Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< March 30	April 01 >

Guide to deletion

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 redirect to Erivan Province (Safavid Empire)#List of governors.. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Safavid governors of Erivan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CFORK of Erivan Province (Safavid Empire)#List of governors. In fact, its literally the same content. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LouisAragon (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. LouisAragon (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. LouisAragon (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. LouisAragon (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that this could trivially just have been WP:BOLDLY redirected to Erivan Province (Safavid Empire)#List of governors without going through AfD. TompaDompa (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would be feasible in regular situations. However, the creator of said page has a history of creating such forks to the point that its becoming WP:TENDENTIOUS. The AfD process "records" such editorial patterns more appropriately. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete/redirect Entirely unnecessary duplicate page. Reywas92^Talk 14:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect -- This is a wholly unnecessary duplicate. However leaving a redirect is appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect, I think the reasons above suffice. Bgrus22 (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 23:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gabiro Mtu Necessary[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Brian O'Conner 22:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Brian O'Conner 22:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Brian O'Conner 22:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Brian O'Conner 22:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing more than vanity spam. The laughable claim of a Grammy nod is, well, laughable and doesn't contribute to notability one bit considering there are 0 rs reporting on it. CUPIDICAE💕 22:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as TOOSOON at this point.--Chuka Chief_talk 16:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amby Paliwoda[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't see this meeting WP:NBIO. As a creative professional? Has been deleted after a previous discussion, now recreated ~~by an editor with a close personal connection~~. Lithopsian (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lithopsian, excuse me? Strike the close personal connection comment, or show me something in my family tree of which you're aware but I'm not. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 06:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. One of the older editors referred to Amby as their father and I mistook who reinstated the article. Lithopsian (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for striking :) DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets GNG and creative person guidelines for work in animation now. The article was not "recreated" but expanded and rewritten after neither participant in the original AfD checked vintage newspapers for coverage, no one added coverage from Google Books, uncited info was removed, and one participant bemoaned not finding anything because they would have liked to have seen the article kept. It's a different article now than it was before. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 06:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am pinging Mccapra and Johnpacklambert, as they were the only two participants in the other AfD, but I'm going to ask that they consider holding off voting for a day or two because I want to go to a university library to search for an obit in Variety and other entertainment publications that I don't currently have access to at home; such things could help the notability case. As the article stands now, it is much different than it was when I asked it to be draftified to me for further research. Mccapra, I found a couple of articles from the late 1970s (which picked up by other newspapers around the country and not just local to California). John, I know this is better sourced than when you nominated it. I doubt you would have nominated it if it had been in this shape when you came across it, but that is neither here nor there and you may vote as you like or not vote at all. I hope to get to the university tomorrow and I'll let you all know either way whether I find anything and I'll add it to the article. I'll do a bit more digging in newspaper databases as well. Another note: Disney fan sites talk about Paliwoda's work on 101 Dalmatians specifically, but I can't source that from any books or other reliable sources yet, so I have removed it from the article. OK. Peace. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find an obituary, unfortunately. There was a little bit of coverage of him in an entertainment database, but most were brief mentions in articles about the work of Duck Soup Producktions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We just do not have the level of sourcing to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is inaccurate and thus the vote is not aligned to policy. The article is well-sourced and all the sources of are of quality. I reviewed it and saw that the one unsourced thing was the information that he was a founding member of the animators' union, so I removed it. It is now 100% sourced. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer: If it's to be a delete, please draftify to me. I'd like to keep it on ice and check for more sources periodically. Thank you. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was wondering why there is such low participation here... I just noticed that this 2nd AfD is listed in deletion sorting lists for only the subject's birth state and actors and filmmakers. That is fewer than the previous AfD. We know more about the subject now. Last time it was in: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Comics and animation, California, and Ohio. It should be in all of those and in a list for artists, if there is one. Should get at least a full week in those deletion sorting lists so it can get enough eyes and researchers on it. I will try to figure out how to add to these later, unless someone beats me to it. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced. Maybe a before would have helped. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:50, 31 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!} 21:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was much more detail in the cited articles that had not been added to the page. I have worked on the article, adding in missing data, and I think it is now viable. Obviously, more work could be done, and I hope to get to that. Lamona (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Federation X. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 07:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

William E. Badgley[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfD in 2013 was "no consensus". Nothing cited in the article counts towards WP:GNG, and I can find nothing better online. Run-of-the-mill person. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the nomination. Despite having an interesting career, I don't see any indication that he meets WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER. I would suggest a redirect, but it seems that none of his projects have their own pages. KidAd • SPEAK 20:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge He is the lead singer of a band that has an article on the wp. Antonio The Shock Rock Star Martin (here) 07:39, 25 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!} 21:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Television. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to his band Federation X, as they have an article. His film work outside the band can be mentioned briefly there with citations to the one or two media mentions that he has received in that line of work. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The subject itself does not warrant an article but including components of it in the Federation X page is appropriate. NiklausGerard (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Charles[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find evidence he meets NMUSIC Star Mississippi 18:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 18:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 24 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!} 21:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I couldn't find sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 22:14, 31 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 14:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Habiganj Polytechnic Institute[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a government poly in nearly every district of Bangladesh. Most are unremarkable, run-of-the-mill organizations. Searches in English and Bengali found only listings on government pages, indiscriminate websites that scrape government databases, and wiki mirrors. There is no significant coverage in independent sources, so it does not meet WP:NSCHOOL. If it is felt that there is encyclopedic content here (2005 start date, perhaps) I could support a merge to Bangladesh Technical Education Board, where the institution is listed. Worldbruce (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:21, 24 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!} 21:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not meeting WP:NORG policy. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:01, 31 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 Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout (upcoming film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFF; article was created WP:TOOSOON. Must be deleted or drafted until further notice. The Film Creator (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify till it become notable as per WP:NFILM policy. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON, with the potential for notability to be achieved if/when the film releases. BOVINEBOY2008 11:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, Do not Delete, Draftify per WP:NFILM. Alex-h (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Boyz (South Korean band). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Moon (singer)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Artist doesn't meet WP:BANDMEMBER criteria. Poirot09 (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Poirot09 (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Poirot09 (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Boyz (South Korean band), not notable on his own. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:44, 31 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Party of South Dakota[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable state branch of a notable federal party. Toa Nidhiki05 12:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and South Dakota. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States) Reywas92^Talk 13:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is one of just three recognized political parties in the state, and one of the most successful LP affiliates (see 2020 United States House of Representatives election in South Dakota, for instance). These articles are in pretty poor shape right now, but can be improved. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We should have articles of all 50 Libertarian state parties. GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep state branch in existence since 1978, hundreds of hits in South Dakaota newspapers over a 40+ year period, some SIGCOV examples.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

References

^ "Libertarians file suit to get on state ballot". Newspapers.com. Rapid City Journal. 25 Aug 1984.
^ O'Gara, Hugh (7 Jun 1992). "Libertarians say you can do better". Newspapers.com. No. Rapid City Journal.
^ "Libertarians ordered back on ballor". Newspapers.com. Rapid City Journal. 9 Aug 2000.
^ "Libertarian Party forms local group in Yankton". Newspapers.com. Argus-Leader. 13 Oct 2002.
^ Montgomery, David (22 Jul 2014). "South Dakota Libertarians look to fill gap". Newspapers.com. Rapid City Journal.
^ "Libertarians hope to pick up voters". Newspapers.com. Argus-Leader. 27 Jul 2016.

Necessary to continue to note an evident lack of WP:BEFORE with these nominations. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States) or somewhere else per Reywas92. I don't really care, but there needs to be multiple in-depth sources that are independent of the subject to justify an article and I'm not seeing them here. Especially with the sources provided by Goldsztajn, which are extremely trivial at best and have nothing to do with the party at worst. In the meantime there's zero reason to have an article for every minor state affiliate of a political party. More so if the party affiliate has not been written about in any kind of detail or for that matter has any notable candidates who have won major elections. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This comment, copy pasted across three different AfDs, does not reflect the sources above. A five second glance at every single source above shows they discuss the Party *in* South Dakota, stating that they have "nothing to do with the party" is factually incorrect. Asserting there's zero reason for a state-based article would be correct in the absence of sources. Others may, but I wouldn't assume that there should be an article about every US state-level Libertarian Party branch, but it's clear in this case there is sufficient reliable sourcing. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the comments are different. Although they are similar because there's only so much to say about references and nominations that are almost exactly the same. As far as the other part of your comment goes, from what I remember the sources are extremely brief stories about "Libertarians" in South Dakota trying to get the party back on the ballot, but then that's not really directly about the Libertarian Party of South Dakota. At least not in any significant, notable, direct way that matters. You could spin the wheel and choose any random party in any random state and there would be local news stories about them trying to get on the ballot. What party doesn't to get on the ballot? That's literally what they do. Obviously there should be more then that for a party to be notable. Or at least coverage of it should be more then a paragraph byline from a local news source about some lady filing papers at her state election office or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As noted above, sources exist of sufficient quantity and depth to indicate this passes WP:GNG. --Jayron 32 15:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note: "Keep because it's an official party" or similar is not a valid argument because it does not address the reason for deletion (WP:GNG). The article needs examination on these terms.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of WP:SIGCOV in the refs provided by Goldsztajn.Jacona (talk) 01:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In no conceivable way can the sources provided above be considered significant coverage. They are trivial mentions such as gaining ballot access or opening a local branch in a small city of less than 15,000 people. They do not discuss the party in any depth. Notability is not inherited from the notable national party or automatic because they appeared on a ballot. AusLondonder (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first sourced article is from Associated Press, it's four columns in a newspaper, around 400-500 words. The entire piece is about the Party in South Dakota. The second is two columns, about 300-400 about the party's state (ie South Dakota) convention. The third is six columns, 300-400 words about a court ruling on ballot status in South Dakota. The fourth is one column, around 300 words, dealing with creating a local branch, reporting in a statewide newspaper. The fifth, four columns, 400-500 words, discussing that the Libertarian Party will be the only opposition in a number of state wide races. The sixth is a front page article, below the fold, probably 500 words, which deals with South Dakota electoral politics in general, but foregrounds the Libertarians. The topic (South Dakota Libertarian Party) is addressed in detail, no original research is required to extract information relevant to the article; ipso facto, SIGCOV. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all these. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)′[reply]
Strong Delete No coverage and no references and only 2500 people in it. It is miniscule and by definition non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are literally six sources listed above? Why did you say no coverage and no references? There are clearly both. --Jayron 32 12:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV identified above. The deletes denying there are sources are basically making WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. gidonb (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources listed by Goldsztajn. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Sal2100 (talk) 20:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 10:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Party of North Dakota[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable state branch of a notable federal party. Toa Nidhiki05 12:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and North Dakota. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States) Reywas92^Talk 13:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep hundreds of hits in North Dakota press over a 30+ year period, national press coverage of the state party, some SIGCOV examples.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]

