Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 October 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 09 October 11 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. But I can understand why this article was nominated as it is promotional and lacks sources. Those issues though can be addressed through editing not deletion and I hope some of the references brought up in this AFD discussion can find their way into the article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WWE action figures[edit]

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

Not notable, barely any references to verify the infomation to the article. Fails WP:GNG. SMBMovieFan (talk) 22:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion was created improperly and not transcluded to the log until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 23:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I wish you luck with this nom which is one-sourced and incredibly WP:PROMO, but that's all I'll say in support because this is not the easiest topic area to go into and ask for an article deletion. Nate • (chatter) 00:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was AfD'd in 2009, soon after it was created, and people seemed to think it was notable then. Apparently there's a whole backstory here that... never made it into the article. That said:
  • Delete: if anyone does get around to researching that and writing it if it turns out to be notable enough, it belongs in Jakks Pacific. 3mi1y (talk) 09:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is not notable, generally vandalized article.Tysska (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, searching through Google Scholar I was able to find tons of coverage analysing WWE action figures, while most of it is locked behind paywalls the search results indicate that this article, published in Body Image, provides SIGCOV of WWE action figures as an example of heavily muscled action figures, and a search in Google Books showcases SIGCOV in sources such as Wrestling and Hypermasculinity, published by McFarland & Company, as well as Wrestling Merchandise of the 1990s, published by Amberley Publishing. As such, this topic is a clear GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Body Image and Amberley Publishing is not notable either. SMBMovieFan (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SMBMovieFan: What exactly do you mean them being "not notable"? They appear notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SMBMovieFan: Unless I'm totally wrong (WaddlesJP13 please correct me if so), when has there been a requirement from WP:N that the publishing journal or website has to be individually notable? Some other criteria, including WP:NWEB's award criteria, requires the award to have a Wikipedia article. But per WP:GNG, A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I can't find anything that requires the publishing journal/publisher/website to be actually notable. VickKiang (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of Body Image nor Amberley Publishing i don't think this article is Notable and it is incredibly WP:PROMO. SMBMovieFan (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain why a ref is insufficiently reliable/independent/significant just because you never heard it? The publishing journal/website/book publisher company do not have to be individually notable, if you challenge its reliability you can start a thread at WP:RSN. Also, see WP:NEXIST. I'm further confused by your duplicate vote, you were the nom but voted twice. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also see WP:IDONTKNOWIT Aaron Liu (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang: This is correct. It's not about the source's notability, it's about the reliability. As long as the source doesn't have a past of fabricating anything or isn't something like a forum, social site, etc., you can use it. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WaddlesJP13: Yeah, I expected so. IMHO refs that are obviously a peer-reviewed journal or books from RS publisher are reliable. While Body Image is AfDed it seems to be a peer-reviewed journal with editorial control, the two authors are also subject-matter experts and are authors from Kenyon College. IMO it's clear that it's RS, though if there is challenge that this is a vanity/predatory journal, a RSN discussion might benefit, but I couldn't see any red flags. VickKiang (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources Devonian Wombat listed. There appears to be WP:SIGCOV within the sources and I believe they should be cited in the article. I think a huge cleanup of the article needs to be done though, a lot of promotional/unsourced content. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. SMBMovieFan (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SMBMovieFan: You are nom, you can't vote again. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources listed by Devonian Wombat. The publications in question have editorial oversight and are therefore reliable secondary sources which are perfectly fine towards establishing notability per WP:Verifiability and WP:N.4meter4 (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The three sources found by Devonian Wombat meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS, hence this article passes WP:GNG, none of the delete votes have sufficiently explained why they believe that the refs are trivial, insufficiently reliable, or non-independent. VickKiang (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 04:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Home Foundation[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NCORP. There are two types of coverage on this subject: shamelessly promotional pieces on various outlets not independent of the organization because they quote the owners or news reportage about an incident of animal cruelty where this organization is typically a mere mention. Without proof that other contributors to this draft have ties to the globally-blocked original author I don't see CSD G5 being possible, although this is the sort of thing undeclared paid editors would be involved with. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know. The coverage is pretty broad, if a little simpering - but this is pretty par for the course in India. The controversy with the doctor did hit the mainstream national media. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I came to know through newspapers which went viral in recent times
    A dog was subjected to a lot of cruelty and in that context this NGO took a very good step and take legal action against him with a very strong check
    Which touched everyone's heart all over India, during that time I came to know about Sanju and I searched, I found Tej, then I thought it appropriate to edit on it.
    We did not get much information online, but on the basis of what we got, we ended this page.
    sorry if there is any error Qhqofficial2022 (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Qhqofficial2022: Who is this "we" you are referring to? ~Anachronist (talk) 00:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At present the name of the NGO and their work was covered by all the media all over India, and I am now the new editor, I thought I should make a page with their name, but the draft was made, so I tried to edit Qhqofficial2022 (talk) 11:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, and Rajasthan. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. All of the press either lacks independence or is associated with a single event involving a court case filed by the orgasnization. The disturbing video attached to the case made international news; but it's really the act of the dog being tied to a car and dragged that is the focus of those stories, and not the company itself. I wouldn't consider these sources significant indepth coverage of the company itself to establish notability.4meter4 (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. Uhai (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:ORGDEPTH coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies , WP:RS Reliable sources, generally, are third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments.
    According to me this is a non profit organization, media has supported by coming forward. should keep Maddykkv2022 (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an invalid rationale. There is no WP:CORP compliance coverage of the company. That isn't the same as "coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies." ~Anachronist (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The kind of promotional reporting cited here isn't what's needed. Sources either are not independent of the company or they are about a single event. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing early per SNOW. Only a few hours left. Anyone who disagrees with my close may ping my at my UTP and I will undo the close and leave for an administrator. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James McKern[edit]

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

Not notable individual, while on first glance this looks well-sourced a close look at the references reveal they are nothing more than a malformed hodgepodge of passing mentions, primary sources, and unreliable sources. The only half-decent source is the collection of his papers in the State Library of Western Australia, meaning that he fails WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There seems to be some coverage of him in the news archives at (https://trove.nla.gov.au) His role of Deputy Auditor General (missing currently from the article) would seem to be significant, as would his work for the Australian Museum for two decades. It's borderline, but I do think the library holding on him is a significant indicator of notabilty which pushes this over into the keep side.4meter4 (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His papers being kept by the State Library of Western Australia indicate his importance. As a pioneer of the nature conservation movement in Australia he should be profiled. SproulesLane (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- SproulesLane pointed out an important point. Keeping his papers in the State Library of Western Australia indicate his importance and received an award. Yüsiacı (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Duch[edit]

