability is a bit much. Many in-depth articles that grant notability to BLP subjects on Wikipedia are often interviews of the subject that contain quotes directly from them. However, they also have independent synthesis, summary and/or analysis of those quotes and the person in general. See these for example:
Meanwhile, a primary source interview which merely consists of information straight from the "horse's mouth" would generally look like this. This Q/A interview solely consists of bolded questions along with statements straight from the subject itself, with little to no explanation of the subject beyond that. Comparing the Narc source, it seems more in line with the three SS interviews rather than the Q/A one. That interview in particular contains “evaluative quotes” from the author about Firth and Salad Fingers, conveying both the elusive nature of both him and the web series.
Second off, the argument of notability not being inherited is honestly a faulty precedent when it comes to creative professionals and the works they make (to clarify: NOT works they were marginally involved in). If it weren't for the person creating the series, then that series wouldn't even exist in the first place. So it only seems natural that sources that discuss the subject also discuss the works they created in tandem, and vice versa. In this regard, the works an artist creates is often an extension of themselves and an important part of their careers. However, that doesn't automatically mean a subject is notable solely because they created such a series. Rather, a single source can be balanced between coverage about the web series and the person itself. And looking at the provided sources, these could still be used to establish the notability of the creator as there is still some usable information about the subject that falls into the article (like the Ladbible source mentioning other works he created: “Firth has since gone on to put his talents to other projects, from web series such as Spoilsbury Toast Boy and Burnt Face Man to flash animations like Musical Predictions 2009 and Jerry Jackson”). Martinevans123 proposed a merge, but I don’t agree with that. Merging information about the subject to their own work would risk the article being too out of scope, mainly because information on him and his other contributions would be irrelevant to Salad Fingers’ notability. In this case, a WP:SPLIT is more applicable here.
Finally, one specific guideline you failed to mention was WP:NARTIST. Specifically, criteria #3 which aptly applies to Firth: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." While notability isn't inherited, David qualifies as this because he himself created the already notable and significant Salad Fingers which passes the notability guidelines. Not to mention, the essay you linked states this: "four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances." Even that essay acknowledges the inheritance of notability through the work a subject creates. Seeing as how notability-granting sources do exist that cover Salad Fingers and David Firth together, the Artist guideline should be taken into consideration moving forward in this debate.
Anyway, I'm not officially voting on this discussion because frankly I don't care much for Salad Fingers or Firth. I merely wish to highlight the issues present in the AfD and comment on the failings of the notability guidelines in the presence of multiple significant, reliable and independent secondary sources. But if the sources in the article aren't enough to convince you, then here's a couple more that editors should discuss.
Also @Lamona: The Scottish Sun isn't a reliable source, so that source shouldn't be used at all. 2601:204:D981:8130:B595:613D:C7D8:5E46 (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sure is a lot of text for someone who doesn't care enough to vote. The little bit of secondary info in the Narc interview is pretty much exclusively about Salad Fingers. The rest is primary. Again, no significant coverage of Firth there. The argument of notability not being inherited is honestly a faulty precedent, you say. Notability can simply not be inherited. Anyone who has a clear and unbiased understanding of what notability means on Wikipedia would conclude that. In a few cases of so-called "parent-child" relationships (outlined in this essay), it is inherited. However notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent. David Firth, the creator or the "parent" of Salad Fingers, the work or the "child", can therefor not inherit his work's notability. WP:NARTIST does not override GNG, which I'm arguing is not met. The three sources you provide at the end do not change my opinion. Throast (talk | contribs) 00:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What many people seem to forget in these sort of discussions is this: If a person is notable by Wikipedia's standards, editors should be able to produce a well-written, somewhat elaborate biographical article about that person. With the sourcing available, that seems to be an impossible task. There's just not enough in-depth info about the person out there. Throast (talk | contribs) 01:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Torre[edit]

Peter Torre (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 DJ, the claims are largely fabricated or unable to be verified (outside of paid for interviews in black hat SEO) and claims of working with the likes of Snoop Dog are exaggerated and based on a poorly written press release. CUPIDICAE💕 17:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 01:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amarillo by Morning (film)[edit]

Amarillo by Morning (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)

Appears to fail WP:MOVIE and GNG Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Texas. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sourcing is admittedly pretty difficult to dig out of the false positives and so on, but I'm finding it. It took a while, but I also found a source that shows that it was screened at the MOMA, not a small feat. It was part of a retrospective, but the fact it was chosen shows that it was seen as an important work of his. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And by difficult I mean that finding sources is like trying to pull teeth from an Olympic athlete running in the opposite direction at full speed. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the reception section now shows coverage in multiple reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 06:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 1999–2000 Chester City F.C. season. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Carver[edit]

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

Article about semi-professional footballer which doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. I cannot find any SIGCOV online - just trivial coverage like match reports and database entries or a quick profile like this. Jogurney (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Illinois. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically he was a pro as the 1999–2000 Chester City F.C. season was in the third division (now EFL League Two), which is fully professional. Chester was relegated at the end of season 1999-2000. Lack of coverage and any other pro appearance would support deletion despite this.--Mvqr (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That playing in the 3rd level division could be enough that every player in it is notable does not make sense. We need to find ways to only include the top level players in lower divisions, not every person who plays.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you define a top level player in a lower division? No Great Shaker (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Aftershock[edit]

WWE Aftershock (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)

Very low effort article, 4 references, and not even a gameplay section. Either redirect to WWE 2K, or have it deleted. TheSecondComing10 (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newport Primary School[edit]

Newport Primary 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)

Prod contested without improvement. Small, non-notable primary school which fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Scotland. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found no evidence of notability. (t · c) buidhe 19:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Articles for primary schools are rarely kept. I'm not seeing any WP:SIGCOV. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are articles showing it exists, but existence does not equal notability for primary schools. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete schools that do not teach children in their late teens are almost never notable, and there is nothing to suggest this schools is one of the extremely rare exceptions to this rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As said above primary schools seldom have the kind of notability that would merit an article and this example is no different. Dunarc (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow delete as this clearly fails WP:GNG and there's a pretty strong consensus to delete it. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kamu Laird[edit]

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

Article about semi-professional footballer which doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. I cannot find any SIGCOV online - just trivial coverage like match reports and database entries or a quick profile like this. Jogurney (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Trinidad and Tobago. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically he was a pro as the 1999–2000 Chester City F.C. season was in the third division (now EFL League Two), which is fully professional. Chester was relegated at the end of season 1999-2000. Lack of coverage and any other pro appearance would support deletion despite this.--Mvqr (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. Alternatively redirect to 1999–2000 Chester City F.C. season as his sole claim to fame. GiantSnowman 21:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet GNG. If the consensus is that "scapping by on NFOOTBALL with a handful of appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed" maybe it is time that we recalibrate NFOOTBALL in a way that better reflects actual likelihood of passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The key word in GiantSnowman's point is consensus. I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS, Lambert. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also that is exactly what we are doing right now, trying to write updated guidelines for footballers... Which makes Johnpacklambert's comment completely pointless. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raul Kiria[edit]

Raul Kiria (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 see notability Mehman 97 14:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KAS Air Company[edit]

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

fails gng. almost no info on airline found. 晚安 (トークページ) 14:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Hog Farm Talk 13:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Sawyer Software[edit]

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

Article on non-Notable company, fails WP:NCORP. This article has been tagged for the Notability issue for 6 years. It has been also been tagged as written like an advertisement for 9 years. I would say the article is nothing but a product advertisement, but that's not quite true. It also includes non-notable awards that the company almost won, as well as several 3rd-place awards that employees have received... when they were in high school. Even if this topic were deemed Notable, the content is so bad it would require WP:TNT and restarting the article from scratch anyway.

Note that this is the state of the article after the worst crap has been cleaned out. Various editors have been doing assorted free-maintenance and free-cleanup on this article advertisement for 11 years now.

I preformed a Google News search looking for any sources to support Notability. I checked all 15 search hits. About the "best" I source I found was this source reporting that this company had been hacked and leaked information for 60,000 accounts. However that source accepts paid advertorials disguised as native content, which you can see listed if you click the "advertise with us" link on that page. That clearly disqualifies the site from being considered a WP:Reliable source. Alsee (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Based on article improvement and reduced opposition. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 Wrexham A.F.C. season[edit]

2021–22 Wrexham A.F.C. season (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)

PROD was removed, this fails the SNG WP:NSEASONS and has been deleted twice before. Govvy (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to I improve this article to avoid deletion, i have included well sourced references. Yurijohnson (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yurijohnson: please read Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Individual seasons, which says:
  • Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that such articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created.
For this article to be kept we need a few paragraphs of continuous text that review the club's activities in the season, without mentioning trivial events or including extended lists. This needs to to be based on reliable sources: good starting points might be the Daily Post, or a BBC website. However, as the team play in a relatively low-level league and they did not have an FA Cup run there may be insufficient reliable sources to make an acceptable article. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to. User:Yurijohnson, look at what the main-stream media has been saying. I've seen a surprising amount of coverage of Wrexham here recently in North America in relationship to Ryan Reynolds. Surely some of it relates to their current season. A couple of good references, and some text, rather than just stats, and you're golden. Nfitz (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Such as the 20-camera crew at Wrexham games this season, according to CBC, working on a new FX docu-series called Welcome To Wrexham. Nfitz (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your suggestion Yurijohnson (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited a few sentences in the page Yurijohnson (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - much improved, likely meets GNG. GiantSnowman 22:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow Keep Following article improvement I feel that this article can meet GNG. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have add a few more references, is there enough coverage for this article? I saw a few sources linking to it Yurijohnson (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this was a WP:NOTSTATS violation at the time of nomination and, while it does fail WP:NSEASONS, I would say that the BBC and ESPN coverage is enough to get through on WP:GNG. There is now at least some well-sourced prose in the article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can i ask why does it fails WP:NSEASONS, i saw 2019–20 Sunderland A.F.C. season page which has similar format with this. Yurijohnson (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wrexham played in the 5th tier National League (English football) which is not professional per WP:FPL. There has been consensus that such articles should be deleted unless they meet WP:GNG, which I would argue this does. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of similar articles is far from conclusive, see WP:WHATABOUTX. Numerous Wikipedia articles should probably be deleted, and the identification of questionable articles depends on interested editors finding them. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added a USA Today reference about this season's increased season-ticket sales. The article has been much improved and meets WP:GNG, and there is international coverage about the season. Ping User:GiantSnowman to review references. Nfitz (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps User:REDMAN 2019 and User:Number 57 can also review their deletes, in light of the article improvement. Nfitz (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Explicit,
The article had several credible links from local newspapers in India. The said movie in question was also listed on IMDB, Youtube. Can you please help me understand what would be required to re-instate this article?
Thanks. Lovelustlife (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rani Agrawal[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rani Agrawal (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 WP:GNG, no WP:SIGCOV, Only one source film Love recipe that too not independent and definitely not reliable. Cinzia007 (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC) struck confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No WP:RELY are used here. Not fulfilling the WP:GNG policy. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on number of TV series and films, she would seem to qualify based on guidelines of WP:ENT. I also say this because several of teh TV series she has been in have Wiki pages, so they would seem to be notable TV series, hence it establishes notability. Jupiteralien (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not satisfying the WP:GNG policy. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No evidence of meeting NACTOR and lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG. Many Indian TV shows themselves rest on shaky notability, so merely having linked articles is not sufficient. Needs to be backed up by independent and reliable sources which is not the case here, nothing worthy was found in a BEFORE search. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