References

^ Dura, Jack (9 Jan 2020). "ND Libertarian Party regains ballot access". Newspapers.com. The Bismarck Tribune.
^ Smith, Nick (28 Sep 2014). "Libertarians attempt to win three offices". Newspapers.com. The Bismarck Tribune.
^ "Libertarian Party ballot approval". Newspapers.com. The Bismarck Tribune. 31 Aug 2013.
^ "Libertarian party trying to get on N.D. ballot". Newspapers.com. The Bismarck Tribune. 11 Jul 1987.
^ Dura, Jack (28 Feb 2022). "North Dakota Libertarians to focus on 2024 elections". Bismarck Tribune.
^ Boewn, Joe (26 May 2021). "After running as a Democrat, Roland Riemers voted out of North Dakota Libertarian Party". Grand Forks Herald.
^ "North Dakota Libertarian Party to appear on ballot this year". AP NEWS. 8 January 2020.
^ Wootson Jr, Cleve R (16 October 2016). "'Make America Rape Again': A libertarian candidate's argument against 'rape culture'". Washington Post.
^ "Libertarians picking up momentum in ND". minotdailynews.com. 4 September 2016.

An evident lack of WP:BEFORE with these nominations. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn: Can I ask how you can believe that a trivial local newspaper mention about a political party gaining access to a ballot amounts to significant coverage? AusLondonder (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder I assume you are talking about the first article. It's an illustrated piece of about 300 words from an almost 150 year old daily newspaper that covers half the state. The entire piece covers the party and does not require original research to extract information. What's trivial? The newspaper? The issue? SIGCOV is a qualitative assessment, not quantitative, it relates to the source itself; note the words "more than a trivial mention" in SIGCOV. The article is clearly more than a trivial mention of the Party in North Dakota. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States) or somewhere else. I don't really care, but there needs to multiple in-depth sources that are independent of the subject justify an article and I'm not seeing them. The ones provided by Goldsztanjn are extremely trivial passing mentions in articles about other things and do nothing for notability. In the meantime there's zero reason to have an article for every minor state affiliate of a political party. Especially if they haven't been written about or for that matter have any notable candidates who won elections. It's not like they can't just be mentioned in the main list for state affiliates of the Libertarian Party or some other article related to it either. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources provided are extremely routine, trivial mentions such as a local newspaper noting the party gained access to the ballot. No significant, in-depth discussion of the party. No indication this state branch of a notable political party is individually notable. AusLondonder (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are all about the Party in the state. The state branch is notable because there is reliable source coverage of the state branch; that's how we determine notability. There are more than enough sources to adequately provide material for an article. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all these. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)′[reply]
Keep per sources listed, and comments/responses made, by Goldsztajn. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Sal2100 (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Party of Mississippi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable state branch of a notable federal party. Toa Nidhiki05 12:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Mississippi. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's the official state affiliate of the Libertarian Party. Uoiauai3 (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States) Reywas92^Talk 13:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's one of the officially-recognized, ballot qualified parties in the state. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all state Libertarian party articles. PS: This would've been easier if an AfD was open on 'all' state Libertarian & 'all' state Green party articles. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find 1,000+ hits on newspapers.com with a Libertarian Party search amongst Mississippi newspapers, plus a Google search turns up multiple articles. A quick scan shows SIGCOV articles across multiple years reporting actions of the party in Mississippi (as against reporting on the Party nationally).^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

References

^ Ellzey, Robert (25 Mar 1976). "Life of a Libertarian: low-key, low-budget". Newspapers.com. The Sun (Biloxi).
^ Spencer, Mark (24 Jul 2016). "Libertarians want chance with voters". Newspapers.com. Enterprise-Journal.
^ "The Libertarian Party in Mississippi is growing. Archives". WXXV News 25. 12 May 2021.
^ Samaha, Albert (28 April 2015). "Mississippi Narcotics Unit That Recruited Students Called On To Disband". BuzzFeed News.

It is not unreasonable to expect basic searches are carried out before a nomination; passes WP:NONPROFIT. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States) or somewhere else. I don't really care, but there needs to multiple in-depth sources that are independent of the subject justify an article and I'm not seeing them. The ones provided by Goldsztanjn are extremely trivial passing mentions and the number of hits on newspapers.com don't help any. In the meantime there's zero reason to have an article for every minor state affiliate of a political party. Especially if they haven't been written about or for that matter have any notable candidates who won elections. It's not like they can't just be mentioned in the main list for state affiliates of the Libertarian Party or some other article related to it either. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note: "Keep because it's an official party" or similar is not a valid argument because it does not address the reason for deletion (WP:GNG). The article needs examination on these terms.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The discussion above is woeful. Simply stating the organisation exists does nothing to demonstrate notability. Notability is not inherited from the notable national party. We need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources about the specific state branch. I'm not seeing that. AusLondonder (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States) would be a cheap, reasonable alternative to deletion. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way)} ^(contribs) 16:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the sources provided by Goldsztajn above; I am not seeing the "woefulness" of them, nor do they seem to be "extremely trivial passing mentions". jp×g 18:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is woeful is joining a AfD discussion by saying "keep all Libertarian state parties" with no rationale or "Keep, it's the official state affiliate of the Libertarian Party" AusLondonder (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the blocking of one of the contributors to this discussion for battleground behaviour, I certainly endorse approaches which do not characterise the quality of contributions, but rather convey in civil language policy-based discussion/refutation and the consideration of process. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder: Well, I didn't say to keep per them, I said to keep per Goldsztajn, who provided a bunch of sources that seem to constitute significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. I mean, maybe they don't -- I would be receptive to someone providing evidence to say they don't -- but to me this seems like the only relevant issue. jp×g 19:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all these. Hyperbolick (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)′[reply]

@Hyperbolick: As an editor who has been around here a while I would have assumed you knew AfD is supposed to be about genuine discussion and rational argument, not a simple vote AusLondonder (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reason is self-evident and already addressed by many above, so why be redundant? Hyperbolick (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Goldsztajn and JPxG. Passes WP:SIGCOV with newly provided sources. Sal2100 (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Bottle Shop & Taproom[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG. We now have more than 150 articles on Portland restaurants and bars, but not all of them seem to be really notable. This one fails the WP:AUD (audience) test, as the sources are all local, and most of them not very indepth either (the 15 March 2022 "closing" article is the exception, it is local but is an actual article instead of a short, gushing promo mention like this). Fram (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator who saved a stub before bed last night, perhaps too soon). There's plenty of coverage and I've expanded the article further this morning. Next time try some Google searching before nominating a page for deletion? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Gee, I never thought of that, Google searching? Then I would have found your additions: more articles from the local Willamette Weekly, from the local Eater Portland, and ... that's it, right? Instead of attacking the nominator on such spurious grounds, you can perhaps explain how this meets NORG? Fram (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Re: "that's it, right?" Nope! I'll let others take over from here. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  While you are of course not obliged to put up anything resembling a decent defense of your article, just making empty statements is really not helpful. The addition of soures like this one from the Willamette Week are more padding than anything else, for an article that already reads way too much like an advert instead of an encyclopedic article ("The Fruitcake Delight had barleywine mulled with ginger, cinnamon, nutmeg and turbinado sugar, and was garnished with rum-soaked raisins and currants. The glühwein had pinot noir from Coopers Hall mulled with cinnamon, anise, and turbinado sugar, and was garnished with clove." and so on). Having the Oregonian as a source could be an improvement, until one actually looks at the article[1]. Basically, you've added many references, but haven't done anything to actually address the reason for this deletion nomination either in the article or here. Fram (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The language you've deemed promotional is similar to the text I've drafted for approximately 40 articles about Portland restaurants I've promoted to GA status. Restaurant articles should have descriptions of the menu and specific items, when coverage allows. You may not think Eater Portland and Willamette Week (a Pulitzer-winning publication, by the way) are sufficient, but these are appropriate for Wikipedia, as are the Portland Mercury, Thrillist, and The Oregonian. There are plenty of other sources to fold into this entry, and I'm not even counting the beer-related sources. I'm less familiar with which beer publications are preferred on Wikipedia, but I've found lots of mentions at various beer sites and the business has won many awards at beer competitions. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Somehow, I don't think they won their Pulitzer for their restaurant reviews. Anyway, none of this addresses the failure to meet NORG (and no, a very passing mention in the Oregonian doesn't help). I never said that these sources are not appropriate for Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that they are sufficient to establish notability for this bar / shop. That borderline copyvio "recipes" have been accepted in GAs is perhaps more telling about the GA process than anything else, but changing "Momokawa Sake gets mulled with clove, orange, and honey and is served hot with a jasmine tea bag infusion." to "Momokawa Sake mulled with clove, honey, and orange, served hot with a jasmine tea bag infusion" is not something we should encourage in any way, nor is changing "mulled with ginger, cinnamon, nutmeg and turbinado sugar, and garnished with rum-soaked raisins and currants." to "mulled with ginger, cinnamon, nutmeg and turbinado sugar, and was garnished with rum-soaked raisins and currants" acceptable[2]. Fram (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Quibbles with specific text can be addressed on the article's talk page. This is a notability discussion. I'm still working to expand the article, using various sources. Further improvements are welcome, of course. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I don't feel a need to comment further here. In my opinion, you did not perform a thorough search before nominating the article for deletion. Per WP:BEFORE, you might consider adding a tag or starting a talk page discussion before jumping straight to AfD. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Your opinion would be worth more if you had anything to support this. You didn't provide a single source to this AfD, and the sources you added to the article are either more of the same, or passing mentions. If you want to accuse me of not doing a "before" search, show us what I missed that such a search would have returned. It is any of the 68 Google hits[3], or is it the articles from Willamette Weekly which you already added to the article[4]? The article as it stands now is still just as much an AfD candidate as the article at the time I nominated it. Fram (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eater Portland, Willamette Week, Portland Mercury, Thrillist, and The Oregonian are all acceptable sources and have been used dozens of times by the article creator to create GA articles on Portland-area restaurants and bars. If the AfD nominator has a problem with articles using those sources, an AfD is not the venue to raise it. Also, like Another Believer, I am not familiar with beer-related sources, but there are articles from The New School with bylines that seem to be in depth here and here that could be incorporated if the sourcing is deemed appropriate. --Kbabej (talk) 15:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Which article from the Oregonian has more than a passing mention? Being a GA is not a badge of immunity, we have even had FAs which have been deleted at AfD, as these look at completely different things. You don't explain how these local sources are acceptable (as the only sources) per WP:NORG. Thank you for providing these NewBeer sources, but a Portland-based webmagazine, with articles from authors living in Portland, may not be the best source either, as it has the same issues but from lesser-known sources. Fram (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The New School sources I listed cover Oregon and Washington, which is easily found on their about page. I haven't done a thorough assessment of the source, but even if the source is Portland-based with authors from Portland, that wouldn't really matter. You realize the Portland Metro area has 2.5 million people, right? Being "Portland-based" is very different than being a local paper like the The Yachats Gazette from Yachats (population ~690). Kbabej (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, it is unlikely that we would have articles on 150 restaurants from Yachats... City papers / blogs / ... writing about city restaurants (pubs, shops, ...) is a natural thing, but it has been agreed by consensus that unless other (non-local) sources have given significant attention to those companies, we shouldn't have articles on them. That Portland has both a thriving culinary and a thriving journalistic culture is hardly a reason to make an exception to this. Fram (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I think you might be confusing what "local" means. Portland is a metropolitan area and the state's largest population and urban center; it's not some village or an sleepy town on the coast. As for your "agreed by consensus" point, I have yet to see a policy/guideline that states sources must be outside the area they are covering. Are you referencing WP:LOCALINT? If so, that is a failed proposal, and WP:LOCAL is only an essay.
  