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

Non-notable ski mountaineer. Performed a before search and couldn't come up with any results to establish notability. Doesn't meet WP:SPORTSBASIC or GNG SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 18:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The Czech language wikipedia article has several inline citations/references. I don't read Czech so I cannot comment on the quality of those sources. Did the nominator take the time to look at that material?4meter4 (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to 4meter4. Yes, I did look at the Czech article for this subject, and the sources. Link 1 is a dead link, and all of the other links contain in-depth coverage of the events this person participated in, but mainly include passing mentions with no individual in-depth text about Duch. I maintain that this is WP:GNG fail based on that, and my own before search. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 12:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. If an editor wishes this article to be draftified to focus in on the first game, and not the series, please contact me on my talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jisei (video game series)[edit]

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

The games are not individually notable, so they cannot be notable as a group either. The original title, Jisei, got the most critical mentions, but they are mostly in unreliable sources besides GameZebo and a small paragraph mention in TouchArcade. If the page is kept, I suggest it only cover the first game, but, despite its recent Switch port, I could not even come up with enough sources to salvage that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Anime and manga. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but limit to game one: The only reviews I could find were the first game, but they do exist beyond what's in the article. For instance, there's also [this review in Gaming Age] by the contributing editor, which seems in depth enough to pass WP:NVG; Discussion in WP:GAMESOURCES seems to have come to the conclusion that this outlet is usable for reviews if the writer is legit. Possibly also [this Cubed3 review] but maybe less so. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Gaming Age appears to lack an editorial policy. I think arguably it might be moved to unreliable source, I am rather unsure why it would even be considered situational at this point. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not personally familiar with the publication but according to this discussion at the project it does seem legit with the caveat about checking the writer. Inclined to defer to their judgment on it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That was one person's opinion, but I have to point out that this statement: "If the author has gone on to become a writer for an RS then I think I'd be open to accepting his work even if it came before he was associated with the RS." has been directly shot down by current members of WP:VG. As far as I know, the general consensus is that a journalist's work is inadmissible unless it has been published in a RS, not irregardless of where it appears. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, just the usual primary sources, unreliable sources, (possibly) reliable but trivial coverage, etc. Woodroar (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per Woodroar. Tried to search for in-depth coverage, but failed. Looking at the sources, I would definitely doubt that the entire series is notable. Sparkltalk 12:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. I think it could be notable, but the series as a whole isn't. I can find no reliable source mentioning it as a series, but I think the first game could be notable. So I'd push for a rewrite of the article covering only the first game. The article itself has had the citation needed template for the entire Gameplay section since JUNE 2013, a clear result of the lack of reliable sources, as well as a huge reliance on primary sources. But I think it could stay.

DecafPotato (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV or Draftify to Jisei: The First Case. The series as a whole fails GNG, and its borderline on the first game. The article needs to be entirely restructured/refocused on the first game. It's not ready for main-space as is, so draftifying would be the best choice. It should be required to go through WP:AFC review. 4meter4 (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Veneto Autonomous Region Movement. Liz Read! Talk! 21:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liga Federativa Veneta[edit]

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

Party unknown and absent from WP:Reliable sources, the article only states that it was founded in 1983 and subsequently joined the Veneto Autonomous Region Movement. At most it can be merged with the latter page. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Liga Veneta. Little relevance of this party – no sources really cover it, it currently fails WP:V. Also I see no WP:RS cited that talk about this party on itself, but rather they talk about Liga Veneta. Yakme (talk) 09:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: @Checco If I have proposed the deletion of this page it is not sign of recentism or lack of historical perspective, but it is due to the fact that I have not found any sources on this party and therefore it has not left any mark on Italian or Venetian political history. However, in the event that the outcome of the AFD procedure is a "merger", I think that the most suitable target article for the merger is Veneto Autonomous Region Movement (of which it contributed to the foundation) and not the Liga Veneta (of which it was one of the innumerable splits).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Veneto Autonomous Region Movement per WP:ATD. It's mentioned, but only in passing, in several reliable sources. No material is in-depth enough to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Liga Veneta. Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liga Nathion Veneta[edit]

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

Tiny party that doesn't meet WP:Notability; it participated only in the municipal elections of Treviso, without success (only 694 votes). The only sources that cite this party, mention it only as one of the many small autonomist parties that have not been successful. It can be merged with the leader's page, Franco Rocchetta, but it doesn't seem deserving of a standalone page. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Italy. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Proposing the deletion of such an article is sign of Wikipedia:Recentism and, more broadly, lack of historical perspective. Though it might be difficult to find sources on the web, the party is clearly notable and is mentioned in several newspaper articles and several book, since its foundation in September 1994. The party included several MPs, notably including its leader Franco Rocchetta, who was undersecretary of Foreign Affairs at the time. I hope this article can be kept as it is and in that case I would expand it, but, if that is not possible, please merge it with Liga Veneta. --Checco (talk) 06:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Liga Veneta. The sources that have been cited do not even identify it as a party, but as a "movement". It had no relevant results at national level, nor regional level. The article currently just talks about the deeds that the movement's two members had while they were in Liga Veneta. Yakme (talk) 09:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Astrobiology. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xenology[edit]