U Kadam[edit]

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

Article was created by editor who now acknowledges they are the subject of the article and has requested deletion, so I am nominating on their behalf. See [3]. I'm not sure it meets WP:NPROF anyway. Melcous (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of this page and I do acknowledge that it was a mistake on my part to violate wikipedia guidelines on conflict of interests. I do want to correct this wrong and look upon to remove this page ASAP. Thank you Civilizations1234 (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Some news around JNU protests is there. But it will not give the subject any notability I think. WP:GNG is not realized here. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Magalir Mattum (1994 film). Star Mississippi 01:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies Only[edit]

Ladies Only (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 film never released, and is better merged with Magalir Mattum (1994 film). Kailash29792 (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Magalir Mattum (1994 film) per nom. The unfinished film lacks enough coverage on its failure to meet WP:NFF, merge with the original per WP:ATD-M. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even though the completed film that failed to have a theatrical release, it was a very notable (upcoming)film of Bollywood as veteran actor Randhir Kapoor was signed to play the lead role. As a Kamal Haasan production, the casting of popular actresses Seema Biswas and Shilpa Shirodkar also made the film very notable. The page is already having adequate references even though it's an early 90's production. The film deserves a stand alone page irrespective of its original version and finally wikipedia do have a category of Unreleased films. Rajeshbieee (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article does not explain why its failure is notable as per WP:NFF. Moreover, its a stub with just a few lines of meaningful content. A standalone article is not warranted here anyway because it can easily be covered as a section of the original film. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (very selectively) to Magalir Mattum (1994 film), it lacks significant coverage on its own to justify a separate page. Cavarrone 10:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Sailing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Star. History remains under the redirect should further sourcing on his yacht club work be identified and consensus develops for a new standalone Star Mississippi 01:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minoru Takarabe[edit]

Minoru Takarabe (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)

Takarabe was a competitor in the Olympics who did not medal. We lack any significant coverage, and my search for such turned up a name inclusion in a periodical about Japanese things from 1936, but nothing else. That as a bare name listing with no context of added information. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • His bio states he was the chairman of a yacht club in Japan, which has the origins of yachting in the country. I suspect there are sources for this in Japanese, so I've dropped a note on the Japan WikiProject. At worst, redirect to Sailing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Star, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not a bio. That is an extremely short write up connected with a sports database. You have not in any way identified any new sources. We need significant coverage to justify an article, which you have not at all produced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Most Olympians have wiki-pages who also didn't medal. Going along with your opinion would result in thousands of otherwise non-notable Olympians being deleted. Réunion (stylised) - (talk to me) 16:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:NOLYMPICS guidelines were changed recently to specifically exclude Olympians who did not medal from automatic notability. They all used to survive under the old guidelines, but they are now fair game for AfD. Jumpytoo Talk 17:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I wasn't aware of this change, sad. Réunion (stylised) - (talk to me) 18:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • To understand the policies of Wikipedia read the guidlines. The Olympic guidelines very clearly state that only Olympic medalists are default notable. However even then we still need significant coverage to justify keeping the article. No significant coverage has been shown here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      In other words, as has recently become clear at AfD, in practice even Olympic medallists' articles will now be deleted unless enough stuff can be found - separately from the usual sports-related sources - to satisfy a deletionist interpretation of GNG, so the above claim of "default notable" is meaningless, disingenuous or both.Ingratis (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Read the above conversation before sending redundant messages - Réunion (stylised) - (talk to me) 20:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It is in no way sad that Wikipedia has decided to give up on keeping articles sourced to one sports stats page that tell virtually nothing about people for whom we know almost nothing of their life, in many cases not even knowing if they lived 10 years or 60 years or more after they participated in the Olympics. This change will lead to a major improvement in the quality of the articles we have and removal of ones we do. It has caused improvement of existing articles so they now include more sources and a fuller view of the person in question's life, and has lead to the removal of many articles for which we know virtually nothing and have no sources giving indepth coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If no further sources can be found before this closes (presumably by a Japanese speaker happening to look into Japanese sources), then Redirect to Sailing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Star - on the basis of WP:ATD and WP:R#HARMFUL, which says: "deletion of redirects is harmful... if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time)" (my bolding). This has existed for almost two years, so long enough IMO. Ingratis (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is about redirects, not about articles. If we kept in place as at least a redirect article everything that had existed "almost 2 years" we would not delete most articles that comes to AfD. The policy you quote is about how we treat redirects, it has no bearing on what we do to articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for missing the point. It's about keeping a redirect from a longstanding article when there is no pressing reason not to have one. Look at WP:REDIRECTS and WP:ATD]. Ingratis (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Considering how this article was part of a thousands of articles the creator dropped on Wikipedia so fast he has since been banned from creating articles of this size, I do not think it is wise to consider it a long standing article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • That doesn't follow. Unlike with articles, the poise of redirects is that they're fine unless they're actively counterproductive but this is the opposite, for several reasons given and ignored. We're not going to agree, so enough. Ingratis (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sailing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Star Jawiki doesn't even have an article on this guy, and a Japanese language google search didn't get any results. Mlb96 (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to Sailing at the 1936 Summer Olympics – Star per WP:PRESERVE, etc. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus among established editors is Kors does not meet biographic notability, Star Mississippi 01:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Kors[edit]

Joshua Kors (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 violates WP:SELFPROMOTE and WP:BLPCOI in that it was created by and has been heavily edited by the subject via the usernames Jakors (as in Joshua A. Kors) and Joshuaiscanadian. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Kors is a prominent journalist who testified before Congress. The information here is fundamental to public knowledge. Dozens of people have edited this page over the last 15 years and so to say that it is one person's autobiographical statement is incorrect. 71.198.112.132 (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC) — 71.198.112.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
My dad is a veteran and I think that this article includes important information about ptsd military reporting that I should have access to. Atycer (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is very true- Joshua had done so much over the last 15 years. This has been edited by many many people. This article is not self-promotion at all. 2603:7000:A740:1AFA:19FB:6824:8BE8:BDD (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that this Wikipedia entry on journalist Joshua Kors should be removed as "self-promotion" is absolutely absurd. Kors is a prominent, award-winning journalist whose work on veterans' issues has been fundamental to news coverage of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Wikipedia entry on Kors has been edited more than 500 times over the course of 14 years by dozens of Wikipedia users of no relation to Kors. The person who nominated this page for deletion, Dennis C. Abrams, asserts that edits by user Joshuaiscanadian proves that the article is self-promotion. But Joshuaiscanadian is NOT Joshua Kors, the subject of the article, as Wikipedia's editors can verify. This Wiki article meets all of the criteria set by Wikipedia. It contains important information about the National Magazine Award-winning journalist's history and reporting and contains information that the public should have access to. It should NOT be deleted. MMartist365 (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC) — MMartist365 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Totally agree w/ MMartist365 - how can this article be self-promotion if this Joshuaiscanadian, who is accused of self-promoting, isn't mentioned in the article? Just because that user has the same first name as the article's subject? ..... If the article was selfpromotion, wouldn't it make opinioned claims about the subject? This article just lists facts from Kors's reporting career and Congressional actions. And those facts all have citations from outside sources.... This weird comment by Dennis C. Abrams and his nomination of this article "for immediate deletion" made me (Redacted) --- which means that his "nomination for deletion" is probably an act of revenge or sabotage, not an honest effort to safeguard Wiki policies or serve the public by deleting this article's information from Wikipedia. Trying to get an article deleted as an act of vendetta, isn't that a violation of Wikipedia policy? AnnaBloom127 (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • the page was started with someone with the user name that indicates it was this person. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy, and we should enforce policy and delete articles started in such incorrect ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd that it is even open for discussion. I personally have known Joshua Kors for over 15 years. I have watched him fight for those that cannot fight for themselves. He is as selfless and non self promoting as anyone I have met. I say that this attack on Joshua Kors needs to be dismissed and deleted and that M<r Kors and his reporting and legal work be allowed to move forward. 63.145.108.170 (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This wiki page is a perfectly acceptable resource to learn about Joshua Kors and the contributions he has made. I don't see any reason why this page should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zskyfly (talk • contribs) 23:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I get 4 hits total in Google and one in GNews, none of which show much of anything to support notability (beyond proving he exists). Almost run of the mill. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am a veterans advocate, and I attended Joshua Kors' address to the House of Representatives about VA benefits, which has been the focus of his reporting. Kors' investigation of veterans’ benefits for ABC News and The Nation and his testimony before Congress led to major changes in military policy that affected thousands of veterans. This Wiki entry about Kors provides important information about a prominent journalist and his investigation. It was written by over 50 Wiki contributors and edited more than 450 times over the course of 10+ years. All of the information in it has citations from trusted media and university sources. That is not self-promotion. Far from it. This article should remain on the site. Wikipedia’s readers deserve to have this valuable information. Vetadvocate2008 (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This wiki page is in no way in violation of any wiki policy. Mr. Kors is indeed an award-winning journalist and all content detailed is both factual and informative - 2 things sacrosanct to Wikipedia and why I donate annually to Wikipedia. NYCRVA (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Unambiguous copyvio. Source: [4]. -- asilvering (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to point out that there have been ten fourteen users who have opposed deletion of this article and nine thirteen of those ten fourteen have not made a single other edit to Wikipedia outside of this topic. I originally thought it was only ten because four of these users were so clearly new to Wikipedia that they put their edits in the wrong place. Several of these users have self-proclaimed conflicts of interest. This is completely reprehensible conduct from an attorney and a journalist. --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua has done a lot for the community over the years and leads a fascinating life. I have been following his career from his TedTalk appearance up until now as he uses his knowledge of the law to help many families get through the most difficult predicaments in their lives.

Whether it’s his love for family law or hearing his many thoughts opposing circumcising coming while from a Jewish household, Joshua has led a very interesting life. More and more people will discover Mr. Kors and I’m hoping this site continues to honor that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Luzzato (talk • contribs) 20:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is clearly just fine. The subject is a public figure, mainly for his journalistic work, and the content is appropriate for learning who he is and what he has written.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.213.98 (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Kors has helped untold soldiers through his work to expose unfair treatment of these men and women. He aides families now through his law practice. The main focus of the article is his journalistic career and is concise and accurate. The informative article should remain. Perhaps it could aide a soldier seeking help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gramma47 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article provides information on Joshua Kors, a journalist who has provided significant help to young men who have been wronged by the government. The article is also a source of information for anyone interested in the career and background of Joshua Kors. It should certainly be kept as a Wikipedia source of information. There is no valid reason for deleting it. 2600:8802:531A:7D00:9918:F1E4:A618:B4A8 (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  • Nikki Jauron - "I have followed Joshua's work for a decade and his insight is valid and clarity during civic affairs is nonpartisan and uses a fairness in his work. I would be saddened to hear Wikipedia would chose to delete his page as he is a significant contributor to justice in the 21st Century.