  As a friendly reminder, it is also not required (or even expected) that you reply to every point made on this AfD (see WP:BLUDGEON - again, just an essay). --Kbabej (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  On the other hand, an AfD is meant to be a discussion, and no one is forced to reply to me either (although of course you are welcome to). And no, I understand perfectly well what "local" means, and there is no cutoff point which means that a restaurant written about in the newspaper of a 50,000-pop city is not notable, but a restaurant in a larger city is notable if written about by the city newspaper(s). Fram (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Fram Thoughts on American Craft Beer? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I strongly agree much of what Kbabej has said. I believe that WP:LOCAL does not apply here; the article easily meets all three criteria listed at the bottom (sufficiently long, contain appropriate information, and reasonably well-referenced). Further, many of the sources listed are regional, making WP:AUD inapplicable. Fram, if you can provide a link to the consensus you mentioned above that even more sources are needed, that might make me reconsider, but currently I do not think the policies mentioned are being applied correctly. Finally, just because some of the sources are technically lists doesn't make them any less significant, because they generally are accompanied with a solid chunk of text about the subject (e.g. [5]). Toadspike (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LOCAL is an essay, I gave links to actual guidelines (which is the consensus). I'm not clear which of the sources you consider "regional": in any cases, I don't claim that more sources are needed per se, but "better" ones (for the sake of notability), sources showing that this shop/pub has received attention beyond the Portland incrowd. Your final point doesn't seem to address anything I said, some of the sources have more text (although this kind of gushy prose is hardly a source we should use in any case, not very journalistic). Fram (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  At risk of sounding immature, I know LOCAL is an essay, but the preceding discussion mentioned the word, so I thought I should touch on it. My final point does indeed not address anything you said, that was more a note for myself and in case anyone raised those concerns in future, and I understand your argument that it’s not the best source material regardless.
  
  Other than that, I will repeat my response to Reywas92 here as well: We have a different understanding of what’s “local” and what’s “regional”. In your opinion, the “Portland in-crowd” is local; in my opinion it’s regional. The consensus you are directing me to (AUD) only has a wikilink to an unsourced and sparse section of Newspaper to define “regional”, which leaves this all very ambiguous. I think we need a way to find broader community consensus for this definition, rather than having the five of us continue bashing it out when we clearly disagree on what the policy says. Toadspike (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A Portland-based news source covering a Portland restaurant is in fact local and these do not go beyond WP:AUD. Although the Portland metro could be considered a "region", that does not excuse that these reviews and routine bits on local businesses are written for people who live in the vicinity. The New York Times' reviews of New York City restaurants would likewise be considered local even though it's a national news source. Reywas92^Talk 18:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they may be written for people who live in the vicinity, but there are a lot of people who live in the vicinity, hence my opinion (reflected by Kbabej above) that the newspapers used are regional sources. I think we have a different understanding of the distinction between “local” and “regional”. This might require raising to RfC or some other avenue for generating consensus, because as it stands WP:AUD is not clear at all. Toadspike (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(disclosure : I came here because I have watchlisted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer) Merge with Portland, Oregon#Cuisine and breweries. While I can find a number of news sources, they all seem to be local news sources, and I'd really want to see significant coverage in at least national sources before thinking it would be appropriate to write a spin-off article, as opposed to a short paragraph in the main one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose to merge as proposed. Doing so would give way too much weight to one business over the many, many similar businesses in the city. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It depends how much information is contained in non-local sources. If there is none, then maybe a name-check is all that could be merged. As a counter-example, consider Bluewater (shopping centre), which states "The centre employs 7,000 people and serves over 27 million visitors a year" (in context, 27 million is about 40% of the entire UK population) which is a clear and verifiable claim of regional, if not national importance. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also oppose this merge; if deleted, this article should be redirected or deleted, not merged, per Another Believer. Even a passing mention at Portland, Oregon#Cuisine and breweries would be out of place, looking at the amount of restaurants in Portland: {{Restaurants in Portland, Oregon}} — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 02:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't believe deleting well-sourced, useful articles with references to reliable sources is an important use of our time, just because of a sentence in a policy. (Not to mention, I don't agree with WP:AUD even applying per Kbabej). If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it: can we please delete the WP:OR articles that actually suck because they don't have sources instead of trying to delete this? — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 02:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's not all that much discussion, but the editors who are familiar with this kind of topic are for deletion or at least are not enthusiastic for keeping this. Sandstein 19:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delle, Utah[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This one may end up being a substantial discussion, as there are a lot of source problems here. To begin with, the only substantial source for the history section (ignoring the long irrelevant section on the roads) is Van Cott's Utah Place Names. The 12-mile-away water source can actually be cited, but is not. The other cited fact isn't true, and it may actually prove a problem for a large number of Utah articles, and possibly those in other areas as well. The population figure is cited to the 1950 census, but no page number is given, and when I looked at the actual entry, the number 174 does indeed appear, but a map shows that "Delle" actually represents a huge area, not a small town. That appears to be the case for many if not most entries that aren't for incorporated places, and since the Utah articles frequently have population figures, I have to wonder how many of these are representative of the town they write about. I also must note that Van Cott's etymology appears to be nonsense, as "dalle" actually means something like "stepping stone".