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

I redirected this to Extraterrestrial life, which was contested by User:VaraLaFey here, so bringing it here for discussion. This page, as currently written, is essentially a list of ways various people have used the word "xenology", and I have little hope for there being more content until the field discovers something to study. 3mi1y (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect, agree with the above. There is little use for a scientific field with no actual study. Baudshaw (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I appreciate you restoring it for discussion at my request. :-) But I can't agree with the notion that there's no reason to keep the page due to the field having not yet discovered something to study. That rationale is contradicted by the existence of entire articles for Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and String Theory, and for the section Hydrogen Ice Theory in the Oumuamua article. All of those fields and ideas - and untold more we could all find - are also situations where there are no tangible discoveries to study, but the ideas still deserve Wikipedia entries. VaraLaFey (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, but maybe to astrobiology rather than extraterrestrial life. Or maybe also consider merging those two, since their content looks very close to each other. We certainly don't need a third content fork of the same topic at the nominated article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm very new to Wikipedia editing, but atm I agree that some type of merge might be good. But xenology in this ET context is a social science which relates more to technological life than to natural sciences like astrobiology and exoplanetology. It's the same relationship as human sociology has to earthly biology or geology. Xenology would work in a merge with Extraterrestrial intelligence, maybe as a named section something like "Study of".
    The current social, academic and governmental acceptance that ETI/"ufology" is worthy of serious study (as opposed to fantasy and tinfoil hats) means a new paradigm is organically developing. Basically a new file drawer where ETI studies like xenology, Xenoarchaeology, SETI and similar can be kept and referred to. I'm way too new to know how to implement it here, but at least in concept a category of ETI studies seems needed.
    And btw, if it's even still an issue, xenoarchaeology and SETI are two more fields which are rightly included on Wikipedia despite not having any actual discoveries to study. There are a lot of such fields.
    VaraLaFey (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What you describe is WP:FRINGE and per both WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV would need in-depth mainstream-science sourcing documenting its fringe nature to have a hope of being notable as a Wikipedia topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Of all the things I mentioned, which specifically are you calling fringe? And what do you mean by mainstream science sourcing must document its fringe nature? VaraLaFey (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. There aren't sufficient reliable sources to support a separate article on this topic. What we have now are just mentions in science fiction novels and self published books. - MrOllie (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right about lack of sources. If it's going to be a redirect, it should go to Extraterrestrial intelligence.
    VaraLaFey (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't agree with the few sources we do have, or with Freitas's original self published coinage. Extraterrestrial life is the better target. MrOllie (talk) 13:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be fine with a target of Astrobiology as well. MrOllie (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It agrees exactly with the sources you have. See my post below. VaraLaFey (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - The lack of reliable sources supporting a standalone topic seems pretty much agreed upon at this point, but I did want to chime in on the redirect target itself. Given the scope of the articles in question, and through a reading of the lede paragraphs, I do think Astrobiology is the better target since it, like Xenology, is the study of Extraterrestrial life. - Aoidh (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of Xenology's paragraphs are inclusive of all life, and some are limited to intelligent life. Thus they all have intelligent life in common, and most have it as a common focus. This includes the terrestrial indology paragraph. Further, the root word's derivation also makes clear that intelligent life is the focus; the root is explained in the article as: "from the Greek xenos, which as a substantive has the meaning "stranger, wanderer, refugee" and as an adjective "foreign, alien, strange, unusual." Those overwhelmingly refer to intelligent strangers, as does the derivation "xenophobia". By far, the most fitting redirect is to Extraterrestrial intelligence. I can't believe that's even in dispute. You all have the power to redirect it elsewhere, but you will be incorrect. VaraLaFey (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I very strongly disagree with that argument. Xenology's lede makes it clear that it is "the scientific study of extraterrestrial life". The relevant article that most closely matches that is Astrobiology. Extraterrestrial intelligence would make for a very poor redirect target because that's not what Xenology is in any way, Xenology is the study of extraterrestrial life, not the existence of it in itself, whether intelligent or not is irrelevant. Astrobiology is similar to this article in that it is the study of extraterrestrial life, though it does have a broader scope. No other article more closely matches Xenology's scope, certainly not Extraterrestrial intelligence. - Aoidh (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Xenology's correct redirect is to Extraterrestrial intelligence or to some direct equivalent because all the Xenology article's examples at minimum include intelligent life, and the overwhelming majority of those examples focus on it. This is not a matter of opinion. 1) The lede includes intelligence. 2) The root "xeno-", both here and if you google it, overwhelmingly focuses on intelligence, as do numerous terms such as Xenoarchaeology and Xenophobia. 3) The article's "In science fiction" section cites societies; the Brin citation asks who is out there; the Orson Scott Card citation draws an analogy to Ethnology which studies people; the first paragraph ends by saying the term can also refer to fictionalized "alternative humankinds"; and the Strugatsky citation quotes a character as disputing the notion "that an alien race would be psychlogically human". 4) The In cultural studies section uses the word cultural, and in that section the Halbfass citation uses the term in context of "cultures". In the "In science" section, Frietas' proposal includes intelligence; and my own proposal - which I tried to describe neutrally, for which I declared my COI, and which nobody has complained about and is thus a valid part of the current article in question - cites my own 3rd-party published op-ed piece as a scientific focus on sapience - intelligence.
    Those facts don't care if any other users or if all other users disagree. The intent and focus of the Xenology article is excruciatingly clear, and if it must be redirected, then equally clear is the propriety of redirecting it to Extraterrestrial intelligence or some exact equivalent, if one exists. I didn't like or want this redirect at all, but when user MrOllie pointed out the lack of notability for "Xenology" as a term and topic, I was honest enough to concede the point without a fight, and I expect the same from the rest of you. Please don't waste everyone else's time, like one user just did, by posting incoherent denialism transparently motivated by WP:IDONTLIKEIT. VaraLaFey (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I told you precisely why Xenology should redirect to Extraterrestrial intelligence, and I'm not interested in your WP:IDONTLIKEIT denialism. And since nobody has claimed that xenology is the existence of extraterrestrial in itself, your statement that "Xenology is the study of extraterrestrial life, not the existence of it in itself" is literally incoherent. It seems that you are just here to troll and to trigger people. VaraLaFey (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, the only reason no one is objecting to the inclusion of your piece (which is not published in a reliable source as Wikipedia defines them) is that we expect that the article will be redirected anyway. MrOllie (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fair enough, if the article gets redirected fairly: to Extraterrestrial intelligence.