March 15th, 7:25 PST; 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.110.64 (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am a licensed attorney and have known Joshua for many years. His work is careful, thoughtful, and impeccable. It also varies widely, is useful to the public, and interesting. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5012:1A00:4927:503:A1FA:9842 (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful and unwarranted aspersions against the nominator redacted firefly ( t · c ) 08:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Little to no significant coverage that is actually about Kors. In addition, I have requested extended confirmed protection for this AfD in hopes we can have a real, policy-driven discussion going forward. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. If there's limited coverage (I have not looked myself, but nobody has pointed to substantial coverage yet), his best notability claim would seem to be the awards, for WP:ANYBIO. Of the awards he has actually won (rather than been a finalist for), three are significant enough awards to have their own wiki articles: National Magazine Award, IRE Award, and George Polk Award. Looking at the NMA article, only one of the NMA "Public Interest" winners has their own wikipedia article, indicating that this award does not confer wiki-notability. The IRE Award page does not even have a list of winners. On the List of George Polk Award winners, however, almost everybody has an article, so this award may be notable enough for ANYBIO. This is not my area of expertise, so I'd want to hear someone else weighing in that the George Polk Award is major enough to make someone notable. Until then, I lean delete, due to what appears to be a lack of significant coverage. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @LEvalyn If it does end up as a keep on basis of the awards, the history will have to be fully nuked anyway as copyvio. -- asilvering (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wiki readers and editors, I heard that this article about me was being considered for deletion and wanted to add some important context. The article was tagged for deletion by Dennis C. Abrams, an opposing counsel in a recent case. Abrams' firm pressed me to reveal confidential information about one of my clients. When I refused, he retaliated by tagging this Wikipedia article for deletion. We have reported his actions to the Bar Association. The Bar is now reviewing Abrams' misuse of Wikipedia and are considering sanctions. ... Undoubtedly, his actions didn't stem from a newfound passion for Wikipedia policies but as an act of vengeance against an opposing counsel who refused to violate the Bar's code of ethics. ... As for the merits of the case, I agree with the veterans' advocates who have posted here: When our investigation for ABC News won the Peabody Award and my reporting received the National Magazine Award (known in the industry as the Pulitzer of magazine reporting), I did become a prominent figure in the field. That's why I was called three times to testify before Congress -- and why Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton collaborated on a bill, signed into law by President Bush, ordering the Pentagon to investigate my reporting. It's also why the NY Times spotlighted my investigation on its front page. ... For Wiki readers, I believe this information and the sentence-by-sentence citations to outside, original reporting and news sources that have been put into place by more than 50 Wiki editors who have shaped the article with approx. 500 edits across the last 14 years have served the Wiki community -- providing important information and context for readers navigating these critical issues of military and veterans' benefits. Jakors (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, if true this is very concerning and should probably be addressed at WP:ANI (in terms of any Wikipedia-related conduct concerns). The vast majority of substantial edits to this article have been either by yourself, single-purpose accounts, or IPs. The rest of the edits made by other editors are either minor (spelling/grammar corrections, added categories, etc.) or maintenance related. The issue you covered may be notable, but you yourself do not appear to meet notability standards. In addition, you have violated a host of Wikipedia's policies including WP:AUTOBIO, WP:PROMO, WP:CANVASS. Piggybacking off a response Asilvering had on the AfD talk page, what important context and information does this article truly supply? Providing critical information and serving as a resource is not the purpose of Wikipedia. But even if that was the point, why would you not write directly about the issue your were covering or even the bill that resulted from the issue, both of which probably are closer to a WP:GNG pass? This would be somewhat understandable when it comes to trying to serve readers, but instead you chose to write about yourself. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One additional point I wanted to address: Opposing counsel Dennis C. Abrams, his core objection to this article is that it is self-promotion. That begs the question: Which of the 50+ writers and editors of this Wiki article are motivated by self-promotion? Redrose64 or Nthep or Strike Eagle or LindsayMarie119 or Boisterous Samurai or Iqadri85 or Joshuaiscanadian? None of these writers/editors are even mentioned in the article. And I have no idea who they are. So what about this collaboration is "self-promoting"? The very concept of a widespread, collaborative "self-promotion" doesn't make sense. ... I believe that the core of Wikipedia's mission is to provide verifiable, line-by-line sourced information about prominent topics and figures, information that serves the public, creates a jumping off point for readers who want to do more in-depth research, created in collaboration by a diverse range of unconnected Wiki contributors. That's exactly what this article is. ... It makes one wonder: Who would be served by taking this article down? What Wiki reader or contributor would benefit from having this information about the veterans' benefits scandal and the reporter who exposed that scandal deleted from the public conversation or eliminated as a resource? Jakors (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jakors Again, what resource? How would deleting this Wikipedia article eliminate this information as a resource? It's all taken directly from your own website, which, presumably, will continue to exist whether this WP article does or not. Here is the authorship data for the page, by the way: [5]. As this graph clearly shows, you are the major contributor to this article, and in fact very few people have made substantial edits to the page. Assuming you're also the IP editor (seems a reasonable assumption), the only non-bot editor to make any substantial changes is Ohconfucius.
You are not going to get anywhere rehashing the arguments already made on this page. To make a case for keeping this article, what needs to happen is a demonstration of a WP:GNG pass - significant, independent coverage of you as a person. (ie, not articles where you've been asked to comment on something - articles about you.) Can you provide any of this? -- asilvering (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Content Analysis[edit]

Advanced Content Analysis (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)

After 6 years, this article consists of less than a dozen unsourced sentences. Sean Brunnock (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Sean Brunnock (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In fact, this is probably the most deletable article I've ever seen. Not only does it contain no useable text, but I'm far from sure the title is useful. Unless 'advanced' content analysis were documented as a distinct concept separate to mere 'content analysis', there's no need for this. Elemimele (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What content is there here that is any different from our better-developed article on Content analysis? I see no need for a redirect from a title that merely places "advanced" in front of it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in favour of the superior content analysis article. A redirect is not appropriate due to subject WP:PUFFERY. SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. ✗plicit 13:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Device independence[edit]

Device independence (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)

Redirect to Cross-platform software which is more comprehensive and better maintained. Sean Brunnock (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PrototypeRadio[edit]

PrototypeRadio (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:SIRS, doesn't have significant coverage covering the company in depth. Sea Cow (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Cow states that Promo Only Promotions is not an authority worthy of mention. Promoonly is regarded as one of the biggest Radio trade magazines in the broadcast industry and a music service. In addition the radio program was one of the first programs on its kind on iheartmedai and iheartradio.
I am new to wikipedia and reviewed articles for electronic music radio programs and none of them have any information at all, i mentioned this to sea cow provided links and basically told me not to worry about the other articles when all they have pointing is a url to their page? I feel like im being targeted rather then helped and no matter what i do he comes back and edits it and shuts it down when other moderators have helped and provided edits to help me apply proper wikipedia writting. Mikehollins (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Music, and Internet. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the guide just Sea Cow suggested in his deletion of some of my edits. He said i need more then one source. I read the guide and it read.
    "We require the existence of at least one source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources."
    Promo Only is an Authority and a trade publication in the world of broadcast media. I submitted a pdf from an actual published magazine located at the sources website which list PrototypeRadio as guest speakers on two industry expert panels and a nomination for best syndicated mix show which Sea cow Deleted as he deemed PromoOnly not worthy.
    I followed instructions I event went and dug up PrototypeRadio's record labels ISNI, MusicBrainz, Discogs and other authorities, and library confirmation and added an authority confirmation. There is also a trade mark from the patent office that i dug of from the library of congress.
Comment None of those can be used to prove notability, beyond the fact that the thing exists. MusicBrainz is a user-generated wiki, so not reliable. Discogs is user-generated, same idea. ISNI is just a number for a thing, doesn't prove it's notable. Library authority cards basically just tell you something is on the shelf. Oaktree b (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that this article is worthy just from a historical perspective in the world of radio. Mikehollins (talk) 13:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To be clear, the notability test is not automatically cleared just because PrototypeRadio's own self-published website about itself offers technical verification that it exists, or because people from PrototypeRadio appeared as guest speakers on two industry expert panels, or because it got a nomination for best syndicated mix show from an award that doesn't have a Wikipedia article to establish that it's notable as an award — the notability test requires journalism to be done about PrototypeRadio in WP:GNG-worthy media outlets other than itself: that is, newspaper articles, magazine articles or books that discuss PrototypeRadio in prose that independently analyzes its significance. But none of the sources here meet that standard at all.
    Not every award that exists is automatically a notability-clinching award, for example: an award has to be notable (i.e. an award that gets coverage in the media) in order to make its winners or nominees notable on that basis, and an award that you have to source to the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself, because third party media coverage about the award is not available to establish the notability of the award, does not secure the notability of a winner or nominee for that award.
    And as for the number of sources, a thing does have to have multiple reliable and independent sources to be properly established as notable enough to have a Wikipedia article — one source merely stops a Wikipedia administrator from immediately smashing the delete button on sight without even having to take the article to any sort of discussion, and is not in and of itself sufficient to prevent the article from being deleted via the discussion-based prod or AFD processes: it takes several reliable sources to get an article onto safe notability ground that actually protects it from deletion discussions, and the only thing one source accomplishes is making the article ineligible to be immediately thrown into the trash can. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is a magazine article from Radio and Records magazine notable? Mikehollins (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    or Radio ink? Mikehollins (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Almost entirely self-published sources used for the article, I found zero sources in Google, Gnews. No reliable discussions about the station in anything published. Oaktree b (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    this radio music conference program is self published? http://www.posummersessions.com/ProgramGuides/SSPG12.pdf Mikehollins (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    this is self published? https://web.archive.org/web/20120704180728/http:/www.electricsoundstage.com/pages/showschedule.html Mikehollins (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    this is self published? http://www.wildatlanta.com/pages/PrototypeRadio.html Mikehollins (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    https://web.archive.org/web/20120301124134/http://www.wildatlanta.com/pages/PrototypeRadio.html Mikehollins (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks reliable, independent and significant coverage to pass WP:NCORP. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 13:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Niven Postma[edit]

Niven Postma (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)

Lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (t · c) buidhe 12:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 12:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 12:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article makes no substantive claims of anything that would actually show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A BLP doesn't need to make substantive claims in its expository text to establish notability. What matters is whether the person is notable. On Wikipedia, notability is established by reference to reliable, independent sources that substantially note the person. And they must be substantial -- mere brief mentions don't count. It's also possible that Niven Postma, as a person versus the book she has written, are separate notability issues, and taken separately, neither would rise to Wikipedia standards of notability. I don't feel qualified to judge. Several articles about either Niven Postma or her book are listed in the references section. I separated out articles that originate one way or another from Niven Postma in an external links section. There are cases where an issue of "independence" arises -- e.g. if it's shown that the majority of the articles about Niven Postma were paid placement on the part of Niven Postma, or that she holds an editorial positions with the media organizations hosting content about here. In that case, I would vote Delete. As it is, having created the article, but with questions about notability still lurking in my own mind, I will abstain. At this point, I have to say, it's disappointing I have yet to see a comment here that argues coherently from Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Yakushima (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The four sources listed in References I evaluate as follows:
    1. [6] By Postma, not independent
    2. [7] Ditto
    3. Medium is a self-published source, cannot be used per WP:BLPSPS
    4. [8] with promotional tone and a buy link, I don't see this as an independent or reliable source (t · c) buidhe 00:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I'll make corrections. Yakushima (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reshuffled the links to reflect these objections. Regarding [3], I notice that she was a 2007 "Tutu Fellow", and that this is apparently an appointment to AFLI, which published the piece. She doesn't seem to be formally affiliated with AFLI now. Still, this is promotional of a veteran of a program run by AFLI, and thus not truly independent. I've added a link of her being interviewed, but I'm starting to see the ground is shakey here. My bad, for just dashing something off without more careful scrutiny.I'll leave it as a reference, but tag it "Unreliable source?" Yakushima (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Niven's book "The sunshine cruise company" did get a named-author review in the Independent [9] which is far from trivial. I'm not into assessing authors. Elemimele (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Homa Games[edit]