All the business in the middle is uncited and questionable. The motel and gas stations are undeniable and well-documented; the railway camp less so. The topos don't go back very far, but the 1977 map I found has an interesting detail: there is a second spot labelled "Delle", right on the rails about a mile NW of the motel ruins. The topo also shows a siding there. After that things get iffy. Far and away the most references are for precipitation (mainly remarking on the months or years since any was recorded), as a locating point for things "near Delle", and a bunch of rail-related hits. There are some book and web references that large echo the article, but they are all relatively recent, and it's not clear that any of them are independent of either our article or of Van Cott. I can't find any old sources other than a Blue Book in which it is just a name. So I'm quite dubious that this was ever a town. Mangoe (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I sense a challenge. ☺
It's a right old mess because it's the product of 5 editors. Editor 1 is Moabdave who knew only that it was a service station. Editor 2 is 63.226.66.4 who knew that it was a railroad stop but just blammed in more content beside the original instead of fixing the original. In between them is Ntsimp who added Van Cott and the other bits with actual sources connected to them, and is also responsible for the "unincorporated community" cop-out even though the previous two editors at least were specific about what the thing is/was. The 4th editor, who again didn't consolidate the existing contradictory narratives but wanted to write about a spite road (the same one as at Utah State Route 196#History) was An Errant Knight.
Van Cott is explicit that this was a "maintenance camp" for the Western Pacific and is now "a gas station, cafe, and siding only". There's no support for "enclave", "village", "town", or "unincorporated community" coming from the source actually used. Van Cott is quite clear on what this was and is.
There's not much in Van Cott, so I'd like to see two sources. Following the usual methodology doesn't get much, however. There's no Arcadia book covering this. It's the wrong side of the mountains to be part of the West Desert Hazardous Industries Area and the Hazardous Waste Corridor for which there is some documentation. And it's just ignored by the Tooele County General Plan. The only other even partway reasonable source just confirms Van Cott that Delle "consisted solely of an old, small cafe, motel and service station" and "There is no permanent housing located at Delle", and doesn't provide anything else. By adding in the spite road that's really in Skull Valley and the unverifiable businessman tale (from editor #5), the article is actually larger than what I can find to verifiably say about the place.
Uncle G (talk) 05:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This editor seems fairly confused by the nomination for deletion. It seems that the nomination is primarily due to less than ideal supporting citations regarding certain aspects of the former community and its history. However, the underlying dispute appears to be centered around whether Delle was an unincorporated community (a place where humans lived) or just a locale (a place with somewhat significant human activity, but without anyone residing there). The later issue should not be a debate as the United State Geological Survey (USGS) determined long ago that Delle was a populated place (not just a locale). The USGS apparently based its determination on the place's classification by the United States Census Bureau (which at some point classified it as a place where people lived). Referring back to the original debate, an unincorporated community is a populated place that is not currently a village, town, city, etc. It does not look like there is any evidence that Delle ever achieved incorporation as a town or city, so it would clearly have been Ann unincorporated community. Therefore it remains, as previously stated, that the dispute (if there really is one) is not based upon the past or present significance of Delle (even though it may be somewhat minor), but the lack of clearly supporting references. With that in mind, there are many, many articles regarding former and current communities that have less significance and much less in the way of supporting documentation. Accordingly, deletion would not be appropriate. An Errant Knight (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that's not how GNIS phase 1 worked. Everything was "populated place" because there was no other designation, and "unincorporated community" is just the Wikipedia information-free cop-out conversion of that. No-one has actually made a determination. The person doing the phase 1 gazetteer saw a minimum of 1 building, and "populated place" it was.
    The GNIS Names files do not differentiate between various types of populated places. A subdivision having one inhabitant is as significant as a major metropolitan centre such as New York City.
    — Heard, Andrew M. (August 1986). Automatic correlation of USGS digital line graph geographic features to GNIS names data. United States Army Corps of Engineers. AD-A192-787.
    And rather than lack of clearly supporting references, the one source that explicitly says what the subject is was ignored by the editor who added it in favour of the information-free cop-out. Editors 1 and 2 at least agreed with Van Cott. Editor 3 used but ignored Van Cott. Editor 4 just ignored Van Cott and wrote about something that's in Skull Valley, not at or in the "maintenance camp" or the "gas station, cafe, and siding". Uncle G (talk) 04:28, 24 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!} 02:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a place on the railroad and the highway, but I don't see any indication that it is or was a community or that the minor activity at the site established notability. The above is mistaken; the WP:GNIS has many errors, and it made its classification from USGS topographic maps, not the Census. Reywas92^Talk 03:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Utah. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:42, 31 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. Sandstein 19:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fore School of Management[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Commercial college ( see the fee structure and more here [6] )that is trying to create marketing page here. Not realising WP:NCORP. If we see history, we see so many new accounts again and again trying to add information. The current language is also far from what could be saved. ‘Heart of south delhi’ ‘surrounded by other notable institute’ and more. The list of notable alumni, apart from Jindal, none other are into business and management. They are cricketers, politicians, actors etc. Something very shady going on here. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:56, 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!} 02:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I've edited for neutral tone and removed some promotional stuff. Theroadislong (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources suggest that the school is non-profit, which per WP:NSCHOOL means that meeting the GNG (not NCORP) is enough. [7], an article in the reliable The Telegraph, seems to be significant and independent, and [8] seems to be adequate (although not entirely flattering) as well. Since the issues with promotional language have been resolved, WP:TNT is off the table; the article can be protected if disruption continues. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would challenge the apparent not for profit nature of this school. It clearly says that it is a private college and if you check their fee, they are enormous. This is very similar to other universities that pretend to be not for profit but make money through students. In practical sense, WP:NCORP is the right policy for such institutes. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 22:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Check comment of Hemantha in this AFD [9] Laptopinmyhands (talk) 22:50, 31 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. Sandstein 19:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Macrì[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

sourcing, notability not evident, possible WP:SOAP Acous mana 14:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't turned up WP:NBOOK passes for her works, but Google Scholar has 119 cites for Il corpo postorganico which might contain significant coverage for WP:NAUTHOR. Her other books show under 10 cites on GScholar. It also looks like there was some kind of movie made about/with her, which got some kind of coverage I can't access here. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we count this as soft deletable? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 23:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment English sources are mostly for a painter with the same name, I can't read Italian and can't judge how notable the sources used for the article are. Oaktree b (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Until recently it should have been deleted, but I've just added in the exhibit she curated at the National Gallery of Modern Art, in Rome in 2019 and two independent reviews of it therefore satisfying WP:ARTIST criteria 3. CT55555 (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Referenced in worldwide library catalogs (see Authority control I added to wikidata). --Afernand74 (talk) 13:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - her opinion as an art critic and professor was reported by the AP in September 2021. Beccaynr (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added that to the article. CT55555 (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm not having much luck with Italian sources, but I do believe she meets WP:NAUTHOR based on having published a number of books with reliable publishing houses. I see few published articles, however, and I'm not being successful at finding an independent biography. Probably because her writing is post-modern she doesn't turn up in general sources like popular newspapers. I did look at the links in the Italian article that aren't in the English one and didn't find anything helpful. I note, also, that most Italian newspapers are strictly behind paywalls - I had a hint of some articles about exhibits in Il Manifesto but couldn't access them. Lamona (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R. K. Mohapatra[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not inherited from the available references, fails to achieve WP:SIGCOV. And does not satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. DMySon (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 18:33, 31 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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Burns (American football)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. He had 1 carry in the NFL for the Cincinnati Bengals in 1995, in which he rushed for a single yard. His college career does not appear to be notable either, having finished with a total of 987 scrimmage yards after 4 years. He does appear to own a gym now, but that's all I'm finding in terms of notability for him, and even that's a stretch. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, (1), this person played in the National Football League (recently, too! this isn't some one-gamer from 1920), the highest level of the sport there ever was, and meets NGRIDIRON. And (2) Burns easily meets GNG, for just a very brief search on Newspapers.com brings up SIGCOV such as [10] [11] [12] [13]. And if that's not enough, then consider me voting on IAR grounds, as I think deleting NFL player articles do not at all improve the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm just of the opinion that 1 carry in the NFL shouldn't be enough to be considered notable. Perfectly fine if others don't agree with me but I appreciate your responses to my two nominations. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's foolproof for "meaningful" notability, even in the present day. Though that's a subjective notion in itself. But it's pretty much a given for recent decades that if someone plays any detectable role in an NFL game, they'll get newspaper coverage, and even moreso more recently, web coverage in the "back pages" segments of reliable-source outlets. Will future generations thank us for collating this information as encyclopedic? I'm doubtful of that, but those are the standards we've set, so we should at least try to apply them consistently. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. The article cited above by Beanie are examples of such coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sportsballpages coverage seems legit, and his participation doesn't even seem to be nonsense plays in garbage time of a meaningless game either. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep appears to pass muster. It's not just "one play" because he also played in college to get that one play in the NFL. Sure, it's a stub, but we should be careful--see Wikipedia:Do not confuse stub status with non-notability--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:GNG, and WP:BASIC, per all above, particularly Paulmcdonald's comment. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander van Akkooi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacks independent reliable sources as all of the citations are research publications where van Akkooi is a co-author and a listing of a medical conference speaker bio. The article appears to fail all 8 criteria at WP:NACADEMIC although his being head of surgery at the Melanoma Institute might marginally meet item #5, the equivalent of having a named adademic department chair. I ran a search "Alexander van Akkooi" +melanoma and +sarcoma but there was no return with any independent sources covering him. In summary, this is a respected physician/researcher but I'm not seeing where he meets WP:ANYBIO with independent reliable sources. Blue Riband► 15:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Blue Riband► 15:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Blue Riband► 15:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A named or endowed chair is not the same as a department chair. The former is a special recognition, above and beyond just being a tenured professor, generally indicating a high level of esteem from the professional community. The latter is an administrative position. XOR'easter (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much my own understanding of requirement #5 for NACADEMIC. From what I've read thus far van Akkooi appears to be respected among his colleagues but he lacks independent coverage. (I've authored and co-authored peer-reviewed scientific publications in enough quantity to write an autobiography.;-) But there's no independent coverage about me either!)Blue Riband► 00:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is undisclosed paid editing. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ch1p the chop. This SPI is linked to an older case. Probably will qualify for WP:G5 once documented. MarioGom (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:G5: Actually it meets the G5 date with the current case already. MarioGom (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged it for G5 speedy delete. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the G5 was declined to allow this discussion to run its course. Note that an endowed chair only means that the person is well-esteemed within his own institution. You cannot imply external recognition from that fact. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. First-author citations on Google Scholar appear to be 306 ("Clinical relevance of melanoma micrometastases"), 283 ("Sentinel node tumor burden"), 126 ("Morbidity and prognosis after therapeutic lymph node dissections"), 113 ("High positive sentinel node identification rate"), 67 ("Expert opinion in melanoma: the sentinel node"). This is a high-citation-count topic, but I think there's enough to make at least a borderline case for WP:PROF#C1. On the other hand, I think the G5 case is clear enough that unless someone else wants to adopt the article and continue to guard it against promotional editing (I don't) we're better off without this one. As for the speculation re endowed chairs: WP:PROF#C5 is clear that if he had one he would be notable, but he doesn't. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 14:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2015 DR215[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails all notability criteria from WP:NASTRO. This asteroid has no reliable media coverage—it is all sensationalist news headlines. There is nothing noteworthy about its orbit and close approaches with Earth; JPL's database shows its physical properties are practically unknown, and that has never made, or will make any close approaches within 17 lunar distances to Earth in the past/future 200 years. The 11 March 2022 approach isn't even significant enough for NASA to bother making radar observations of the asteroid. Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 03:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it satisfies WP:GNG, receiving brief but significant coverage. Some of the infobox data appears incorrect compared to a JPL Small-Body Database Lookup. If the consensus is to delete it, then it could be redirected to the Atira asteroid article where it is already listed. Praemonitus (talk) 15:12, 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!} 02:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect, no notability, just passing mentions in a few publications. Artem.G (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 31 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. WP:NOQUORUM applies. ✗plicit 13:26, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yulia Yanina[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Russian designer created by a possible UPE user. Driodr (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not in a position to check the mostly Russian sources on the article but I could easily find sigcov in English language eg WWD and Fashion Network. Mujinga (talk) 10:22, 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!} 05:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 31 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!} 03:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Carlsen[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MMABIO. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 08:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 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!} 05:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails to meet WP:NMMA with zero top tier fights and he lacks the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Database entries are not enough. Papaursa (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Allan (journalist)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. The first 3 sources are 1 line mentions. The 4th source is by his employer. Also fails WP:JOURNALIST. LibStar (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 01:01, 17 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 00:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I searched google news and google books. I found one article about his radio work and a book that has more than a passing mention. I added them. I also discovered that he co-wrote a book and added that in. All that said, none of those edits get him to WP:GNG, however I think he does meet WP:ANYBIO on the basis of criteria 1 that he won a significant award or honor. Now that hinges on others agreement that the Scottish Sports Writer of the year award 1999 is a "significant award". I consider that up for debate, but I lean towards it being enough, especially in combination with a couple of newspapers articles about his radio work and the book that has more than a passing mention. It's a very borderline case, so very weak keep. CT55555 (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not significant. No Great Shaker (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 31 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Insperity[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All WP:LISTED organisations are not directly notable. Insperity is such company that it doesn’t realise WP:NCORP policy I feel. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 01:45, 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!} 02:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Texas. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient references that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. For example, analyst reports such as this from Zacks and there are other references under the previous name Administaff. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite claims of passing NCORP, the sources here are all WP:MILL and press releases. Name change being reported is not coverage and I can't find anything remotely substantial about the company. CUPIDICAE💕 19:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Analyst reports are not WP:MILL and in general are accepted to meet ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Putvinski[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The person doesn't pass WP:GNG. Not any notable awards, achievements, etc. Also, not enough relialbe independent sources are provided. Possible Advert or COI Driodr (talk) 08:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting list for Television. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned it up, but couldn't get it to a point where notability was clear. I think it's more fan than COI, but he's very borderline with available sourcing. I'll look to see if anything has improved since. Star Mississippi 13:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep Lots of press for his time in the Runway TV show, some interviews as he left. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:13, 31 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 List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States). This decision doesn't disallow a future article, should this state party ever receive any notable coverage. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Party of Hawaii[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable state branch of a notable federal party. Toa Nidhiki05 12:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Hawaii. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States) Reywas92^Talk 13:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an officially-recognized, ballot-qualified party in the state of Hawaii that regularly runs candidates. The creator shouldn't have created it without any references, but I intend to expand the article. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We should have an article fore every state Libertarian Party article. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: WP:VALUABLE AusLondonder (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Party is well established as the third national political party. So, may as well mention their state affiliates. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles need to be based on sources that are indepdent of the organization, secondary, and provide indepth coverage. None of the sources here are such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States) or somewhere else. I don't really care, but there needs to multiple in-depth sources that are independent of the subject justify an article and I'm not seeing them. In the meantime there's zero reason to have an article for every minor state affiliate of a political party. Especially if they haven't been written about or for that matter have any notable candidates who won elections. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability cannot be inherited from the notable national party, nor is it automatic on the basis of existing or standing for election or being registered. I can't locate anything to indicate this state branch is independently notable. AusLondonder (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redriect to List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States) per Reywas92. I'm not seeing sources from Hawaii of a similar nature to the other state parties in discussion here. Yes, the Libertarian Party is discussed in Hawaiian news media, but almost exclusively around national politics...I can see public announcements on loss of ballot access, but these are not appropriate sources. Willing to be convinced otherwise if someone is able to make a deeper dive into newspapers.com and find sourcing. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gbenga Oyebode[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Returned to mainspace via REFUND after a soft deletion, but notability issues remain as well as possible UPE. There is sourcing, but it doesn't add up to enough. Had Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aluko & Oyebode not closed as delete, I'd have suggested a merger with his company. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 14:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 14:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pings: @Jay as REFUNDer, @DGG @Princess of Ara as participants Star Mississippi 14:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:Requests for undeletion#Gbenga Oyebode, Prinzade6 provided more sources than what the article had at deletion, and I assume he'll be working on them. Jay (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be considered. Law firms and lawyers in Nigeria have rules that guide against advertisement or self-promotion (here). So you cannot see much information online. In addition, I think the article was only written to reflect his notability. Also, he is the son-in-law of Murtala Muhammed, 4th head of state of Nigeria. @Jay I do not work for him or his law firm. I am just contributing to knowledge on Wikipedia. 197.253.5.132 (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