    Also to be clear, my 2nd post above this was directed only to user Aoidh. I meant to place my long redirect as a new bullet point, but being new here I screwed it up. VaraLaFey (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, when you cite "the facts" (which are a cherry-picked selection at best) and then give a summary of what you think those facts show, that is by definition an opinion. Your opinion is also not a compelling reason for why this article should redirect to your preferred target. An article that describes the study of extraterrestrial life, as this one does, should redirect to the article that is also about the study of extraterrestrial life. When I said Xenology is the study of extraterrestrial life I was literally quoting the lede of the article; if that doesn't make sense to you, that's unfortunately not something I can control. The study of a thing is not the same as the thing itself, just as astronomy is a distinct topic from something like astronomical object. Both xenology and astrobiology are the study of extraterrestrial life per their own ledes; that is the most viable redirect target available. Your entire editing history on Wikipedia has been as an WP:SPA who is singularly focused on advancing a viewpoint and promoting your own work, and the redirect target you're proposing is in line with the advancement of your editing history, but out-of-sync with Wikipedia:Redirect. - Aoidh (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My facts were not cherry-picked, they literally were an explicit point-by-point summary of the entire Xenology article as it currently stands, and I invite everyone to check this for themselves.
    Your response included an ad hominem attack against my motive - an attack which btw is based on the only edit I have made in my days-old account - in place of addressing any point in my summary. So enough of your faulty distractions. Let's start addressing the actual points right now.
    1) The lede: does it or does it not include intelligent life?
    2) The root "xeno-": does it or does it not focus on intelligent life, both as a root and in many usages such as the two I cited?
    Let's just discuss those before we proceed to the others. VaraLaFey (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that you say It seems that you are just here to troll and to trigger people and then claim an examination of your own behavior is ad hominem; unlike your unsubstantiated personal attacks, my description of your activity is based solely on your editing history. The arguments you have presented are not compelling, and the "intelligent" point you're trying to make is irrelevant as this is the study of extraterrestrial life in whatever form that might take, intelligent or not. Astrobiology is the correct redirect target for a topic that is the study of intelligent extraterrestrial life, your proposed target is not as relevant because again, the study of a thing is not the same as the thing itself, as those are ultimately two different topics. There's nothing more to discuss, you have made your arguments and nobody has agreed with them. You are of course welcome to continue making your point, but I will not participate in this discussion further as everything that needs to be said has already been said and I think it's best if we just agree to disagree. Take care. - Aoidh (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since I posted my detailed point-by-point summary of why Xenology is focused on intelligence (as opposed to my earlier generalization), the only person who posted disagreement with that summary (as I type this) is you. Other users can speak for themselves if they join you in that disagreement. Also, your citing their disagreement is an attempt at argument from consensus.
You committed ad hominem when you cited my (lone and only!) edit as evidence of ulterior motive in place of a more thorough examination of my actual points - points which you are claiming to dispute. So I brought the specific points up for exactly that: more thorough examination. Then you find an excuse to run from the discussion, still without examining the points. I don't think this is supposed to function like Youtube comments, so if you believed you were correct, you could have said "no, and here's why....". But you didn't. So don't say my "personal attacks" on you are unsubstantiated at the very moment you are substantiating them.
To all of you: does this particular user, Aoidh, demonstrate the proper Wikipedia discussion tactics? I'd say no, so far as I've seen here.
VaraLaFey (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that my last question above came off as an attack on that user. I meant to question whether that user exemplified generally accepted Wikipedia discussion standards, because if so, then I have to reevaluate my participation here in total. I didn't mean to be so crass as to evaluate any particular user in a comment I addressed to all of you. :-(
So far, I've disagreed with all of you about something or other, but I've not had much reason to question your standards. VaraLaFey (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We do our best to remain civil here, but sometimes one can't help but take the kid gloves off when somebody says something like It seems that you are just here to troll and to trigger people. The best advice I can probably give you at this point is covered here: Law of holes - MrOllie (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Law of Holes is fair enough. My new bullet post (whatever that type is called) hopefully explains my overall point about why the right redirect is important. I too would rather focus on that. VaraLaFey (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying to make a new bullet point post here so other users don't have to follow my discussion with just one particular user.
I've already accepted that "xenology" isn't notable enough to have its own article, or maybe even to be listed as a proposed study of Extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI). My point about redirecting Xenology to ETI is that the overwhelming focus of the Xenology article is intelligent extraterrestrial life, as a specific subset of et life per se, and that Astrobiology is its superset. Thus I think it's reasonable that any user who searches "xenology" is either already interested in that subset, or is curious what the term means - and therefore should still be directed to the closest available subset: ETI. To redirect a user to the superset of ET life per se would deprive that user of the specificity they are searching for, or of the most closely related subject which would clue them in to the meaning of the term (presuming the "xeno-" root doesn't spell it out in the first place). That kind of deprivation is contrary to the purpose of any encyclopedia, this one included.
VaraLaFey (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Astrobiology. Right now, without actual samples to study, the study of extraterrestrial life is the search of extraterrestrial life. If at some point we found any, then we would have a field that studies what we found, and another that keeps searching; but we're not there yet. I also oppose the merge of Astrobiology and Extraterrestrial life, but simply because this is not the venue to discuss that (we are discussing Xenology here). Cambalachero (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, all extra-terrestrial studies are still in the search-for stage. But Astrobiology is a natural science and is a superset, while Xenology is a social science and is a subset. To redirect to astrobiology would be literally equivalent to redirecting Sociology to Biology. In both cases the focus on the activities of intelligent life would be lost, and it's that specific focus that a user is either already interested in, or should be told about if they're just looking up the term to learn what it means. Furthermore, xenology necessarily includes the verification or falsification of whether intelligent life is already visiting us here on earth, and there is credible (though not conclusively proven) evidence that it is - so in that sense science does have arguable samples to study. Neither SETI nor Xenoarchaeology nor any other long-distance search for intelligent life has even that much, and yet hopefully nobody would want to redirect or merge them into astrobiology. Which also doesn't have that much. VaraLaFey (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to astrobiology MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • n.b. Doesn't matter much now since approximately everyone thinks Astrobiology is a better target, but I'll explicitly say I now agree with that. Unsure why I picked extraterrestrial life in the first place; I may not have noticed the other one at the time. 3mi1y (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources in the article. With several books and journal articles using this term with in-depth significant coverage, I'm not seeing a valid rationale under policy for deleting or merging the article. I'll note that none of the delete votes have actually engaged with the sources or provided any sort of analysis of the materials used to source the article. It's a reasonable topic, and the article is developed enough beyond the dic-def stage to warrant inclusion. Further astrobiology is a much broader field, and one could argue Xenology is simply a specialized field within Astrobiology (even if it is only theoretical). The same way we have biology broken down into Microbiology and then into Parasitology, Mycology, etc.; we can have overlapping conceptual fields.4meter4 (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some brief encyclopedia/definition entries, a review of a book with the same name, and a Google Drive document are not compelling sources. - Aoidh (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Skinner (footballer)[edit]