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

Non-notable gaming company. The coverage is routine like this funding news or a Forbes Contributor article (in other words paid). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Knud Truelsen (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jairek Robbins[edit]

Jairek Robbins (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 bio with an obvious COI/UPE history. Performance coaches or motivational speakers are hardly notable just for being a motivational speaker. His notability claim to notability is very weak and is based on the notability of his father Tony Robbins (so WP:NOTINHERITED applies here). Secondly, sources cited are mostly blogs, press releases, or contributor articles by Forbes etc like this one and some are just interviews (WP:PRIMARY) like this one. Searches under his names hardly bring any coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:ANYBIO. Knud Truelsen (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to List of Archie Comics characters#Other superheroes. ✗plicit 11:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Phantom[edit]

Bob Phantom (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 minor comic book character that appeared in a small number of issues. The article consists of a plot summary plus publication history and fails WP:GNG, being just a combination of WP:CATALOGUE and WP:FANCRUFT. There is zero evidence of him having any impact, significance, literary analysis or fan following. The sources are sufficient to confirm the topic exists, but do not show why it is notable (note that the cited sources do not discuss the character in-depth, they contain just a brief publication history/plot summary, and have ZERO analysis of his significance, likely b/c he is, well, not significant at all). The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. A redirect and perhaps a merge to List_of_Archie_Comics_characters#Other_superheroes might be considered. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gyanendra Pratap Singh[edit]

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

Lacks WP:SIGCOV, heavily cited with WP:PRIMARY. Even his seniors are not having any Wiki. NeverTry4Me - TT Page 10:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. With the withdrawal of the keep !vote, there is consensus for removal Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paromita Das[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient sources to verify notability. NeverTry4Me - TT Page 09:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus at all. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
I see that it's a Golden Jubilee prize, and not the main Sahitya Akademi Award, but with this and this combined with the award, I see enough notability to not change my vote. Hemantha (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Xxanthippe:, sorry, consensus was perhaps not the appropriate word. Let me reword - a lot of people over the years (1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) have considered Akademi awards significant enough for the articles to be kept. Hemantha (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC) links corrected per Xxanthippe's cmt below Hemantha (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These seem to be dead links and, anyway one prize is not enough. What are needed are multiple in-depth reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: It was third prize in the Indian Literature Golden Jubilee Literary Translation that Das won, commendable but the article should probably have previously mislead people thinking it was first. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Because it was also listed at Sahitya Akademi article, I skipped checking the sources. Withdrawing my vote for now. Hemantha (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus that subject is not notable in her own right Nosebagbear (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Susan of Mar, Mistress of Mar[edit]

Susan of Mar, Mistress of Mar (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)

We've had this article for 17 years but I now struggle to see why. The subject appears to be entirely obscure; there are only 27 Google results for "Susan of Mar" and most seem to be genealogy websites. Indeed, all the references in the article are to genealogy websites. Wikipedia, however, is not a genealogy website per its own policy. Surtsicna (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Other than being of noble birth, she's an interior designer, not notable as one either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a genealogical website. I have my doubts that we actually are not, but we are trying to move away from being one by removing articles like this that do not fit in an encyclopedia. The article has been around for 17 years because in 2005 we have far too few quality controls and we have been trying to overcome the flood of low quality articles we got then ever since.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Burke's Peerage. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a slight item of interest here in that she appears to have attended a state school (though going by that school's entry she would have started at the girls' grammar school which preceded it). This is also the case with Charlotte Long who probably is notable for reasons separate from her parentage, who remained in state education even after her area went comprehensive. But that is not in itself enough; her mother is notable not least for having remained in the Lords post-1999, but notability is not inherited. People of her class do not get the automatic level of mass media coverage they got before the two World Wars; I know the Daily Mail cannot be used as a source, but it now publishes celebrity gossip where even in my childhood, obviously well after those two wars, it had Nigel Dempster writing about people like this (as I say, it wouldn't make her notable if the Mail had not followed the redtop route in terms of who it covers, but it is a sign of broader change). She has lived a pretty unremarkable life and there is no evidence that she is Wiki-notable. RobinCarmody (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would agree that she is only here because of who her mother is and it is well established that for Wikipedia purposes notability is not inherited. If she were to go on to sit in the House of Lords in the future, or achieve notability in some other way then she would merit an article, but as it stands I can see nothing to suggest that at present she has anything like the required notability. Dunarc (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Permanent Representative of the Maldives to the United Nations until such time as the roles riverge Star Mississippi 01:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of ambassadors of the Maldives to the United States[edit]

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

The content is redundant with Permanent Representative of the Maldives to the United Nations since the Permanent Representative is also accredited as ambassador to the US. According to the main source here[10], even though the Maldives had a separate embassy in Washington, D.C. from 1968 to 1970, the Ambassador was still the UN representative. Joofjoof (talk) 08:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as said above. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems customary to dual appoint both roles suggested in the merge. But I note that is not cited. Maybe the list being the same triggers WP:COMMONSENCE, but maybe it's original research. I lean towards common sense. But here's an issue, right now one is a list (this one) but the other is not. So when something interesting happens, and there is a notable event by the person in one of their roles, but not the other, things are going to get weird and we might regret merging them. So this merge may only look sensible today, when there is no content beyond a list, as soon as some develops, we'll need two separate articles again. So I lean towards keep, but wonder what others think CT55555 (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the UN list. Even if someone at some point gets a seperate appointment to one and not the other office that will not need a seperate list, one list can handle multiple offices especially if they have for most of time been related.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge seems a good end for now, until there's sufficient distinction between the sets (which might never happen). Hyperbolick (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. North America1000 08:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sikkim Janata Party[edit]

Sikkim Janata 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 short-lived political party that did not win any seats in the two elections, in Sikkim, that occurred during its existence. All sources that i could find only have bare mentions of the party. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominator.Comment A merge to its successor, Sikkim Janata Congress, is also an option to consider. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Dude, you can't vote on your own nomination. --Soman (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, i thought that it was needed. Reading through WP:DISCUSSAFD, it seems it is not. Did a strikethrough. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:28, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - from the available sources, it's clear that it was a notable entity in Sikkimese politics at the time. Even 50 years later, we encounter plenty of mentions in academic literature. Article is now expanded and referenced. Regarding the election result (of 1970, not 1967) - yes, the party failed to win seats, but the electoral system was hardly proportional. Full electoral result is available here and here, but due to snippet view I could only extract a full result for the Sangha seat, where SJP candidate finished in second place. Glancing results from other constituencies, it's clear SJP wasn't a marginal phenomenon. --Soman (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Soman, you've recently added a bunch of references to the article, but every ref that I was able to access, mainly gave a sentence or two about its eventual merger into SJC. Could you add quotes to the references so that it is easier to judge whether it talks about the subject in depth or is just a passing mention? Additionally, could you present what you think are the best WP:THREE references here? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep sourcing in article at present is enough to satisfy the GNG. A party that can present multiple candidates and reach 10% in an electorate is inherently notable. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. There is not going to be a consensus to delete this text, but it does seem clear that there's a possible project space merger on tap. That discussion can continue on the article or project's talk and does not require continuation of this AfD. Star Mississippi 17:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States federal judges who died in active service[edit]

List of United States federal judges who died in active service (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 fairly common occurrence, and not a defining characteristic of these judges or something that made them (more) notable. Basically, a random pairing of two characteristics. (On a side-note, we shouldn't have mainspace articles with big red errors and "to do " sections in them, that's why we have draft space and user sandboxes).

Nominated are all three lists:

Fram (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Non-defining combination of characteristics. Loew Galitz (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep all, borderline speedy. The nomination suffers from a serious factual misconception – it is in fact not a "common occurance" for a United States federal judge to die in office. A source cited in the lede of each of these articles (Barrow, Zuk, and Gryski, The Federal Judiciary and Institutional Change) specifically identifies this notion as a myth, one that obviously needs dispelling through the existence of the lists presented here. The source goes on to note that despite the official status of life tenure, most federal judges take senior status rather than remaining in active status until they die, and those who do die in office sometimes do because they are holding out in hopes that a president of their own party will be elected to replace them. I would also note that this list parallels List of United States Congress members who died in office, which I assume will be the nominator's next target for deletion after this. BD2412 T 08:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please reread the reasons which apply to speedy keep; this clearly isn't one. If your list is so long that you need to split it into three separate pages, then yes, this is "fairly common". You seem to think that because a majority didn't die in office, it can't be "fairly common"? Anyway, please strike your policy-incompliant "speedy keep" and make some actual arguments about why you would prefer a regular keep. Fram (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The list is a fraction of the length of the longstanding List of United States Congress members who died in office. I have provided a reliable source which states that this an uncommon occurrance (modernly only 8.7% of federal judges) and literally says that it is a myth that this is a common occurrance. You are welcome to present a source to the contrary, but barring that, you seem to be dismissing the source in favor of your ill informed assumption. Since the nomination is premised on a demonstrable misstatement of fact, I will maintain my speedy keep vote, thank you. BD2412 T 08:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a myth that all of them hold on until the time they died: this in no way contradicts my claims. It's common, but it's a myth that it's the default. Fram (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec)From the source you use to claim that I had a "serious factual misconception": "one out of every five of the judges died in office". Something that happens to one out of five people is fairly common, no? If one out of 5 actors won an Oscar, we wouldn't consider it an exceptional achievement but a fairly common award, not worthy of much attention. Fram (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source also says, again fairly specifically, that the that modernly, the number has fallen to 8.7% in the modern era. It also attributes some number of these deaths to judges holding out longer than they should in hopes of having a more favorable president replace them, which is a matter of significant political importance. BD2412 T 09:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • So your speedy keep is only for the most modern of the three lists then? Fram (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not a big fan of providing an incomplete set of information when the complete set is available. I will likely expand the lists in the future to indicate whether the death of the judge in question rendered a change in the party filling the seat, which will illustrate how deaths in the judiciary change the political makeup of the courts. If these articles were to be deleted as is, they could be recreated with that new information per WP:RECREATE, as they would then be presenting something not available for contemplation in this discussion. I would also note that all of the "big red errors and "to do" sections" have now been resolved. BD2412 T 09:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Every change of a judge (be it through retirement, dismissal, death, whatever) may cause a change in the political makeup. Adding that information to this list won't change the notability of the list as a group: but I can see you getting these lists recreated, redeleted for the same reasons as now, and then recreated again because the death of a judge may cause the gender balance to change, then again because the death of a judge may cause the race balance to change, and so on. Desperation in action. Fram (talk) 09:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NLIST or restrict to Supreme Court justices and rename appropriately. There are articles about them dying in office,[11][12][13] but not federal ones. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Clarityfiend: Though we have a difference of opinion, I respect your provision of sources regarding the notability of this phenomenon with respect to Supreme Court justices, and would be willing to work towards a compromise that retains the most useful content. What would you think of a list restricted to Supreme Court justices and judges of the United States Courts of Appeal? Those were not properly established until the 1890s, so they basically bypass the period during which deaths of judges in office was more common than it was after senior status was implemented. BD2412 T 18:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Appeals court judges hold no appeal for the general public, so the media and scholars[14] pay little to no attention to their deaths, as far as I can see. It's all Supreme Court. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Clarityfiend: I have found a few things. "Judge’s Death Gives Trump a Chance to Remake a Vexing Court" in the New York Times, which frames the death of a Ninth Circuit judge in terms very similar to those seen with respect to Supreme Court justices. James F. Spriggs and Paul J. Wahlbeck, Calling It Quits: Strategic Retirement on the Federal Courts of Appeals, 1893-1991, Political Research Quarterly. 48(3):573-597 (1995), note, at least, that death interferes with strategic requirement plans by court of appeals judges intending to influence the future course of the bench. Stephen B. Burbank, S. Jay Plager and Gregory Ablavsky, Leaving the Bench, 1970–2009: The Choices Federal Judges Make, What Influences those Choices, and their Consequences, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 161, No. 1 (December 2012), notes that judges tended to work until death until the government provided for a post-resignation judicial pension in 1869 (I was not aware of that detail), and that modernly there is a distinct subset of judges who remain in senior status either until their death, or until very shortly before their deaths, even though they have no financial incentive to continue working. These are available via JSTOR. BD2412 T 22:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • The first is just about one particular judge's death, not the group. The second isn't about deaths in particular. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep (all) - There are 209 federal courts in the system, approx 1,770 judgeships, and it's for life which makes death while in office notable as does the relatively small but highly important number of appointments. Atsme 💬 📧 10:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's ... not how notability works. BD2412 argues that the lists are notable becaus most judges don't hang on for life, you argue that's it's notable because it is for life. Neither is correct, but in any case both can't be correct. Dying in office for things which are not for life is at least slightly more remarkable than dying in office for things which are for life (e.g. a list of popes who died while in office would be ridiculous, even though there are much less popes tha US federal judges, it's a for life appointment, and each appointment is highly notable or important). Notability for lists is based on WP:LISTN, not on inherited notability because one aspect of the list is notable. Fram (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually do know how N works as does BD2412 – Notability in a nutshell, and WP:IAR. I've been working WP:NPP for a while now, and I teach at the WP:NPPSCHOOL. I've got an opening if you're interested. ^_^ There's a reason for AfD, and why everything is not a speedy-d. I disagree with your belief that my comment cancels out BD2412's and vice versa – both our points are substantive. It doesn't matter if the appointee decides to keep their judgeship for life or retire early. What matters is the total number of judgeships, which is 1770 ad infinitum. The position itself is as notable as the judge who fills it, equally as notable as is POTUS making the appt, and it's far from commonplace. It's an integral part of the Judicial Branch of US gvt., which makes it important encyclopedic information to share with our readers. The media and researchers certainly think it's (judgeships) notable enough to make comparisons of presidential appointments, 13:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC) and report the deaths.[15] It's good information to know, and it's well-organized so that our readers can easily find it. WP is not running out of space to the point that we have to delete encyclopedic articles to save room. Atsme 💬 📧 12:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Oops - forgot the death link of NY federal judge - now added. 12:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have to invoke WP:IAR, then you shouldn't claim WP:N, and vice versa. And you are aware that we are not deciding on keeping or deleting a list of judges? Because you are spending an awful lot of your post on stating that these judges are notable, which is not under discussion. That the deaths are reported is normal, the deaths of the ones who didn't die in office are reported as well. The deaths of notable people are usually reported, no matter their current status. I hope that you don't tell people at NPPSCHOOL that adding a source which doesn't address the topic at hand at all[16] under the guise of establishing notability is an acceptable practice. In the end, you write a lot but give not a single argument to actually defend your position that this specific grouping is a notable subject. Fram (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I simply forgot to add the link - it's added now and clarified . Apologies. Atsme 💬 📧 12:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also created that article. BD2412 T 03:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Federal judgeships are lifetime appointments, so it's unsurprising many stay in office for life. While most do take senior status as a form of semi-retirement and sometimes fully retire, this is not a defining characteristic or one that receives substantial coverage for its significance necessitating this list. All federal judges and their means of leaving office are listed on their respective court articles, and I don't think this needs to be compiled. Members of Congress who died in office is a weak comparison, because that necessitates a special election and Members of Congress tend to be more prominent and receive more national coverage than judges. Reywas92Talk 13:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also members of congress are elected for fixed 2-year terms in the house and 6-ear-terms in the senate, although if elected to fill out a pervious term, it will be less than that (and if appointed to the senate they could be replaced in a special election for the rest of their term). So dieing in office is not expected. It does happen, but since terms are shorter it is less likely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What next "List of British Monarchs who died while reigning"? Federal Judgeships are lifetime appointments. While they can be impeached, that is very rare. Up until I think sometime in the 1930s there was not even senor status, you had to fully resign, and doing so was not very common, so dieing in office was even more common.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Person in job for life dies while still in job for life. News at 11. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this clearly meets WP:LISTN, which says that a list meets notability requirements "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." There is no question that this topic is discussed as a group or set in independent reliable sources. At least one is already in the article, and others have been brought up in the discussion. Votes to delete are alluding that the lists are WP:NONDEFINING, but that only applies to categories, and doesn't apply to lists that meet WP:LISTN. Those should be disregarded.
Another source to add is this one: " "Yet, given what we now know about health and ageing, it must have been uncommon then for old age to impact adversely on the performance of a federal judge's official duties. However, as the epidemiolocal transition took root, and as life expectancy in the United States lengthened, early death provided a dwindling solution to age-related declined in mental capacity. Instead, the judicial system had to place greater reliance on the discretion of federal judges to retire at an appropriate point in their careers." This is actually demonstrated in the lists, where you can see how early judges who died in office were in their 40s and even 30s.CNMall41 (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have added that source to the first article in the series, and will likely use it for other points in the other two. Obviously, this is still a project very much in development, with some excellent improvements and suggestions for further improvement coming out of this discussion. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per CNMall41. ― Qwerfjkltalk 18:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: appears to meet WP:NLIST. ––FormalDude talk 19:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of United States federal judges by longevity of service, which is a mouthful for what seems to be the only complete list we have of US federal judges. The information here could be one sortable column in that existing table indicating the manner in which their service ended - died in active service, died in senior service, resigned, or whatever else might apply. See any of the lists of Canadian senators (here is H) for an example with another "appointed for life" federal-level political position. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ivanvector: I appreciate the effort to find an alternative, but the List of United States federal judges by longevity of service is limited to the relatively small number of judges who have served for over 40 years in total, and could as easily be called List of longest-serving United States federal judges. By contrast, there are judges who shockingly died in active service after as little as two months, and a surprising proportion who died within one or two years of their appointment. Even if the nominated lists are to be merged somewhere, it would be best to keep coverage of the longest-serving judges (irresepective of whether they ultimately died in office) separate from those who died in office (irrespective of their length of service). BD2412 T 20:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough, I was wondering why that list was so short considering the number of judges who must have been appointed in the history of the United States. Struck for now and will reconsider. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ivanvector: There have, to this point, been 4,153 Article III judicial appointments. Of those fewer than 7% have made it to a 40 year mark. Regarding those who died in office, once I finish adding all of their appointed successors, I plan to color-code that field to indicate whether the death led to a change in the political party controlling appointment of the seat, and to use the data to generate graphs showing the tendency over time of the age and number of deaths in office to change. This data can also then be used to plug gaps in Wikidata content regarding these judges. BD2412 T 20:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Please remember not to rely solely on colour to convey information (MOS:COLOUR)! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      True. Perhaps an additional row, then, with something like "D → R" to indicate such a change. I can copy this part of the conversation to Talk:List of United States federal judges who died in active service for future reference. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: seems in keeping with other lists. Magidin (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY and those above. Much improved over just a few days, answering original shortfalls (the trend turned strongly toward keep while this happened). Fairly and squarely meets WP:LISTN per references given. Fact that such work was done in a short time ought to give confidence in improvement/added usefulness continuing. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:IINFO. It is to be expected that some people who hold an office for life will die in office. There is nothing of particular interest in this subset of these people. Sandstein 08:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sandstein. There is nothing especially notable about judges dying – especially when they're appointed for life – and this concept specifically does not appear to be covered in reliable sources. This article is only here due to systemic bias. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • In light of the below subsection I wish to add that my view is that the content should be removed from mainspace, not merged, nor moved, nor transferred to a "freestanding article". I have no objection to the content being moved to the WikiProject mentioned (subject to attribution). Stifle (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with Stifle. Sandstein 14:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per CNMall41. Marquardtika (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for non-defining combination of characteristics as Loew Galitz. Springnuts (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:IINFO and users Johnpacklambert, Only in death, etc.Thisisarealusername (talk) 07:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives to deletion[edit]

Comment: though I doubt that a consensus can form on a topic of this nature, here are some alternatives to deletion to insure preservation of the information that his been compiled in these articles before and during the course of this discussion:

  • The pages could be merged and moved. The content in the lede sections is sufficient to support a freestanding article at a title like Deaths of United States federal judges in active service. Such an article would expand upon the sources explaining how and why the death rate has fluctuated over time, and detailing the increased likelihood of confirmation battles or abolishment of seats following the death of a judge. The tables could be collapsed (as we often do for things like teams in sports tournaments), so that the information is still there if someone really wants to review it, but the focus of the article would be the text rather than the tables.
  • The content could be merged and redirected to a section of United States federal judge, which is currently a bit thin relative to the importance of that subject, again collapsing the tables so they take up little space in the article, but making the content available for those who want to review it.