He is the son-in-law of Murtala Muhammed, 4th head of state of Nigeria (here).

Gbenga Oyebode, the Nigerian multi-millionaire lawyer (here). He is a renowned deal-maker in commercial law in Nigeria. Prinzade6 (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By "working on them" I meant working on the article and the sources. Sorry if you read it as "working for them". Jay (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
that may also have stemmed from my mention of UPE in the nomination, which was the case with Londstar6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but may not be with Prinzade6. Star Mississippi 18:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If Nigeria hasrules against self-promotion by lawyers this is mrely an attempt to evade them. The ref. to "son-in-law" of notable person is not an argument for keeping an article--it rather tends to indicate the lack of notability if it has to be cited as a reason for keeping. DGG ( talk ) 07:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of Nigerian lawyers on Wikipedia. I only referred to Rule because I think it may be the reason why you have not found him worthy of an article. Prinzade6 (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Rule only guide against soliciting for work and self-praising. I think the writer intended to show his notable for posterity. Being a "son-in-law" is not an achievement. I only mentioned it for future references in "Personal Life" section for Murtala Muhammed or himself. Prinzade6 (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Pretty much echoing DGG, and yes @Star Mississippi, just mere going through the contributions I definitely can tell this is strong probable UPE, in all i fail to see any notability criteria met. Celestina007 (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG I only referred to self-promotion because there are no much references online that promotes him. So, the article was not intended to promote him, only to show his notability. If you want to delete him, I suggest you delete all these articles too because he is as notable as all of them: Ibikun Awosika, Bisi Onasanya, Herbert Wigwe, Aliko Dangote, Aigboje Aig-Imoukhuede and many more. These are all industry leaders in Nigeria. I beg to disagree with you argument or conclusion. He is a business magnate like these ones and he is one of Nigeria's celebrated and foremost lawyer. Please I think you should reconsider this. Prinzade6 (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG I only referred to the Rules of Professional Ethics for Legal Practitioners because a lot of online references does not celebrate his legal contributions but that does not mean he is not notable in the industry. This article is for posterity. Should the article be improved upon? Yes.

Nigerian billionaires gain N512.5 billion in January 2022, see the top 5. Everyone in that article is on Wikipedia and they all have founded leading companies in Nigeria. He co-founded the largest commercial law in Nigeria (Aluko & Oyebode, which article was also deleted), just like the following lawyers: Dana Latham, Justin DuPratt White, Sir Philip Rose, 1st Baronet, William Ellsworth Dunn and many more, who have founded leading law firms as well. So why are these lawyers notable and not him? Prinzade6 (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are all these people notable? Dana Latham, Justin DuPratt White, Sir Philip Rose, 1st Baronet, and William Ellsworth Dunn. He is in their league and they have founded leading and notable law firms in their respective countries. I think article approval or deletion should be decided upon by knowledge-based experts or country experts. Prinzade6 (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007, If he is not notable, why was he honoured by the Nigerian Government and the Belgian Government for his contribution toward the legal profession and business in Nigeria? These are recognitions are based on merit. MFR is an equivalent of MBE in the United Kingdom. Please read more about this individual in this article. Prinzade6 (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, we're not a directory. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG, and Star Mississippi.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 International Legion of Territorial Defense of Ukraine#Canada. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wali (sniper)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has been proposed for deletion due to failing WP:N.

1.) A vast majority of the media articles are based two acts 1 - he joined the Ukrainian armed forces in their fight against Russia and 2 - debunking their supposed death. Thus, I believe this violates WP:NBASIC

2.) This person does not appear to be a part of the enduring historical record per Wikipedia requirements, nor are there any well-known or significant awards known which both violate WP:ANYBIO