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

Non notable former footballer athlete. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports) guidelines. The article has no references and there is no major coverage that was made on the athlete- Google brings up nothing other than the Wikipedia page. Smuckers It has to be good 22:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete,I agree with you on the notability aspect, and the one external link has no sources of its own.
Baudshaw (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Agreed. I was unable to find any coverage. There is nothing on Google. Fifthapril (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC) Keep Changing my vote to keep after seeing the sources mentioned by fellow editors. Thanks Fifthapril (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Smuckers and Fifthapril: For a footballer who played in the 1990s we can expect more sources to be offline than online. So in this case a web search would not be sufficient to assess notability. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robby.is.on: Thanks for the feedback. My vote was based on two things. (1) in his 150+ appearances, majority of them were for the clubs based in lower tiers e.g. 3rd and 4th division and (2) coverage which I was unable to find initially so that's I was going for "delete" vote. I am thankful to my fellow editors who posted different sources to verify his notability. Fifthapril (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fifthapril: You're welcome. I don't feel strongly about keeping or deleting this particular article. I just wanted to make the point about web searches not being sufficient for a player of the 1990s since the two of you mentioned "Google" and your comments read like you hadn't checked for offline sources. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - footballer with over 150 appearances in England's professional football leagues, as confirmed by this. As Robby says the majority of coverage will be offline, and IAR/COMMONSENSE applies. @Mattythewhite: might be able to confirm coverage in York City book? Those saying there are no sources are either insept or lying, a quick Google brings up GOS, WF, York Press (1),York Press (2), Grecian Archive, Red Passion, VSI etc. etc. GiantSnowman 11:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is some coverage in newspapers.com. Most it is routine or passing mentions, but there may be one or two things that are suitable, for example this, which gives a bit of biographical info. The sources GiantSnowman shared here don't look very significant though. Greens on Screen gives the most info on the player, but is a one-man blog, so I don't believe it passes muster. The Grecian Archive piece is about a different person. The rest looks like database entries, stuff from his employer and someone recounting a chat they had with him. That said, some of the fan stuff does indicate people are still thinking about him, years later. There probably is more out there. Holding off !voting for now and seeing what turns up. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources provided by User:GiantSnowman and User:MarchOfTheGreyhounds are sufficient to barely pass WP:GNG. And even for those who believe otherwise, WP:COMMONSENSE dictates that a player with 176 appearances in English professional football including some as high as the 2nd tier should have an article. Frank Anchor 14:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per GiantSnowman and Frank Anchor. I found 8, 9, 10, 11, among many many more sources. Clearly was significant figure in English lower league football, and definitely has many more offline sources having had a extensive fully pro career and 100+ appearances in the English second, third, and fourth tiers. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good finds, thanks, Das osmnezz. I've used them to flesh out the article. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 09:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Architel[edit]

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

Notability is not presented or demonstrated according to WP:N, WP:NCOPR. Could have been easily speedily deleted by G11 Driodr (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arc Technology Group[edit]

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

Notability is not presented or demonstrated according to WP:N, WP:NCOPR Driodr (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The sources in the article are all trivial coverage of the subject, and while there are a few directory-type listings that verify that the company does exist, no reliable sources could be found that show notability for the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 21:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Vannini[edit]

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

No significant coverage, probable GNG fail. If saved, multiple issues would need to be fixed, namely MOV, NPOV, and better sources, warranting a WP:TNT if the article is saved. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Account which has created the article (@Mattetheworst) has not been active since 2010. Editor has only worked on this article and no others; potential COI? InvadingInvader (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As an academic, the subject falls under WP:PROF and GNG is not required. The citation profile appears healthy with 8 papers >=100 citns in GS[1], and a slow tail off thereafter. I doubt invertebrate zoology is an especially high-citation field. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PROF#C1. Apparently different from the mystic Marco Vannini, the economist Marco Vannini, or the murder victim Marco Vannini, but the same as the author of an Italian-language adventure-mystery fiction book series including Morire al Museo (2017). There may also be notability in that direction. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award[edit]

Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating on behalf on an IP. Rationale is This is a non-notable award sourced mostly to EY themselves and an advertorial. A WP:BEFORE search yields plenty of results, just no GNG-qualifying coverage. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom and article's already-existing issue tags.
— That Coptic Guy (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:SUSTAINED. In searching my university library there were over 7,000 hits spanning more than 30 years of coverage, mostly announcements of winners, in a variety of media; including in several peer reviewed journals like the Journal of Engineering, Nature Biotechnology, and Applied Clinical Trials in addition to business magazines and some main stream media. Given the numbers of publications celebrating the winners of the awards over a long period of time, I think we can say the world views this award as important enough to be newsworthy. To my mind this meets WP:SUSTAINED. However, I am voting weak keep because I could find no sources directly about the awards themselves (i.e. a history of the awards, or a secondary source about the awards outside of routine winner announcements). This latter type of source is really what is needed to prove WP:SIGCOV, and I simply can't find any in the sources I examined. That said, I have neither the time nor inclination to search through thousands of sources over a 30 year period to locate such a source.4meter4 (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Short excerpt here: [2] I'm a newer to AfD, so I'm not sure if it is enough. VTVL (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Wisconsin. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep enough coverage in sources, notable award around for many years. Andre🚐 21:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and article's already-existing issue tags.--IndyNotes (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's an important award started in 1986. A lot of coverage can be found online as well and it meets the [WP:GNG]. I have added 3 more references in the article and I can improve the article to address the "Existing Issue Tags" Fifthapril (talk) 04:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm seeing a few WP:LOTSOFSOURCES arguments. I'm open to being convinced that this is notable, but I'm not able to find significant coverage of this award by multiple independent RS myself. Would anybody be willing to provide a link to/provide a citation of specific articles/sources that they say makes this award notable? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am not sure that it being an important award (the main one is but be careful when searching for references as they also awards dozens of regional E&Y EOY awards) makes it notable. However, there are plenty of books that cover the topic which adds up to significant coverage, including this and this. Searching the topic in Google Books will show you the rest. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanini IT Solutions[edit]

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

The article is low on notability and not having any citations or references. The article's subject lacks notability and citations, at least as determined by WP:SECONDARY, WP:GNG and/or WP:NORG The South Star Hill (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Was WP:BEFORE followed? A quick look in google books shows several sources with significant coverage, such as:
  • Afonso Fleury, Maria Tereza Leme Fleury (2011). Brazilian Multinationals: Competences for Internationalization. Cambridge University Press. p. 287. ISBN 9781139494434.
  • Ilidio Tamas Lopes (2012). "6.1.2 Stefanini IT Solutions". ECIE2012-7th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Academic Publishing International. p. 62. ISBN 9781908272874.
These were just the first two books in the list, but there are many more. I think it would be pretty easy to build an article that passes WP:NCORP with what is in google books alone, without even looking for independent sources in English and Brazilian langugage media (which would exist for a company like this).4meter4 (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete -struck second !vote The content in the mentioned references do not have any encyclopedic information. The author of this article was already notified for speedy deletion in 2019. under section A7 . I did a Gsearch and did not find any secondary sources as a support for this article. The South Star Hill (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The South Star Hill Speedy delete is no longer an option under deletion policy. Once any editor votes keep in an AFD, it is no longer eligible to be speedy deleted. Further, as the nominator you can not vote again. Double voting is strictly prohibited. 4meter4 (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The references listed above by 4meter4 meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 14:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 4meter4 + google scholar also shows some sources w/ SIGCOV. 94rain Talk 06:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 21:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SNESAmp[edit]