If a clear consensus for deletion does develop, these lists should be moved to project space as subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges. As alluded to previously in the discussion, the hand-curated content in these lists can be used to fill holes and fix errors in the Wikidata entries on these judges. Alternately, these could be moved back to draftspace, or back to my userspace, from which the entire project originated. The Wikidata work can be carried out from any of those spaces. BD2412 T 18:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to freestanding article at a title like Deaths of United States federal judges in active service as suggested above. Springnuts (talk) 08:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection, either, to reconfiguring to such an article. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The article has been rewritten during the AfD to treat the topic from an out-of-universe perspective, and as a result the discussion has been trending towards keeping it. Sandstein 09:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Denver[edit]

Duke of Denver (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 fictional title. Avilich (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Avilich (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename to Gerald Christian Wimsey, 16th Duke of Denver. The Scott-Giles book clearly constitutes significant coverage in a reliable source, so we are looking for a second source. There are lots of results in Google Scholar, but most are for the 16th Duke himself, rather than the title. But Gerald Christian Wimsey, 16th Duke of Denver actually redirects to this article, even though the character is clearly notable in his own right, per the scholarly coverage. StAnselm (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how a spoof history of a fictional family constitues significant coverage of a fictional title. Avilich (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks like Harper-Collins actually published it in dead tree form, so, yeah, that counts by default. I'd never really looked into Sayers before, but the amount of academic commentary on her fiction appears to rival those authors I know better--per StAnselm, I don't see a quick way to sift through all the Google Scholar references to see if there's enough, but a first pass review sure looks like there ought to be. Jclemens (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Another work of fiction isn't valid significant coverage, and Google hits isn't an argument either. Avilich (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One could probably write a good article, possibly framed around Sayers' aristocracy as a whole with literary analysis relating it to the real world rather than an in-universe portrayal of a fictional Dukedom, without reading the books at all.
    • Sandberg, Eric (2022). "Duke's Denver". In Foxwell, Elizabeth (ed.). Dorothy L. Sayers: A Companion to the Mystery Fiction. McFarland Companions to Mystery Fiction. Vol. 11. McFarland. ISBN 9781476645308.
    • Sandberg, Eric (2022). "Wimsey, Gerald (Duke of Denver)". In Foxwell, Elizabeth (ed.). Dorothy L. Sayers: A Companion to the Mystery Fiction. McFarland Companions to Mystery Fiction. Vol. 11. McFarland. ISBN 9781476645308.
    • Sandberg, Eric (2022). "Aristocracy". In Foxwell, Elizabeth (ed.). Dorothy L. Sayers: A Companion to the Mystery Fiction. McFarland Companions to Mystery Fiction. Vol. 11. McFarland. ISBN 9781476645308.
    • Kuhn McGregor, Robert; Lewis, Ethan (2000). "Lord Peter Begins a Career". Conundrums for the Long Week-end: England, Dorothy L. Sayers, and Lord Peter Wimsey. Kent State University Press. pp. 24 et seq. ISBN 9780873386654.
    • Brown, Janice (1998). "All Have Sinned: The Competent Delineation of Character in the Early Novels". The Seven Deadly Sins in the Work of Dorothy L. Sayers. Kent State University Press. pp. 60–61. ISBN 9780873386050.
    • Lewis, Terrance L. (1994). Dorothy L. Sayers' Wimsey and Interwar British Society. E. Mellen Press. ISBN 9780773491021.
    • …
  • Uncle G (talk) 08:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which of these sources constitute real-world coverage of the title itself? Avilich (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see the word "rather". Uncle G (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there is no real-world coverage of the title, but "rather" of something else, what is even the point of all this? You could just as well drop this refbomb in some appropriate talk page where editors that are actually interested can look it up. Avilich (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • The point is clearly stated. I encourage you to read it again. Only you and the article's creator seem to think that real-world coverage of a title is the way to write about this stuff, when the Duke of Denver is actually a character in a book, so the fact that one cannot meet this arbitrary bar that only you think is the way to write in the first place is not really relevant to what I said and what the sources show. Uncle G (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't care how you think Sayers and her aristocracy should be written about, the article is very clearly about a fictional title and a listing of its fictional holders, and it's not up to standards. You just cited a bunch of sources that don't discuss the real-world significance of the title "Duke of Denver", and so have zero relevance here. Again, you can either post this in some wikiproject or talk page where interested editors can actually look this up and do some productive stuff with it, or you can keep wasting your time here. Avilich (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually, I cited sources that are about the Duke of Denver character, one of which exceptionally clearly so as it has it in the very title of the source. You seem to be not reading quite a lot, from what I wrote to the titles of the citations, let alone the sources cited. Uncle G (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very weird one. I'm plumping for weak keep. The problem for keeping is (1) the current article is almost entirely "in universe", and (2) because Sayers and Scott-Giles communicated about the Wimsey dynasty, they are joint creators and the Scott-Giles book is therefore a primary, not a secondary source. But Uncle G is as usual right about the academic side of this: Sayers is an enormously important figure in English literature, and this is an important part of her contribution, so there's no question an article can exist. I don't think redirecting to Sayers' own article is a good option because too much Wimsey-genealogy would unbalance it, and because a redirect wouldn't give due weight to Scott-Giles. But were it not for Sayers' huge stature, and what her writings say about society, and how they are written about (see Uncle G's suggestions above), I'd be sceptical about keeping a load of fiction. I would like to see the article say more about the meaning of this fictional dynasty, and quote more secondary sources, rather than merely reproduce a fictional family tree - which is probably inappropriate for WP. As it is, Sayers is widely-read, and I think it reasonable that our readers might want to know more about the wider significance of her creation of the Duke of Denver, which spans more than one (notable) book. Elemimele (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's an awful lot of secondary sourcing on Sayers. After I'd found and picked out the aforementioned myself, I found the Dorothy L. Sayers entry in Janik, Janik & Nelson 2002 which has a "secondary sources" section that's about 5 times as long as my list. Then there's stuff like McGlynn 2019, which we have as further reading in Dorothy L. Sayers and which is all about Sayers's portrayal of the aristocracy.

      Per Special:Diff/62599765 the article's creator modelled it on real universe peerages, which was the wrong approach, because obviously it isn't real. Whereas Colin Watson's statement that Sayers portrayed the aristocracy sycophantically, which others have counterargued, gets not a mention. There's all sorts of things that one could say, such as the assumption by the Duke of Denver of almost a droit du seigneur, which presenting fiction as fact will not, and does not, say. Uncle G (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      • Janik, Vicki K.; Janik, Del Ivan; Nelson, Emmanuel Sampath, eds. (2002). "Dorothy L. Sayers". Modern British Women Writers: An A-to-Z Guide. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 9780313310300.
      • McGlynn, Mary (Fall 2019). Foxwell, Elizabeth (ed.). "Parma violets and pince-nez: Dorothy L. Sayers's meritocracy". Clues: A Journal of Detection. 37 (2). McFarland. ISBN 9781476637532.
  • Delete per WP:TNT. There may be something notable to be written here, but there is nothing salvageable from the current mess. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - in-universe refs, no evidence of notability. Loew Galitz (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are no useful references, the pedigree section is wholly unsourced and is is written in an inapropriate in-universe style, and once all that has been removed nothing useful remains. The text should be deleted and the title should become a redirect to Dorothy L. Sayers for now. If anyone is able to to dig through the sources mentioned above and draft something reasonable, a new article could be created at that time. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there is a kernel of useful content there. If I were going to zap this and start again, I'd keep the section on the actual book character, which is easily sourceable to Sandberg 2022. And I'd probably keep a mention of Scott-Giles, although I'd discard everything from Scott-Giles. In fact, let me give that a go. Uncle G (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info: Out of interest, I checked the Scott-Giles book at the British Library some time ago, as I wondered whether the pedigree was a copyright infringement lifted straight from it. It wasn't, but that does raise the question of exactly which sources were used to create the pedigree, and whether the fictional information given will ever be checkable. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! Perhaps some of the delete !voters would like to reconsider per WP:HEY. StAnselm (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus, MichaelMaggs, and Loew Galitz: The article has been rewritten by Uncle G and your evaluation in light of the rewrite is requested. --JBL (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to keep. Thanks for the ping. That's a far, far better article, and I'm happy now to change my !vote to keep. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uncle G:, you haven't !voted yet. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MichaelMaggs But the article is a possible forkish mess. It is now covering two characters, one has his own article Lord Peter Wimsey, the other does not but we do have articles on books he appears in (Whose Body?). Note that the current article has content that is relevant to the books/series but not to the characters or the concept of the Duke of Denver ex. the section on the Wimsey Papers, second phalf of the 'In Sayers's works' section which contains paragraphs on portrayal of aristocracy in the series, most of the collaboration section, th eother section which talks about 'fictional genealogies'. Considering the existence of the Template:Lord Peter Wimsey which implies we are dealing with the "Lord Peter Wimsey series", having looked into this in more detail, I think this article (Duke of Denver) needs to be merged to the Lord Peter Wimsey, which likely needs to be tweaked to be an article about the book series. On a side note, I am concerned whether the articles other characters from the series are notable as well. Some might, but some may need merger too. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not perfect, but an article with this title or something like it does seem the best place for a discussion of Sayers' collaboration with Scott-Giles. I would (now) keep the article, but wouldn't be adverse to it being renamed if necessary. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominated by a sockpuppet with no other deletion proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 11:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali Marathe[edit]

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

He has sung for a few film, one film of which has won a significant award for the Best Female Playback Singer. I'm not sure it's enough to meet WP:SINGER . The sources are not really complete WP:GNG and some autobiographical editing has been done on the article Cinzia007 (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC) striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per WP:BASIC. I found this, from a DNA article about another award winner: "The only other singer from Pune to have won the award in this category is Anjali Marathe-Kulkarni, who won it in 1995 at the age of 15 while competing with Lata Mangeshkar and Asha Bhosale." The award is described as "India’s most respected award in films". The apparent disconnect with her winning in 1996 at age 16 seems to be that she won in 1996 at age 16 for her work in 1995 at age 15, based on this abstract of a 1996 article from The Hindu "India: Kathapurushan adjudged best feature film" (via Proquest), which states, "S. P. Balasubramaniam has been declared the best male playback singer of 1995 for his soulful rendering of the classical song "Umenda Ghumanda Garaje Badara" in the Kannada film "Sangeetha Saagara Gaanayogi Panchakshara Gavai." Anjali Marathe has been declared the best female playback singer." There is also this 2014 Mid-day article linked at the end of the article, with some limited biographical and career information. On the WP Library, via Gale, I found a brief mention in a 2013 Indian Express article without a byline that reads like a summary of press releases, stating she is a singer on 2 CDs released by Atul Date. The one cited source in the article (2005 Indian Express) provides some biographical information. Via ProQuest, there is also "Hindu Mahila Sabha held musical concert in the city [Pune]" (TOI, 08 Mar 2020), "[...] the organisation invited three pairs of mother-daughter artistes who together have achieved feat in their respective professions for a discussion and to share their experiences. The veteran artistes included renowned vocalist, Anuradha Marathe and her daughter Anjali Marathe"; "Majumdar strikes a silver chord with 25 years in music industry [Nagpur]" (TOI, 17 Sep 2019) "Singers such as Anjali Marathe, Niranjan Bobde and Datta Prasad Ranade performed on his songs." Based on my online searches and review of sources on the databases I have access to in the WP Library, there does not appear to be much independent coverage available. However, due to the reported significance of the award, the availability of some biographical information that could help develop the article, and sources that can verify her career, WP:BASIC notability seems supported by a combination of sources. Beccaynr (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Beccaynr sir , The source of the DNA you are telling me is the news of a woman named Arati Ankalikar-Tikekar. Second news Indian Express article talk about next generation.Cinzia007 (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My !vote is weak because of the need to combine the limited number of sources per WP:BASIC, e.g. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. I would prefer to have more sources, but with the significant award win covered by multiple sources, as well as biographical and career information with some commentary available from sources, I think the article could be rewritten to address concerns about autobiographical editing while also still having enough support for a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Neville, 11th Baron Braybrooke[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Richard Neville, 11th Baron Braybrooke (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 British peer who inherited his title in 2017, and therefore never sat in the House of Lords (due to the House of Lords Act 1999). Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO (no entries in biographical dictionaries, distinctions, contributions to a specific field). Previous discussion closed as no consensus two years ago. British peers are not inherently notable.