KD0710 (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International Legion of Territorial Defense of Ukraine#Canada, where the individual is sufficiently covered. All of his coverage is within the context of one event—his participation in the Russo-Ukrainian war. The viral fake news story itself would fail WP:NEVENT, since viral phenomena... are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. It's not strictly a WP:BLP1E, but he's probably best covered in the context of the international legion a-la-WP:PAGEDECIDE. There is little known about the individual except that he's in the legion and didn't die, so he's best covered in the context on the page on the Legion. Since he's already sufficiently covered there, I see no need for an independent page. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to International Legion of Territorial Defense of Ukraine#Canada. While I agree with Mhawk10 in that there's a certain je ne sais quoi which leads me towards the same conclusion, calling the Russo-Ukranian War a "single event" seems to be stretching the definition and would lead to counter-intuitive (at least to me) results if applied to various other military figures in the extreme ("World War 2 is a single event" as a reductio ad absurdum). Similarly, while WP:NEVENT would be clearly relevant for an article entitled "Death of Wali" or something along those lines, I'm not aware of policy language stating that the events in the context of WP:BLP1E should be notable in isolation. All that said, I think this falls into the vaguely defined category of pages that fit WP:NOPAGE, and it's better to discuss the topic in the context of a larger page. Perhaps some day we'll have proper biographies etc. that would give material for a larger article, but I don't think that day is now. The !vote is weak because I'm not able to point out an applicable bright-line rule. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, my point in bringing up WP:NEVENT was to rule out an alternative in which we eventify the article. The guideline is not directly applicable to a BLP. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International Legion of Territorial Defense of Ukraine#Canada seems to be a reasonable action based on the above reasonings. The lack of information outside of this event, and honestly including this event, does not seem to meet the level of need to have an entire page devoted to the individual, when a redirect would suffice. KD0710 (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to International Legion of Territorial Defense of Ukraine#Canada. — The Anome (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retromotive[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly-sourced stub about a non-notable publication. Only refs are to close and primary sites, and a search finds nothing better. The article is still fairly new, and I first considered draftifying, but that would only make sense if there were sources to be found, which I'm contending there aren't. Fails WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find independent sources to support notability under WP:NMAGAZINE or WP:GNG. The only significant coverage is the Silodrome article (cited in article), however I question its independence, since Silodrome states in another article, We’re working with Retromotive Magazine to showcase their work to Silodrome’s large global audience, hopefully sending them some additional subscribers..[14] Schazjmd (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding anything in a BEFORE search to establish notability by way of sources. This is not really an article, it is a list of their magazine topics. My sense is that this may be a "pay to play" publication, and that the article may be a promotional effort. The publication does not inherit the notability of the artists it features, and does not seem notable in its own right. Does not meet [{WP:GNG]] criteria for inclusion. Netherzone (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just what the nomination says. -- Hoary (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional and fails GNG by a mile. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NMAGAZINE, fails GNG. Jacona (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMAGAZINE and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dornier Do 235[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable aircraft, apparently a proposed design that was never built. The two sources are just SPSs with extremely limited information. No prejudice against redirecting to an appropriate list article as an AFD result BilCat (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Aviation, Transportation, and Germany. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge The sources used by the article indeed appear to be hobbyist WP:SPS. The Kleuser page even states "Information from Wikipedia is not always listed explicitly" in a footer, which is problematic in more than one way. My brief perusal of Google Books found only the following: 1) A mention in a 1947 USAF text entitled "Glossary of German aeronautical codes, models, project numbers, abbreviations, etc" with the totality of the entry reading "Aircraft type number for a bomber powered by four engines". 2) Hankey: Man of Secrets by Stephen Roskill appears to contain one instance of "Do 235" according to Google Books, but the preview only shows the bottom half of that line and I think this might be an OCR error actually reading "238". 3) British Intelligence in the Second World War by Francis Hinsley et al. has a brief mention of "The report described a new light bomber with a speed of 450-500 mph, a 1,800 lb bomb-load and high fuel consumption, calling it the Do 235. That this was a precursor of the new aircraft emerged when, on 22 February the Enigma decrypt..." with the preview cutting off soon thereafter. The index then contains the text "Do 235 see Do 335", but I'm not sure what a twin-engined (push-pull) heavy fighter has to do with a four-engine bomber. Based on the - admittedly limited - visibility I have to these sources, they appear to be rather far from the WP:SIGCOV needed. As an alternative to deletion, we could also merge to List of German aircraft projects, 1939–1945 (or some other suitable page), but this assumes that we can source the entry to WP:RS. The two sources currently in the article don't cut it, but the Hinsley book might be suitable, assuming the full text elucidates whether this aircraft was just a proposal/thought experiment, a bunch of plans on paper, or something more concrete. I seem to have access to Hinsley's book through work, but won't be able to check it out in the next few days. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should merge to List of German aircraft projects, 1939–1945 since it was never really used in Germany's military and as you mentioned had little reference in the books, but still was an aircraft that had some basic information on it in the sources you checked. Urban Versis 32 (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dornier Flugzeugwerke and merge the minimal content into there. Fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 10:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge any useful content. I'd be ok with either the Dornier or List of German aircraft projects. Intothat darkness 01:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One of the article's sources lists the designation as a "highly questionable" entry which may or may not have existed as a project only. This aircraft doesn't pass WP:NAIR as its existence as even a project cannot be confirmed, and I have not seen any reliable sources indicating that the 8-235 designation was even assigned by the RLM. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we cannot reliably source it, we can't merge it, and we can't redirect it to an article in which it is not mentioned for the same reason. Sandstein 18:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Delete. I had a chance to review a couple of my books and there's no mention of a Do 235. Should something turn up, it could easily be added to an existing article because this was never an operational aircraft (if it even existed, which is highly questionable). Intothat darkness 19:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Zlea.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oswald Rantucci[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could find Rantucci in lists of performers, sometimes with a bare mention of listing what instrument he was playing (he seems to have also played the mandolin), and I found his name dropped in a list of people someone studies under, but I did not find sources that offered sustained, indepth coverage of his actions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the requirements of both WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:NACADEMIC. As a musician, it appears that he is the namesake of an annual guitar competition, but that event receives little reliable coverage in its own right and is only visible in its own promotions and occasionally in the personal pages of participants. As an academic he was mentioned very briefly in an article about the history of his university (already cited in this WP article), and his influence on students was mentioned in an obituary, and even the obituary talks much more about the students:[15]. I'm sure he was a wonderful teacher but there's just not enough to justify an encyclopedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My searches in ProQuest, Newspapers.com, etc. turned up the occasional passing mention, but nothing more. I could find nothing that would qualify as significant coverage for purposes of the GNG, and there's no indication that he meets WP:NMUSIC, WP:NPROF, or any other relevant SNG. I agree with Doomsdayer520: while I'm sure Rantucci made a difference in the lives of those around him, he doesn't seem to satisfy our notability criteria. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG,WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:NACADEMIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lucas[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Airy claims for notability, but no evidence for it. An article that has been in search of referencing since 2016, it seems. Hoary (talk) 13:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 13:10, 31 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. ✗plicit 13:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo of Gaza[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There has been no peer review for this yet. WP:SENSATION. The story could be mentioned when competent independent experts publish peer reviewed research papers about the supposed artifact to properly contextualize it. Until then, the page should be deleted. No reliable source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick.N.L (talk • contribs)

Delete : No reliable source about the artifact. Newspaper article is not a reliable source for an archeological find. A reliable source would be a peer-reviewed article from archeologists who have actually analyzed the statue. Patrick.N.L (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. News articles are valid sources. Obviously better ones are desirable—as are pictures—but there's no good reason to delete the article until they appear. P Aculeius (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Comment’’’ this might be a response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Ebal curse tablet created by the nominator. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC*
Delete No scholars have been allowed near it and the only source is the guy trying to get rich selling it. It doesn't meet notability guidelines just because of dramatic but self-interested claims which no objective source has been allowed to test. There are a lot of sensational archaeological claims that make it into normally reliable publications and in the vast majority of cases it later becomes clear they have no business on Wikipedia. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is at least evidence of sustained interest in this statue, e.g., a documentary that received some high-profile reviews [16][17] and fairly in-depth coverage in an academic journal article [18]. The tone of these writings is that the statue's origin remains unknown, and the hopes people have for it may tell us more about them than the statue (the academic paper compares the documentary to Citizen Kane and Rashomon in that respect). I hesitate to say what all this means for whether we should have an article and what we should say in it if we do, but I do think it indicates the situation is not quite analogous to that of the Mount Ebal curse tablet. XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A film does not confirm that the statue is not a hoax but an actual archeological piece; only an archeologist can confirms it is. The academic paper you are talking about, the title is 'Film and cinema study in review'; how is a film study pertinent to consider that the statue is actually an archeological piece; and the author is not archeologist but "an experimental documentary filmmaker and Assistant Professor of Film Theory at George Mason University". She has no qualification to confirm if the statue is of any value or a hoax. Patrick.N.L (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoaxes can be notable too. The question is whether the statue is notable, not whether it's been proved authentic. Even if it's exposed as a hoax, it's had a lot of publicity in archaeological and general circles—and people might be expected to search for information about it. Readers who look on Wikipedia will find out whether it's confirmed as authentic, proven to be a fake, or if the jury's still out (which, apparently, it still is at this juncture). P Aculeius (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See the list of hoaxes for examples. XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoaxes certainly can be notable but this one isn't. For one thing, there's no scholarly import whatsoever. If it's real -- this guy gets rich. If it's fake -- he doesn't. That's all that rests on the issue, so far as we know, because we know nothing about it. He also didn't convince anybody. The claim that there's sustained interest is not true. It was a viral story (of, again, no academic interest) in 2014, then the subject of a Arabic-language 2018 documentary, which was itself mentioned in one journal article. Normal people who only see these occasionally don't understand this, but equivalent listings/claims/stories happen EVERY WEEK. An object doesn't deserve a page just because someone listed it on Ebay with a sensational description that no one ever in any way substantiated and no one except the lister ever claimed was accurate. Lots of genuinely famous hoaxes don't have pages (Moabitica for example) which is good. Few of them should and definitely no non-famous ones. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the least moabitica should be a redirect to Moses Wilhelm Shapira#Moabite forgeries. See also de:Moabitica. There's a fascinating article The Moabitica and their Aftermath. How to Handle a Forgery Affair with an International Impact here]. Doug Weller talk 16:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The statue is covered in a decent number of reliable sources relating to its failed sale and dubious provenance. That's enough. Saying that there must be scholarly sources written by archaeologists is a completely arbitrary standard; archaeologists are not the only people interested in ancient things. – Joe (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Find My Kids[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Few mentions and nothing significant about this app. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Govind Ghoshal (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and update. The article meets both WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. The name of the application in Russian: Где мои дети, romanized: Gde moi deti and it is different from English, which is why we could not find suitable sources. These sources can be used in the article: Kommersant, RBK Group, Perm News, Perm News 2 Afisha Daily, Redefine, Rusbase, Orenburzhie, Mail.ru Group, Chita iText and many more. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upd. I don’t know where the comments come from that there are only mentions in the articles. The sources contain information about the company and the application, and the links themselves are from the list of reliable Wikipedia sources. Also, Google gives 61 million results about the app. Thus, there are other links in the search engine results that you can use in the article. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a useful tool in determining notability. I admit I don't have a background on the reliability of Russian-language sources, but they don't read as reliable to me. SWinxy (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kommersant, RBK Group, Afisha, Mail.ru etc. are among the reliable sources. I even personally took part in the discussion to add Kommersant to the list of reliable sources. Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:01, 31 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) 23:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. No valid reason for deletion. Flowingmind (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sources cited above are mentions only. Still fails WP:SIGCOV which requires more in-depth coverage. 2001:8003:7D11:6600:A4F2:7BF0:9E1E:F729 (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Sources look like review farms. One doesn't appear to be related, and two are the Google Play Store. Sources brought up by Գարիկ Ավագյան (except mail.ru) are also not in-depth enough for me. SWinxy (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all low quality sources CT55555 (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The refs all seem to come from review sites, which is unfortunate as its a new type of product that is probably never existed before in the history of mankind. It could do with a whole bunch of academic sources. scope_creep^Talk 16:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the sources I added up here? Sincerely, Գարիկ Ավագյան (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Manning[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sourcing is minimal at best and I could find no better. Prod removed because article was previously prodded in 2006 Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient significant coverage to demonstrate notability.Brian O'Conner 22:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find much either: although there are quite a few passing mentions in the press and a bit of coverage available via ProQuest/Newspapers.com, none of it seems to amount to sigcov. Neither the GNG nor any applicable SNG appear to be met. One would expect someone who's been associated with so many notable people to be notable in his own right, but the sourcing simply doesn't bear that out. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article has been improved since nomination. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 12:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maléfices[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears non-notable, having been uncited since its creation in 2012. It is poorly linked and I've had to remove a couple anyway as not relevant to the subject. One of the few that remains Tarot de Maléfices which is its own Tarot pack and is also up for deletion. Bermicourt (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In case any of these helps at all... The Le GROG page could be used to reference basic information. This book, Jouer avec l’Histoire might be useful but is not available on Google books. This paper discusses the game somewhat. This book does have some significant discussion. BOZ (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article currently is completely lacking secondary sources, the mentioned book, Game Magic (pp. 253-255), and the commentary in this French magazine Chroniques d'Altaride, p. 37, together fullfill the minimum required with regard to notability. Together with the other secondary sources already provided by BOZ, they can be used to improve the article to a reasonable standard. (I wonder if there are some reviews of the individual products somewhere...). Daranios (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added some sources listed by BOZ, and removed some excessive detail. If anyone has access to Jouer avec l'Histoire, it would probably add greatly to this article. Guinness323 (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daranios and Guiness323. BOZ (talk) 12:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aokigahara#References in media. Sandstein 11:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aokigahara in popular culture[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another indiscriminate list of media in which something appears in, failing WP:NLIST, WP:GNG, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and Wikipedia:IPC. Many works listed just mention the topic in passing (ex. "In the anime series Tokyo Ghoul, the ghoul-only Cafe Anteiku uses bodies from Aokigahara to feed ghouls to avoid actively killing humans for nourishment"). There is no evidence any reliable source has tackled this topic, so I very much doubt any rewrite is possible this time. Another bad case of TVtropism (which makes me wonder if we need an essay or redirect for WP:TVTropism? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aokigahara#References in media - Neither the parent article nor this article are extensive enough that a WP:SPLIT is really warranted, and the main Aokigahara article already has a decent prose section on the subject. The only reason I am advocating Redirection rather than Deletion in this case, is that it looks like there are a few decent sources that can probably be moved over (a couple in the lead in about the forest's suicides that are not present in the main article, as well as the BBC News piece actually supporting the information on the Logan Paul incident). Rorshacma (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aokigahara#References in media per Rorshacma as failing WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Matterhorn. Consensus is to do a "selective merge" of the most relevant, referenced content. RL0919 (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of references to the Matterhorn[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Located in the Category:Places in popular culture, this is really just a Matterhorn in popular culture article, although I'll admit - the name is more fitting (honest) than many others that we have recently been cleaning, as they are all just that, lists of mentions. Like others, however, it fails WP:LISTN, WP:GNG and Wikipedia:IPC, and sports a lot of unreferenced mentions. I doubt there is much we can salvage from this (the Matterhorn article doesn't even have a 'in popular culture' section', and this article is just an off hand see also). I am afraid it needs to go as a TV trope like indiscrimate list that's outside the scope of Wikipedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as contributor). There is enough published material about this topic (cultural references to the Matterhorn, and not just the Matterhorn), including books (such as The Printed Matterhorn), so it complies with WP:LISTN and WP:GNG (not sure about Wikipedia:IPC but it is not a guideline so there is no point in discussing it here). Zach (Talk) 11:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Printed Matterhorn is not even used as a reference. There is a slight chance this could be totally rewritten into a prose-based analysis using this work as a prose article Matterhorn in popular culture , IF this book is relevant, but in this case, WP:TNT treatment applies to the current list. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt that the current article/list is far from good. However, you cited WP:TNT (which is an essay, not a guideline), so may I cite another one: WP:Overzealous deletion? I think it would be a fair thing to do. Zach (Talk) 19:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Matterhorn. The article is in the usual listcruft trivia format and fails WP:GNG, but some of the content (not the logos, the "Matterhorn of X" stuff, etc.) would fit, converted into prose, into a section about cultural significance in the article about the mountain. Sandstein 10:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Matterhorn per Sandstein; some of the info seems salvageable, but this topic does not merit a separate article due to failing WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Matterhorn - and by "selective" I mean the coins and paintings for an "In culture" section, and the list of mountains actually named after the Matterhorn (NOT the nicknames) as a separate section. The filmography is already there. The rest is rather crufty. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to improve the merge target article; makes sense. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Romp n' Roll[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly-referenced stub on a non-notable company. The only source cited is the company's own website, and a search finds nothing that comes even close to notability. Fails WP:GNG / WP:COMPANY. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per norm. --Vaco98 (talk) 10:20, 31 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!} 06:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Etech Global Services[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Run of the mill common call centre company. No standout features. No coverage, or historical value. scope_creep^Talk 05:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Texas. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking significant coverage to meet WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 22:27, 31 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 03:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nauru–Turkey relations[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. The interactions between the countries is very limited, one visit on the side of the World Humanitarian Summit. LibStar (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Turkey, and Oceania. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:06, 31 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 03:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El Salvador–Turkey relations[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. No embassies, trade is very low, and only 1 ministerial visit. The Turkish government says relations between Turkey and El Salvador that have been friendly but stagnant due to geographical distance. LibStar (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Turkey, and El Salvador. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:31, 31 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 03:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Harley[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He competed as part of a team of 45 British Gymnasts in the 1908 Olympics, with his team coming last, with us knowing little beyond that.