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

Likely does not meet the GNG, and most sources only cover the software in passing mention with little to no significant coverage. Zero reliable or secondary sources. Written like an advert and if the article is to be saved, it should be TNT'd. InvadingInvader (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep and close per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ann McGuiness[edit]

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

The topic of this article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. IndyNotes (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IndyNotes: This is nuts! I am not even ready writing the article and you want to delete! NYT and Lancet obits are enough to justify- or is this a politically motivated editing of Wikipedia deletion request ??? Leaving a welcome to WP note on my talkpage is ridiculous too.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As noted on your talk page, the alert welcoming you is automatically delivered via the Page Curation tool. There is no NYT obituary listed at the time of review, merely an obituary from the funeral home and The Lancet. If you have additional support for notability, you are welcome to provide it, but I recommend that you prepare articles meeting Wikipedia guidelines prior to publication and not publish articles in draft form.--IndyNotes (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wuerzele: Please refrain from casting aspersions relating to IndyNotes's motivations for bringing this to AfD. It's quite clear that they didn't see the NYT obit before bringing this here and that this was done in good faith, and even so the notability is borderline. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Pauletta[edit]

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

I don’t think this article suit to have a Wikipedia page as it fails WP:GNG. Biography with no reference from reliable source to proof it’s authentic. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep obviously you are wrong because you don't know the personage: he was deputy in sabor. Forza bruta (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Members of Parliament are considered notable via WP:NPOL. His tenure is verified by reliable sources ([3][4][5]). Curbon7 (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : This is an English Wikipedia and I have never seen when the English Wikipedia policy says references written in other languages are also considered to be WP:GNG. If you can reference the Wiki policy here that would be nice but if such policy can’t be reference I look forward to other editors comment. Besides the subject already has an article in other Wikipedia language from Google search such as [6].--Gabriel (talk to me ) 20:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NONENG, non-English sources are valid for use on Wikipedia. Curbon7 (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for referencing, correct. From what have read on the WP:NONENG I would have love to withdraw the AFD but that’s not in my position so I await for an admin to do so.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 20:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Srutimala Duara[edit]

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

A longstanding WP:SPA article with uncited information. The provided mentions and searches find no evidence of attained biographical notability. The website mentioned in the profile does not work. The South Star Hill (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Indrek Hargla. If a different redirect is preferred, please start a discussion on the redirect talk page or at WP:RFD. Liz Read! Talk! 21:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melchior Wakenstede[edit]

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

Contested redirect. I don't think individual notability of this character is indicated; however, I have not performed an Estonian WP:BEFORE. Ovinus (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Titular character of a bestselling book series (7 books so far), that has been translated into multiple languages (at least 5 translations) and adapted into films (trilogy of films, that premiered in 2022). That article is also the most suited to talk about the Melchior series in general as there is no reason to make articles about the individual books. Ivo (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Film, and Estonia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Indrek Hargla per WP:FORK; or delete for failing WP:SIGCOV. This is an unnecessary content fork. I'm not seeing any reason to house this content separately from the article on Hargla at this point. We have zero content on the character itself in terms of literary or cultural analysis which means it fails GNG. Moving this content would highly benefit the article on Hargla by providing some context to his published works within the article on the author. If and when the article on Hargla developes further, and/or the content on the character becomes developed enough to warrant a fork we can always resplit the articles.4meter4 (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivo. The subject is the main character in seven bestselling novels. Disagree with 4meter4. Both articles can be expanded. Simply because they were created as little more than stubs doesn't make either subject less notable. Should both be expanded in separate articles. ExRat (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ExRat Based on what evidence and what policy? Articles on characters actually require sources about those characters with critical analysis/ significant coverage of the character in question. This means sources that actually analyze the character across the books and films as the main subject, not just within an individual review of a book or film. Just because a series has sold well and inspired screen adaptations, doesn't necessarily mean that significant publications addressing the character in those films and books actually exist. No evidence has been provided that the topic meets WP:SIGCOV, and with zero in depth independent sources as required by GNG on this topic I don't see how you can be voting keep. WP:INHERITED and WP:ILIKEIT arguments aren't convincing.4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Who is invoking WP:ILIKEIT? Perhaps the article could be redirected to Indrek Hargla for now. Each of the novels could have their own articles in the future though, and where would the redirect for the character be then? ExRat (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ExRat I think you are putting the cart before the horse here. Without evidence of sources supporting a character article we simply can't have an article per policy at any point and time. A redirect/merge to the author is a reasonable solution, which is why I suggested it. That said, I think the most natural solution to the editorial problem would be to emulate the organization along the lines of Harry Potter; where the article is on the series as a whole itself. That should not be split off into individual books and characters until the article on the series is well developed (lots of sources and lengthy). In that article you can work on writing on each book, the character, the various media adaptions, etc. all in one page. Once a particular section is developed enough, then it can split off into its own article per policy at WP:SPINOFF. We should not be having tons of stub articles with so little information that they are essentially duplicates of one another, or have so little content that they make navigating to multiple pages unwieldy for our readers (just keep it all together until it needs to be broken out). I would start by writing on the series in the author article itself, and when it becomes unwieldy; move it to a page on the series with a summary in the author article and a main article tag. Look at J. K. Rowling#Publishing Harry Potter for example. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Melchior the Apothecary, which actually mentions the character's name. There's no coverage that would cause a GNG pass, and no information that's worth merging anywhere. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That's the film though. The character is the subject of seven novels. Perhaps the article could be redirected to Indrek Hargla for now. ExRat (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to either Indrek Hargla or Melchior the Apothecary. Nothing in this article or the Estonian one indicates this meets WP:GNG criteria for a stand-alone article. No, being the main character of several bestselling (in Estonia only?) novels is not enough to warrant keeping this, not unless there is independent, reliable coverage of this fact. If we can locate media or better, scholarly, articles analyzing this character, allowing us to write a proper reception/significance section then GNG would be met. Ditto if we would find something about the importance of the series, then we could rewrite this into an article about a book series or franchise. But if nothing like this exits, this is just WP:FANCRUFT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'd just like to reiterate that if it should be redirected, it should be redirected to Indrek Hargla, not Melchior the Apothecary, which is a film version of one of the novels. It would make much more sense to redirect it to Hargla's article. Also, it doesn't matter if a bestselling novel was bestselling in Estonia or Guinea-Bissau, if it is properly referenced, has significant coverage (in any language), and passes notability. English language Wikipedia doesn't place priority on articles or subjects by their language. ExRat (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Melchior the Apothecary as per others above. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 01:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I just want to make it clear that I oppose a redirect to the TV series Melchior the Apothecary because it is not the best redirect target. The best target is to the author Indrek Hargla where the character can be discussed in relation to the multiple books, and adaptations of those books (including the television series) which all feature the character Melchior Wakenstede. A merge of the material in Melchior Wakenstede to Indrek Hargla would have the character mentioned in the author's page in detail. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 04:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Abruzzo[edit]