Source assessment follows:

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Person page. The peerage.com. value not understood No Deprecated self-published peerage website. value not understood ✘ No
https://www.ukwhoswho.com/view/10.1093/ww/9780199540884.001.0001/ww-9780199540884-e-289642/version/[bare URL] No WP:PRIMARY - written by the subject of the article and equal to a self-published source, per WP:RSP consensus No Unanimous agreement in a 2022 RfC on this source: "There is a consensus that Who's Who (UK) is generally unreliable due to its poor editorial standards and history of publishing false or inaccurate information". value not understood ✘ No
Rudgard, Olivia (11 June 2017). "Downton Abbey writer hits out at inheritance laws after baron's daughter loses right to title and land". The Telegraph – via www.telegraph.co.uk. value not understood Yes Per WP:RSP No Passing mention: "Instead, the title goes to a distant cousin, Richard Neville, 40, director of Bring a Bottle, a price comparison site for alcohol, and the estate to Louise Newman, 56, an art historian." ✘ No
Keay, Lara (12 June 2017). "Aristocrat's daughter loses £60million inheritance due to historic law". Express.co.uk. value not understood No Consensus is that this source is generally unreliable. See WP:DAILYEXPRESS. No Passing mention. "[...] the title goes to a distant cousin, Richard Neville, 40, a director of the Bring A Bottle alcohol price comparison site." ✘ No
"BRING A BOTTLE LIMITED - Officers (free information from Companies House)". beta.companieshouse.gov.uk. Retrieved 2 December 2019. value not understood value not understood No Just the company information; WP:PRIMARY. ✘ No
"Britain’s 600 aristocratic families have doubled their wealth in the last decade and are as ‘wealthy as at the height of Empire". www.iexpress.co.uk. value not understood value not understood No Passing mention: "Heir: Richard Neville, 11th Baron Braybrooke". ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Pilaz (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Pilaz (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. VocalIndia (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not pass politician notability. Holders of noble titles are not default notable, and we lack enough sourcing to show that he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article is mostly about who he is descended from. Notability is not inherited so this is not the basis for an article. If he were a member of the House of Lords, or had achieved notability in another field, then he probably would merit an article, but as things stand I think this is a pretty clear cut case. Dunarc (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not inherited. The sourcing is not great (the Express is an unreliable source and the Telegraph is less reliable than usual when indulging an interest in aristocracy and wealth for their own sake) and the fact that only sources like that can be found is in itself a sign that this is an unimportant figure of no relevance to most people's lives in Britain, let alone everywhere else. RobinCarmody (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zarkora[edit]

Zarkora (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 series does not meet WP:GNG, and none of the books are notable in their own right. I was unable to find any reviews or coverage in independent and reliable (i.e., non-blog) sources. The authors do not have Wikipedia articles, so there is not a good redirect target (well, the first book has an article, but I'm also nominating that for deletion separately). DanCherek (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Fyrelit Tragedy[edit]

The Fyrelit Tragedy (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 does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Kirkus reviewed it (link) as part of their Kirkus Indie program which is a paid review service and does not count towards notability. I was unable to find any other reviews or coverage in independent and reliable (i.e., non-blog) sources. The authors do not have Wikipedia articles, so there is not a good redirect target (well, the series has an article, but I'm also nominating that for deletion separately). DanCherek (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 06:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magnesia (hypothetical city)[edit]

Magnesia (hypothetical city) (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 concept of Magnesia has no life outside of Plato's Laws. It's not like Utopia. It should just be covered in the article on Plato's Laws. I really doubt it's notable as a separate concept, especially since Laws is kind of obscure. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator -- It will be converted into a draft, and if it doesn't turn out to be notable by itself it can be used for the Laws article.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 05:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Magnesia (disambiguation) for a list of cities named after this colony, for one small example of its "life outside Plato's laws". Also, you don't know what you don't know. There is alot written about Plato's utopias; and I could find dozens of secondary sources with a simple JSTOR or even web search, and this is what I and other competent contributors will do in the coming weeks. I suggest you try that first before nominating for deletion, and move this to Draft instead. This has had a very long afterlife in 2,000 years of philosophical discussion, including in Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas, texts that have made western civilization what it is, for better and worse. Just because that is "obscure" to you and other editors who are unaware of the history of political philosophy, does not mean that it has "no life outside Plato's laws". Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But unless the concept has been kind of removed from Laws, isn't it better to keep the info all on the page for Laws? I have made a search on an academic database and everything is just about Laws itself. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 05:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In some ways, yes, it will reduce need for duplication. I'd prefer if you leave it in draft for a few weeks, since I'm the only one so far editing this, and if it proves to be cumbersome, we can deprecate the article and move it into Laws.Jaredscribe (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good plan; I just didn't want to move it into draft space if it has no hope of becoming an independent article eventually. If it's in drafts though I think it should be fine. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 05:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However there is precedent for leaving articles on fictional cities. For example, Plato's Atlantis and Bacon's Salomon's House. Having its own article would allow for ease of comparison. Jaredscribe (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I think Laws isn't commented on widely enough for Magnesia to have its own article. It's obscure, which isn't a good thing, but that's how it is. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 05:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 06:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Harvard Salient[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because its subject seems non-notable (see WP:GNG).

I noticed this article had no sources, so it was my plan to add sources. However, I was only able to find this article here (republished here) mentioning it. Additionally, because the author of this source is a former editor of The Harvard Salient, I don't know that the source is "independent of the subject".

The notability guidelines for student media described in WP:STUDENTMEDIA don't seem to make exceptions to the more general notability guidelines described in WP:NMEDIA. Therefore, because the subject of this article does not appear to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and because it does not appear to be cited in reliable sources, I think the subject of this article is non-notable, and the article should be deleted. palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 03:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Conservatism, and Massachusetts. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm not seeing any sources out there, one way or another (the bare handful of items I've found merely namedrop it, mostly in association with Ross Douthat). It doesn't help that the link to this publication's site is broken. The article sources none of its assertions, has never been adequately sourced, it punctures holes in NPOV, it is substantially unimproved in fifteen years, it's been tagged for nearly a decade, and violates WP:NOTINHERITED and the GNG. (Heck, it isn't even the most prominent right-wing paper on campus.) Ravenswing 08:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting the previous AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the previous AfD was rejected on the basis of 'bad faith', in that another longstanding publication had also been nominated for deletion. This is not a reason to keep the article now. I can't find significant coverage of this publication, fails WP:NMEDIA. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kumardubi Drakhuli High School[edit]

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. WP:PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saraswati Shishu Vidya Mandir Dhori[edit]

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

WP:MILL institution. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. WP:PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As it stands no one cared enough to add a reference in the year since this article was created, nor in the nearly two weeks that this article has been on the block for deletion. BD2412 T 22:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2009 Maccabiah Games – Men's team squads[edit]

Football at the 2009 Maccabiah Games – Men's team squads (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)

Full of red links, and fails WP:SPORTS Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The women's squads are being discussed already at a separate AFD: here. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh! Didn't see that big AfD tag at the top of the page... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not needed, same reasons as for the women's squads. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable list. GiantSnowman 09:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete The way I see it, it's overkill on information. I'd say the actual games are more than notable and even Football at the 2009 Maccabiah Games can probably be sorted out if the correct sources are found. Jewish Chronicle, Jewish News and other related newspapers across the world relating to the Jewish community would have covered parts of the events, thus this would build the coverage. Govvy (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my reasons at the women's squads AfD Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this had been completed, it could conceivably have been merged up, while hidden. But it hasn't been completed. So a discussion is not necessary. So many articles get prodded while they shouldn't. This is the opposite case. It's unlikely that anyone will object to delete. WP:SNOW also applies. gidonb (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • PROD is useless system, as someone can come along 5 years later and request undeletion without giving any reasons. And then we'd have to undelete it then. Also, random new/IP editors, or the article creators, usually just remove PRODs, so it would end up at AFD anyway. Joseph2302 (talk)
You mean that this person will be back to complete their project? Unlikely. I agree that PROD is overused. Lately I have seen a lot of prodding where discussions are likely and articles were eventually kept. But, sure, all of the above! gidonb (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Galloway[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. 4 of the sources provided are primary. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Coverage mainly comes up with an assistant coroner with the same name. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Diplomats aren't inherently notable, and the sources provided above and in the article are either not independent (interviews in particular), do not provide significant coverage (the Jewish Chronicle), and are of unknown reliability. Who's Who (UK) has been considered generally unreliable ever since the 2022 RfC at RSN, and I'm pretty sure all UK ambassadors get an entry in the volume regardless. Pilaz (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sourcing is not enough to show notability. We have decided not all ambassadors are notable, so a source that seeks to cover every ambassador, especially one that is held to be generally unreliable, cannot be used to demonstrate we need to keep this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find no sources in Gnews or newspapers. Her name turns up, back as far as the 1870s, but zero coverage about her as a diplomat. North Macedonia wouldn't seem to be a notable diplomatic post either, one small country in southern Europe. Oaktree b (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Orange Mike | Talk 15:56, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Templar Revelation[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Templar Revelation (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 mess of original research, with no sources and no evidence of notability Orange Mike | Talk 03:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United Kingdom. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The current article is certainly a mess, but I'm not convinced that flat out Deletion is appropriate (unless we're going for a WP:TNT argument) because the book does appear like it might actually be notable. There are a number of sources that mention or discuss it, either as part of criticism of the fringe theories it claims or discussing its connection to The Da Vinci Code, and a quick search brought up at least one, full length review of the book from the time of its release, from CNN. I'm leaning towards Keeping and cleaning up over deletion, right now. And, at the very least, I would think that a Redirect to Lynn Picknett would be preferable to deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Going with a definitive Keep after the coverage presented by Cunard below. Rorshacma (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the book is certainly notable, under WP:NBOOK 1 and 3. It also comes up in work on medievalism - for example, there's an entire chapter on it by Hannah Johnson in Mass Market Medieval (ed David Marshall, 2007). I'm not sure what the WP:OR issue is supposed to be here. This is effectively a "plot summary", as far as I can tell, simply listing their conclusions. That's not "original research". It doesn't present the fringe theory as fact, either. If the OR issue is the "perspectives" section, well, it's two lines long - I don't think anyone will be outraged if someone removes that bit. -- asilvering (talk) 07:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can read some of Johnson's work at [17]. Doug Weller talk 17:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any more of the "for instances" that would satisfy NBOOK 1? I don't see how it would meet NBOOK 3. All I've found is this CNN book review. Also, today I learned that CNN used to do book reviews. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT - First, the article needs a substantial re-write. While including a brief synopsis of the book’s thesis/plot is appropriate, it should not take up the bulk of the article (as it does here). A lot more attention needs to be given to what reliable sources say about the book (ie reviews and critiques). The question is: do such reviews and critiques exist?
If not, we would have no choice but to delete - as we can not have an article that cites NO reliable sources (at all). If the necessary sources do exist, another option is to draftify (ie move it temporarily to WP:DRAFTSPACE until it can be brought up to snuff, and then return it to MAINSPACE). I could support either option. Blueboar (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Significant coverage:
      1. Holland, Alfred (1998-05-02). "Religious romp - Books". The Newcastle Herald. Archived from the original on 2022-03-19. Retrieved 2022-03-19.

        The book review notes: "For this reviewer it's all a load of manure, but if your scene is a tight, well-written romp pursuing bewitching and imaginative speculation through the byzantine corridors of history, and you want an escape from our present-day, equally byzantine, political magicians, then it's a thoroughly enjoyable read."

      2. Cotes, Alison (1998-02-28). "Jesus the villain in this detective story". The Courier-Mail. Archived from the original on 2022-03-19. Retrieved 2022-03-19.

        The book review notes: "This is not a book for which serious academic claims can be made but it is not entirely without value, because it attempts (sometimes successfully) to put puzzling historical events into an understandable context and to raise important questions about the beginnings of the Christian church."