Fails WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:GNG, and violates WP:NOTDATABASE as it is sourced entirely to databases and fails to put data in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. BilledMammal (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"and violates WP:NOTDATABASE as it is sourced entirely to databases and fails to put data in context with explanations referenced to independent sources" is incorrect. It doesn't violate any of the four points detailed at WP:NOTDATABASE. The article does put into context the subject, and has a reference to an independent source. If nothing can be found on this guy, then redirect to Gymnastics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's team per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We lack even one source that provides indepth coverage. This suggests that people have not really taken notice on him, and so even a redsirect does not seem justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:ANYBIO per biography here. No WP:BLP concern. WP:NOTDATABASE is not really an argument for deletion here. We may include biographies if we follow the relevant criteria and stand on reliable shoulders. This article does not use just a few facts out of a database but relies on a trusted source. gidonb (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ANYBIO #3 requires an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary. Olympedia is not a country's standard national biographical dictionary, and as they seek to document every Olympian coverage of Olympians within Olympedia is WP:ROUTINE. BilledMammal (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - ROUTINE does not apply to people, see here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only coverage is routine and trivial from Olympedia. Sources may be difficult to locate given the length of time, but nothing suggests this individual member of a fairly large team is notable enough to pass WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm afraid, as I have tried seeing if there is scope for an article here but unfortunately I cannot see it happening. There are some very brief mentions in passing but no evidence he was covered in any depth or had a notable career. I am not averse to a redirect but I am not sure in this instance I see value in it. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything in terms of coverage, not even when searching UK newspapers on NewspaperArchive. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Punch (upcoming film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonnotable future film. Article was created WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:NFF since production is not notable. Must be deleted or drafted until further notice. The Film Creator (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and New Zealand. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sadly nothing of mention to rescue this at the moment NealeWellington (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 00:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kivi (board game)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was written several years ago and is on a questionable game that merely won a single obscure award (multiple other insignificant games, such as Otrio, won this award, so if this is included on WP so should those other games, also, while Alexa is unreliable, it lists the website's traffic count in around 10,000,000th, which is very low). It does not seem that it has multiple reliable, independent sources, with no reviews or magazine articles. The only other source I could find apart from this single ref is BGG (an unreliable user-generated blog) which had just 91 ratings for this game. From my perspective, this article might not satisfy notability. This is only my second AfD, so thanks for your time and help. Cheers. VickKiang (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[19] is another source that seems fairly strong. Given the language and limits of Google Translate, I'm unsure if it's reliable. Hobit (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies, the source is certainly helpful. I am tentative of its reliability, as, on its about page, it suggests it is based on a book (which I can not seem to find on Google) and another obscure website. It states that it has an editorial chief who seems credible, but also assistants that need to write Finnish well, have a responsible and prompt attitude, as well as include visuals, but have no noted expertise, and am unsure if the editor-in-chief has to review each publication. It also links to the unreliable BGG. So should additional consideration apply for the reliability of this? Furthermore, I am unsure if the previous award is an RS, it seems rarely mentioned. Thanks for your time and help. VickKiang (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it helps, but the inventor briefly mentions Kivi in this article.

Prolific inventor Maureen Hiron on having ideas – and the daftest thing a game designer can do | Mojo Nation (mojo-nation.com) Koppite1 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd seen that, worth linking to in the article, not clear it helps much with WP:N. Hobit (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this seems to be the only source that's substantive, but other than that, a Google and a Google News search both do not show a single published source and instead only trivial mentions, plus [20] [21] [22] which don't seem to satisfy Wikipedia's standards for notability and reliable sources. GNG is so far not satisfied, despite the content otherwise being verifiable.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 17:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What coverage exists is not enough to establish notability; passing mentions are not enough. Lkb335 (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 00:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Kosala[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR. He’s only had one significant role in The Fugitive. Needs two or more significant roles in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Police, Television, and Illinois. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google News search only comes up with five results, all of which are passing mentions. And all that comes up in a standard Google search is obituaries, Linkedin and databases like TV Guide and IMDB, none of which are enough to substantiate this article beyond just reading like an actor's resume. Fails both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:40, 31 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snyk[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Nonnotable startup.~~ Refs are usual PR/promo Loew Galitz (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nom withdrawn - I did find sources beyond PR babble. Loew Galitz (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 08:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, I think that the WSJ article goes beyond trivial coverage, but that alone does not meet WP:NCORP. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think WSJ goes much beyond financial coverage associated with each round of financing. Written by a financial journalist, on technical issues it doesn't say more than the company says about itself. Meaning there is no independent coverage about technical capabilities of the company, which must be written a tech person. Loew Galitz (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Contested soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I don't think I can vote given I created this and am thus conflicted so I will only comment. There is definitely merit in what Loew Galitz says and this debate has ongoing for a while. It's an interesting one. I saw the news of the billion dollar valuation and that prompted me to create it. This created a lot of coverage about the financing, not so much about the company itself. While articles such as