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

Not notable; sources are not independent reliable and with in depth coverage of the subject. I tried to search for additional information, but found nothing important Driodr (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- I completely do agree with you nominator. Yüsiacı (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC) (sock strike. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Promotional profile created by an SPA. Mccapra (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 20:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Abbott[edit]

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

Not notable; sources are not independent reliable and with in depth coverage of the subject. Driodr (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per criteria three of NACADEMIC: "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)." He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, which is a prestigious scholarly association. However, he's not exactly an academic but I think those rules should still apply. Nevertheless, he had some independent coverage from The Boston Globe and Deadline Hollywood. CatchedY (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and no indication any further input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 02:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of non-sovereign nations[edit]

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

original research, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-sovereign countries. Privybst (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see there the definition of non-sovereign nation. Privybst (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No it illustrates the difficulty in that definition process. --Bejnar (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this is a WP:LISTOFLISTS, then per that essay it needs to follow WP:SAL, our guideline on standalone lists. Which means it needs selection criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. I don't think we have that here, and per the logic of the previous AFD I find it difficult to see how it is possible to create one that isn't OR (and no, the woolly definition in Bejnar's source does not help). If it is a WP:DAB, then per WP:D2D, Lists of non-sovereign nations is not reasonably a word or phrase on which a reader might search. Kahastok talk 18:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 20:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Masud Ahmad Khan[edit]

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

This autobiography fails WP:GNG. References are either mere mentions or are articles he has written. The only basis for keeping this would be WP:ANYBIO as a recipient of Sitara-i-Imtiaz, but there's only a paragraph of coverage of him receiving the award, so I don't see this as being enough. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has also existed as Draft:Brigadier Masud Ahmad Khan Retd. I am presuming Masudakhan and Masudpk75 are the same user, as did Aamir7570, but Masudkhanmusician is a different editor who created drafts of a musician of the same name. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks WP: SIGCOV. Strangely, no source other than cited in the article confirms he received Sitara-i-Imtiaz in 2014. I have checked both English and Urdu sources. Insight 3 (talk) 13:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This tweet shows it around his neck, so I do think he received it,[1] but Awards and decorations of the Pakistan Armed Forces says Sitara-e-Imtiaz (Military) (Star of Excellence) is "Awarded to colonel & above, for excellence of work/spontaneous meritorious service or on completion of 18 years of service" so might not be exclusive enough. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ @MasudAKhan6 (September 6, 2020). "I am not a hero but I did have honour of walking beside few. Salute to all our martyrs and ghazis. Proud to serve my country. Long Live Pakistan Army. #OurMartyrsOurHeroes #Pakistan #DefenceDay" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Akhavan[edit]

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

Delete per WP:ANYBIO. Possible spam/promo Dark Juliorik (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity page with no real claim of notability Mccapra (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Citation needed. Article was written unsources completely. As nominator mentioned fails WP:ANYBIO. Yüsiacı (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Wins[edit]

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

Article on a gaming company that can't even spell the name of the company consistently. (Royal Win? Royal Wins?) Has two refs: a dead link that isn't RS coverage anyway and the company's YT channel. I looked for RS coverage but could only find six regurgitations of PR releases-- nothing significant or independent. Fails WP:GNG. Blue Edits (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, bit of a side note but the article began life in 2013 as "MojiKan", an unsourced stub about a "3D Virtual Social Game World", then turned into "MORF Dynamics", the name of the studio that created it, and then turned into "Royal Wins", all by the same SPA. Blue Edits (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Friend[edit]

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

Friend signed a contract in the AAGPBL, but may not have even played, according to the article text. Her entry in the AAGPBL website states "This player has not been located. We have no additional information..." I've done searches on Newspapers.com, google, and have looked in The women of the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League: a biographical dictionary but have not found any significant coverage. As a result, she fails the general notability guideline. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Baseball. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article is clearly not ready for publicatdion. If an enthusiastic editor wants to userfy, I have no objection.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 11:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The article should not say something like "additional information is incomplete because there are no records available at the time of the request" but that fact that there's so little on this individual that the fact that there's no record of the person is a point that someone felt needed to be brought up in the prose is a very good sign that notability's not there and that there's not enough to write anything beyond a stub. Maybe records can be found and the topic can be revisited, but notability certainly needs to be established first. - Aoidh (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Steam (service). Liz Read! Talk! 20:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SteamVR[edit]