      3. Meagher, L.D. (1999-02-19). "Book makes 'X-Files' look like 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington': 'The Templar Revelation' by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince". CNN. Archived from the original on 2022-03-19. Retrieved 2022-03-19.

        The book review notes: "Nothing in "The Templar Revelation" rises to anything like the level of "definite proof". Instead, its conclusions are based on the flimsiest of premises which are supported by the slimmest of indirect and circumstantial evidence or, just as often, by the assertion that the lack of evidence justifies their conclusions."

      4. Johnson, Hannah R. (2007). "Medieval History and Cultural Forgetting: Oppositional Ethnography in The Templar Revelation". In Marshall, David W. (ed.). Mass Market Medieval: Essays on the Middle Ages in Popular Culture. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. pp. 126–139. ISBN 978-0-7864-2922-6. Retrieved 2022-03-19 – via Google Books.

        The book is extensively discussed on pages 126–139. The book notes: "As one of the few alternative histories mentioned by name in the best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code, The Templar Revelation has recently received an increased measure of attention as a source of the novel's major themes, but I would like to suggest that the Revelation's larger arguments about the trajectory and assumptions of our culture have inspired readers more than any specific revisionist claim advanced in the book. The Middle Ages loom large in this work as the hyperreal source of modern traumas and yearnings, but Picknett and Prince also echo the concerns of contemporary academics who have sought to rethink the monolithic characterization of medieval Europe advanced in traditional historiographies."

    2. Less significant coverage:
      1. Leckie, Ross (1998-09-05). "Paperbacks - Books". The Times. Archived from the original on 2022-03-19. Retrieved 2022-03-19.

        The book review notes: "Tackling everything from the Turin Shroud to Leonardo, this book is a ripping good yarn. The fact that it is complete bunkum is all part of the fun."

      2. "New Books". News & Record. 2005-01-06. Retrieved 2022-03-19.

        The article notes: "The Templar Revelation by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince. The runaway success of The Da Vinci Code has inspired a great interest in the Knights Templar and other secret societies. In this book, which largely covers the historical background of The Da Vinci Code, Picknett and Prince explore the mysteries of these groups and their role in European society."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Templar Revelation to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dony Valle[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this relisted when consensus is clear? LibStar (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it seems a bit unusual. AssumeGoodWraith what was the reason for relisting as opposed to closing? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Need a bit more reason than "not notable" or "fails gng". This afd can still be closed at any time if I made another error. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you an admin? LibStar (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fails GNG is a clear enough reason. It means there aren't enough sources about it to pass GNG. If you can't understand that, you shouldn't be doing admin/experienced editor level tasks like relisting. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suleyman Kerimov Foundation[edit]

Suleyman Kerimov Foundation (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 is no substantive RS coverage of this organization (the cited FT source doesnt mention the organization). If there's any encyclopedic content in this article, it can be merged with the Suleyman Kerimov article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 01:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lenore Fenton MacClain[edit]

Lenore Fenton MacClain (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 person. Her claim to fame seems to be "speed typing" with the Dvorak layout, and winning some competitions, but was unable to find any SIGCOV about her. I don't have a Newspapers.com subscription, however. Natg 19 (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - MacClain won awards for typing, starred in a Navy film on typing, and published multiple editions of a book on how to type. Given how common typing is today it seems odd to have such a focus on typing. However, at the time there was active discussion about which keyboard layout to use and the best methods to train people in typing. With the added sources I have found I feel she now meets the notability requirements. DaffodilOcean (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not think the passing mentions of the speed typing records are enough to actual show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I ran her name through the newspaper archive at the Library of Congress, nothing, same at the New YOrk State newspaper archive [18], nothing. This might be hard to find sources for. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find sources in Virginia (where she lived later in life) searching for Mrs. George MacClain, including one that confirmed she was also known as Lenore Fenton MacClain.DaffodilOcean (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Citations 2, 4 and 5 alone satisfy me that she meets the general notability criteria. CT55555 (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Read this and felt I'd learned a fascinating factual tidbit supported by its references. Hyperbolick (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since it's still only 3-2 for Keep I'll add-on. I concur with Daffodil's reasoning - none of the sources are great in a sigcov sense, but their length is beyond that of true passing mentions, so sufficient to retain Nosebagbear (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baurzhan Ospanov[edit]

Baurzhan Ospanov (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 is no substantive RS coverage of this person. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Detecting fake news online[edit]

Detecting fake news online (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 one of the strangest articles I've come across. While certainly a useful topic for a different website, this article flies in the face of WP:NOTESSAY. Skimming through an exhaustive and rambling list of advice in WP:WIKIVOICE is astounding. KidAd • SPEAK 01:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article makes as much sense as Crossing the street safely. Sean Brunnock (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Hinckfuss[edit]

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

Subject does not pass WP:GNG at present due to insufficient coverage in reliable third-party sources. His Olympic participation no longer makes him automatically notable as per recent changes to WP:NOLY. JTtheOG (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pari Ravan[edit]

Pari Ravan (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 artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. I cannot find any reliable secondary sources for the article. The creator of the article has only worked on this one article, suggesting CIO WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main contributor has disclosed a Conflict of Interest in [19] "Abstimmung mit der Künstlerin" means "coordination with the artist". Vexations (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not Who's Who or LinkedIn, we do not let people work to create their own articles here to boost public notice.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources are either self published or not reliable. The list of associations isn't helpful, pay money and pretty much any artist can join. I find nothing online. I looked at the sources in the French article, "newspapers" such as the Nice Matin, link to a site saying the site in question has been deacitvated and redirects to what looks like her own personal site to sell art. Almost looks like a clickbait/fraudulent attempt to give herself traction. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 01:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Donehue[edit]

Wesley Donehue (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)

Barely scratches the surface of notability, if that--a player from years back in a couple of local election issues, and apparently mostly known for a racist comment. User:Gruffbenji, on the talk page, seems to think this person isn't notable either. Note: I'm on this article by accident; I restored an earlier version (you should see how awful it was) and removed a bunch of unverified stuff. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politics, Internet, and South Carolina. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this article does meet GNG, it needs a lot of work if it is to be kept. All but one of the reference links have rotted. GoldMiner24 Talk 22:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it needs work but the sourcing is there. Nweil (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nweil, please explain which sources you find acceptable, and how reliable they are. I'm asking because a. you do not say anything specific about any of the sources, and b. I've looked over some of the AfDs you participated in, and you seem to be making the same vague keep arguments there. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • What you said feels a little like WP:HOUNDING but sure I'll explain more. Here is a full on bio of him in CNN. I see multiple mentions of him in the New York Times and Washington Post. He's quoted in print books. He's not just known for a racist remark, he has had an eventful career as a political strategist. Nweil (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Move to draft. Move to draft for improvement when more sources become available. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Visfot[edit]

Visfot (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:NFF. Should be deleted or moved to draft until release. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep :- I disagree with the policy WP:NFF. The shooting of the movie started in October 2021 and now the filming is completed. If you're considering each source mentioned in the article as unreliable, then I humbly request the community to guide me how to find sources which are consider as reliable for/by Wikipedia. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 02:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: C1K98V (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
    Hello Atlantic306, I think you can do the honor. I believe we reached a consensus here as per 2 admin vote for move to draft. No sources are currently available to prove the point as per asked by Ab207. Thanks, stay safe. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 11:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems like the article passes WP:NFILM, Resources are enough to passes for a future film. This is not an incomplete or undistributed film. Jeni Wolf (talk) 05:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To better determine whether it passes NFILM
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - I have contributed to it but it appears to be paid to this articale. Both artical the same guy created and that is both movies belongs to same production house Bhushan Kumar. Ghudchadi. Cinzia007 (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC) striking vote! by confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftity per WP:ATD-I. Lacks significant coverage on production to pass WP:NFF for future film. The criteria here is independent coverage from reliable sources, not the status of filming. No scheduled release date yet, should be moved in draftspace until if and when its releases. -- Ab207 (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep :- I disagree with the policy mentioned WP:NF, WP:ATD-I and WP:NFF. The shooting of the movie started in October 2021 and now the filming is completed in February 2022. Just saying independent coverage and reliable source what are you trying to convey? If you're considering each source mentioned in the article as unreliable, then I humbly request the community to guide me how to find sources which are consider as reliable for/by Wikipedia. In good faith, never bite a newcomer, so if you're having a good grasp of wikipedia, please share and guide me as well. C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 01:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @C1K98V: I struck off your second keep since you already !voted before. In order to pass NFF, the productions needs to meet the WP:GNG guidelines, so please pick your WP:THREE sources of the film which are independent, reliable and significant. While I wouldn't call a user active for 18+ months with 5000 edits, and two granted user rights a "newcomer", there is draftspace and the WP:AFC process to help users unfamiliar with the notability guidelines while creating new pages. Best -- Ab207 (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft. That seems like the best option for a subject likely on the cusp of notability, but falling short of a clear case for it at the moment. BD2412 T 06:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft per others. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The result was keep. As noted, there is no criteria for deletion of a verifiably existing populated place based on it being of little note. BD2412 T 22:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Havannah, Cheshire[edit]

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

Subject does not need a Wikipedia article due to the village being of very little note. Maurice Oly (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Maurice Oly (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's actually a couple of paragraphs of additional content that could be taken from the Stevens 1970 source alone, and it's not just the one source that this is in. The entirety of the "Eaton" entry in Ashmore 1982, p. 40 is in fact about Havannah. Morton 2019, pp. 284–285 is about Havannah and cites its archive sources. This place is in the history books. The whole "deserted village" thing is misleading and an appellation from the turn of the 20th century such as by Coward 1910, p. 189 and the photograph caption mentioned in the article. For much of its life, per the histories, it evidently was not. Uncle G (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ashmore, Owen (1982). "Eaton". The Industrial Archaeology of North-west England. Remains, historical and literary, connected with the palatine counties of Lancaster and Chester. Manchester University Press. ISBN 9780719008207. ISSN 0080-0880.
    • Morton, Vanda (2019). "The turning tide". Brass from the Past: Brass made, used and traded from prehistoric times to 1800. Archaeopress Publishing Ltd. ISBN 9781789691573.
    • Coward, T. A. (1910). Cheshire. Cambridge County Geographies (reprinted ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107639263.
  • Keep Has clearly been a populated place, see eg https://www.congletonhydro.co.uk/the-project/site-history/ PamD 06:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep it has some sources though may not have been legally recognized and isn't in the Domesday Book. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly meets WP:GEOLAND. "the village being of very little note" is not a criterion for deletion, as it is entirely subjective. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The result was delete. Consensus is clear. BD2412 T 22:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis L. Kappen[edit]

Dennis L. Kappen (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)

Even if this person is notable, which I doubt, WP:TNT applies. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA, possible an autobiography. Edwardx (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not even a remote pass of WP:Prof or GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. I can only echo the nom. Though I'll go further and say there's no way this isn't an autobio - Dekappitation is the kind of username joke that's only going to occur to you to make if your name is D. Kappen. -- asilvering (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be a vanity page. He seems to work at Humber, but nothing to suggest he is notable. A long list of "look what I published". Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We lack adequate sourcing to show notability. Plus this appears to have been created by the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_March_15&oldid=1080219820"