https://venturebeat.com/2022/03/17/cybersecurity-has-53-unicorns-here-are-10-to-watch/ may not give it notability there are already pieces about its impending IPO https://www.reuters.com/technology/cybersecurity-startup-snyk-taps-morgan-stanley-goldman-ipo-sources-2022-03-07/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-23/cybersecurity-startup-snyk-is-said-to-plan-2022-ipo

https://venturebeat.com/2022/02/17/snyk-cofounder-on-ipo-plans-well-pick-our-time-wisely/ Again, articles about the financing, not so much about the company itself. I don't know if this gets it over the line. Surely the IPO and the press it generates will be sufficient, but if the prevailing wisdom think it's better to wait until then, fair enough. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I expanded the article with some technical detail. I found Gartner's report with lots of solid independent technical info, but unfortunately lost it. Loew Galitz (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw and thank you for that. A nice by-product of this is making your acquaintance. Nice to meet you Loew Galitz :) MaskedSinger (talk) 04:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MaskedSinger You may offer a formal opinion. That you created it does not disqualify your ability to suggest we keep this article. I have said before as accepting AFC reviewer I will take no part in this discussion. All I am doing here is to say that the closing admin should interpret your comment above as your opinion to keep the article. I remain steadfastly neutral as is my custom with drafts I accept at AFC. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing has been improved and is sufficient to meet WP:NCORP. This shouldn’t even be open anymore - nom withdrew the nomination. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough now to show WP:ORG KylieTastic (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inna Mariam Patty[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Beauty pageants aren't notable just because they are beauty pageants. NBEAUTY is only an essay, but I don't see this meeting ANYBIO either. Sources include several "X Biography" pages on non-credible websites and a few interviews, so no GNG pass either. ~Styyx^Talk? 21:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^Talk? 21:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^Talk? 21:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I vote a Keep for this article a little Google Search has revealed even more article about the subject that confirms her notability I would proceed to improve the page with them.Owula kpakpo (talk) 10:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not about "votes". Please familiarize yourself with WP:CON, WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS and WP:INDY. ~Styyx^Talk? 11:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HI ~Styyx, I am very familiar with the WP:CON, WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS and WP:INDY and from my little research the subject meets majority of this provisions and the article should stay.Owula kpakpo (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No further explanation on how it meets those? ~Styyx^Talk? 13:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are not enough reliable sources providing detailed coverageto justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly see this Geezygee (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article passes GNG as the entity and her works are seen published on top credible websites including BBC, Ghanaweb, Myjoyonline, Citinews, etc as shown here. The person is also a winner of Miss Ghana and a contestant of Miss World Geezygee (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Winning Miss Ghana and participating in Miss World, again, doesn't guarantee automatic notability. Could you provide the links themselves instead simply throwing GOOGLEHITS at us? Most things are simple interviews or where a publication mostly quotes her. I'm mostly interested in the BBC thing, which I only found this source about: a completely different and unreliable website where text is written in 2nd grade English (or it's some weird dialect that I've never encountered). ~Styyx^Talk? 13:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links and with regards to the BBC, the language used is called Pidgin (a local form of the original English language)

https://www.myjoyonline.com/always-have-a-bigger-plan-in-life-inna-patty/

2. https://books.google.com.gh/books?id=E_nx6XHudEMC&pg=PT1&dq=inna+mariam+patty&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwizw8vOwOz2AhXIQEEAHeOQCyQQ6AF6BAgFEAI#v=onepage&q=inna%20mariam%20patty&f=false

3. https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/Inna-Patty-sues-Ex-Miss-Ghana-Queens-for-defamation-731279

4. https://www.peacefmonline.com/pages/showbiz/news/202008/425273.php

5. https://books.google.com.gh/books?id=Y2nEC-J9doAC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=miss+world+2005+inna+patty&source=bl&ots=NhqN2nC6_A&sig=ACfU3U38usWI014AuLQUs2Mvf34uBYSfpA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi70sTfwd_2AhXMx4UKHXxXCXQQ6AF6BAg8EAM#v=onepage&q=miss%20world%202005%20inna%20patty&f=false

6. https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/Miss-Ghana-2004-Inna-Mariam-Patty-67122

7. https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/tori-42408386

8. https://missghana.com.gh/pageant-history/

9. https://www.myjoyonline.com/always-have-a-bigger-plan-in-life-inna-patty/

10. https://www.myjoyonline.com/video-i-have-miss-ghana-franchise-for-life-inna-mariam-patty/ Geezygee (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment - @Geezygee, thanks for those links. The article really meets the notability guidelines.

Strong keep - To the best of my knowledge, the article needs to pass just a single criterion to confirm the general notability guideline. The links provided by @Geezygee above show the person is a very notable person. And of course, a winner of a notable pageant show like Miss Ghana is notable not even to talk of her involvement in Miss World as well. Siagoddess (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - beyond the additional links above I found: "Exclusive Events launches Miss Ghana 2022 pageant" [23]; "I've never made profit from Miss Ghana pageant - Inna Patty." Daily Mail GH, 13 Feb. 2020, [24]; 'Beauties Without Brains Consider Themselves As Sex Objects' -- Miss Ghana organiser Jabs." Herald [Accra, Ghana], 3 Aug. 2018. [25]; and "Miss Ghana 2019 finally lands in UK after ticket swerve." Ghanaian Chronicle [Accra, Ghana], 28 Nov. 2019, [26] as additional coverage. Beyond winning Miss Ghana, being CEO of the company that now operates Miss Ghana both seem to go far enough to meet NBASIC. Skynxnex (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources provided by Geezygee and Skynxnex satisfy WP:NBASIC.Jacona (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject in question is notable and based on references provided above by Geezygee and Skynxnex it certainly satisfies WP:NBASIC. The articles needs to be looked at and improved to cover aspects not well captured in the article with good referencing in place. Ampimd (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject is notable per the results from GNews. There are also notable mentions on other Wikipedia articles like Miss Ghana and Miss World 2005 Richloveburner (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A simple google search shows she is a notable person.. She perfectly fits the notability/celebrity criterion. Applehead1000 (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MedEquip4Kids[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A good charity, but no real indication of notability. QueenofBithynia (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How so? A simple Duckduckgo search turns up some possible sources:

http://www.bayhospitalscharity.org/medequip4kids-vinci-donation-resuscitaires/

https://workforgood.co.uk/charities/medequip4kids/

https://delphislearning.com/news/delphis-learning-supports-medequip4kids-hummingbird-project-launch/

https://manchestercommunitycentral.org/volunteer-centre-manchester/crisis-volunteering/7016

These could be incorporated into the article, so i am leaning towards week keep. (weak because I dont think they are the strongest of sources, but good enough) Rlink2 (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:NONPROFIT, even though the charitable organization is Manchester-based, it has received some brief national coverage, e.g. ITV 2014, OT Magazine, 2015, and they have appeared on the BBC Radio 4 Appeal. They have a major accomplishment profiled by a 2015 NHS press release, and a previous one reported by the Manchester Evening News in 2010, as well as a fair amount of local coverage, e.g. [27], [28], [29], [30] and they are involved in the development of the Hummingbird Project, e.g. [31], (the project is further discussed without reference to the organization here: The Hummingbird Project: A Positive Psychology Intervention for Secondary School Students (Frontiers in Psychology, Aug 2020), but these sources do not appear to be sufficient substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area to support notability per the WP:ORG guideline. Beccaynr (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A Google News search indicates that it's been covered in the news, but all of those are passing mentions. The article fails WP:NOTPROMOTION in the sense of both how the article is written and lack of assertion for future improvement beyond just sounding like promotional material. There are no sources that actually go in depth about the charity itself, except for the official website, which is a primary source anyway and violates Wikipedia's standards of verifiability and inclusion.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 12:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage mainly limited to one line mentions. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Libertarians file suit to get on state ballot". Newspapers.com. Rapid City Journal. 25 Aug 1984.

[2] O'Gara, Hugh (7 Jun 1992). "Libertarians say you can do better". Newspapers.com. No. Rapid City Journal.

[3] "Libertarians ordered back on ballor". Newspapers.com. Rapid City Journal. 9 Aug 2000.

[4] "Libertarian Party forms local group in Yankton". Newspapers.com. Argus-Leader. 13 Oct 2002.

[5] Montgomery, David (22 Jul 2014). "South Dakota Libertarians look to fill gap". Newspapers.com. Rapid City Journal.

[6] "Libertarians hope to pick up voters". Newspapers.com. Argus-Leader. 27 Jul 2016.

[7] Dura, Jack (9 Jan 2020). "ND Libertarian Party regains ballot access". Newspapers.com. The Bismarck Tribune.

[8] Smith, Nick (28 Sep 2014). "Libertarians attempt to win three offices". Newspapers.com. The Bismarck Tribune.

[9] "Libertarian Party ballot approval". Newspapers.com. The Bismarck Tribune. 31 Aug 2013.

[10] "Libertarian party trying to get on N.D. ballot". Newspapers.com. The Bismarck Tribune. 11 Jul 1987.

[11] Dura, Jack (28 Feb 2022). "North Dakota Libertarians to focus on 2024 elections". Bismarck Tribune.

[12] Boewn, Joe (26 May 2021). "After running as a Democrat, Roland Riemers voted out of North Dakota Libertarian Party". Grand Forks Herald.

[13] "North Dakota Libertarian Party to appear on ballot this year". AP NEWS. 8 January 2020.

[14] Wootson Jr, Cleve R (16 October 2016). "'Make America Rape Again': A libertarian candidate's argument against 'rape culture'". Washington Post.

[15] "Libertarians picking up momentum in ND". minotdailynews.com. 4 September 2016.

[16] Ellzey, Robert (25 Mar 1976). "Life of a Libertarian: low-key, low-budget". Newspapers.com. The Sun (Biloxi).

[17] Spencer, Mark (24 Jul 2016). "Libertarians want chance with voters". Newspapers.com. Enterprise-Journal.

[18] "The Libertarian Party in Mississippi is growing. Archives". WXXV News 25. 12 May 2021.

[19] Samaha, Albert (28 April 2015). "Mississippi Narcotics Unit That Recruited Students Called On To Disband". BuzzFeed News.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]