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

This platform lived a short life and, as of 2020, is no longer supported by its creator. It appears to have made no significant contributions to virtual reality and is better suited as a brief entry on its creator's article. IndyNotes (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to Steam (which is where this content originated from and has been added back already). Shirt term experiment that clearly us no longer being pursued valid search term and discussion within Steam, but not stand alone--Masem (t) 19:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Humbly put, you're wrong. SteamVR is currently used by millions of people and its latest update was last week:
https://www.roadtovr.com/valve-steam-vr-headset-stats-2021-monthly-active-users/
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/250820
There is no discussion here. I'm removing the deletion tag from the page now. Rosedaler (talk) 05:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How can we close the AfD discussion? Rosedaler (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the neat part, you don't. Decisions on Wikipedia are determined by WP:CONSENSUS, not unilaterally by one user. (Not saying you're wrong though.) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to my comments above Rosedaler (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: User is indef blocked due to editwarring and WP:CIR. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SteamVR doesn't appear to be defunct, but regardless per WP:NEXIST it seems to have gotten WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Article 1 and Article 2 are both clearly significant coverage, and these two articles, while a bit more trivial, indicate lasting notability by being a couple of years apart. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference between "SteamVR" the hardware device (which ultimately is the Valve Index unit) and SteamVR the extension of Steam that operates in VR. The former doesn't seem to be used by Valve to describe their hardware platform, it is what industry people came to call it (wrongly). SteamVR being strictly a software piece, its functionality is best captured in the existing Steam (service) article, since it operates off Steamworks. Masem (t) 12:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with @Masem here. Folks here seem to conflate the hardware device with the software piece. IndyNotes (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Zxcvbnm or Merge suggested by Masem per WP:ATD if the latter is more popular, but I disagree with deletion or redirection. Sadly, most of the refs in the article are routine announcements. However, IMHO the two articles provided by Zxcvbnm are decently long to be SIGCOV and are also RS per WP:VG/RS with some critical commentary. Unfortunately, most of the refs in Google News per WP:BEFORE, such as 1, 2 among others are routine or trivial mentions. However, two decent refs probably is a borderline meeting of WP:NPRODUCT (see also the essay Wikipedia:NSOFTWARE). If merging is more popular that's also fine with me. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge wih Steam per Masem, I've struck my previous vote. VickKiang (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Steam. Citations lean on a handful of repeated sources while the article itself has ongoing unaddressed issues and has hovered just above stub status since its 2015 creation. I do agree deletion is not an option and the subject today still receives some coverage in gaming news, but it may serve best as its own section in the main Steam article. If the above issues are dealt with, it's certainly worthy of a keep. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 20:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: I nominated this for deletion, but I am persuaded by the merge commentary above.--IndyNotes (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a WP:ATD. Personally, I think the AfD was too quick to make after the one editor removed the redirect. This discussion confirms what the article has been since its creation - a redirect until notability can be established on its own. – The Grid (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure what you mean. At the time of review and AfD, this was (and still is) a standalone article. The article's content originated from and has been added back already to the Stream article, but this separate article is no longer needed. I do not see where it was ever a redirect.—IndyNotes (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miss DeMarco[edit]

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

According to the AAGPBL website, DeMarco played for the Kalamazoo Lassies in 1954. However, that and her last name are the only things known about her. I've looked for sources on Google and Newspapers.com, as well as The Women of the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League: A Biographical Dictionary, and was not able to find any significant coverage. As a result, she fails the general notability guideline. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Catholic Central High School (Troy, New York). After Merge, article can be moved to the new name of this joint school. Liz Read! Talk! 20:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Ambrose School (Latham, New York)[edit]

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

Schools aren't inherently notable and this school doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding an infobox. Furthermore, the fact that it is getting merged makes it notable. RPI2026F1 (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, @RPI2026F1 I'm sorry. I nominated it very early as I couldn't read the time very exactly. Nonetheless, I did not find anything good on Google but I feel merging of the content elsewhere may be the best alternate to deletion. ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It probably would belong to an article about the merged school but there isn't that much known about it yet since it started operating this September. RPI2026F1 (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. The nominator withdrew their close and there are no delete arguments. (non-admin closure) Aoidh (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martin S. Flaherty[edit]

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

The topic of this article does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. IndyNotes (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Faulty deletion nomination appears to have failed to even consider our notability guideline for academics, which is independent of the one for biographies in general. The many citations of his work on Google Scholar (citation counts 614, 460, 277, 249, etc) are enough for WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I nominated the page for deletion because the article itself does not justify notability, even under notability guidelines for academics. But as David Eppstein points out, further digging reveals sufficient justification. The article needs substantial work, but it nonetheless meets notability guidelines.--IndyNotes (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not ever a property of "the article itself". It is a property of topics, not articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring, of course, to the notability of the topic as expressed within the article. IndyNotes (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're withdrawing the nomination and this can be closed up now? Jahaza (talk) 01:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jahaza, yes.— IndyNotes — Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep - nomination withdrawn. I note that all the nominated articles have been redirected to List of ELCA synods, but any editor is free to revert those actiona, possibly to create articles on the regions. (non-admin closure). StAnselm (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Washington Synod[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, while the ELCA itself is notable and there is some coverage of individuals associated with the synod, there is no in-depth coverage of the synod itself. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 16:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per discussion below. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 22:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related articles for deletion under the same rationale:

Northwest Intermountain Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oregon Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Montana Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 17:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Mountain Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grand Canyon Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sierra Pacific Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 17:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Paul Area Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Minneapolis Area Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Southwestern Minnesota Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Northwestern Minnesota Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Northern Texas-Northern Louisiana Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
La Crosse Area Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
South-Central Synod of Wisconsin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greater Milwaukee Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
East Central Synod of Wisconsin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Northeastern Iowa Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Metropolitan Chicago Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
South Carolina Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Virginia Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
West Virginia-Western Maryland Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lower Susquehanna Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Slovak Zion Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Upstate New York Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Metropolitan New York Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New England Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
New Jersey Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Southern Ohio Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Northeastern Ohio Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Indiana-Kentucky Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
North/West Lower Michigan Synod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 17:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Christianity. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 16:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: no strong feeling either way. Perhaps they could be grouped together by region, i.e. Northwest & Southwest Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Eastern Washington-Idaho all under a "ELCA Region 1 Synods" -or not.Manannan67 (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you think about redirecting all to List of ELCA synods and restructuring that page to include some of the basic information for each synod, like bishop and size? ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 19:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep. This many nominations at once overwhelms our ability to research them. Jahaza (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'd like me to nominate each of them separately I'm happy to do that, but I feel that would be more disruptive than a single nomination given the issue is identical for each. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 20:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not if you nominate them over time. We've been dealing with this with footballers recently and it's generally been consensus not to nominate dozens at the same time, separately or altogether. Did you really do a before on all of these? And if you want to merge them, that doesn't require an AFD. --Jahaza (talk) 21:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did a before on all of them before the nomination, but I didn't fully look at the bundling process which is why they came in a little staggered while I tried to figure out that workflow. I'll withdraw in a moment. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 22:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can see no consensus above to merge all of them to List of ELCA synods. Given this AfD is still open, this should not have been done until a consensus was reached. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Newland[edit]

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

The topic of this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. IndyNotes (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as I said when I prodded it, he's a working actor, but really has no significant roles, or I would have redirected to one of those articles. Fails GNG.Onel5969 TT me 16:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think this passes WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, because there is not significant role or significant coverage. ZanciD (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or Redirect: The subject is getting close to meeting the notability guidelines, but isn't quite there yet, I don't think. His upcoming role in the 2023 TV series, A Kind of Spark, might push him over the line. A redirect to Coronation Street, to reflect what appears to be his most notable role to date, might be appropriate—but I think it's a little WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. The result was speedy keep - nomination withdrawn. The page has been redirected to List of ELCA synods, but this may be reverted by any editor. (non-admin closure). StAnselm (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC) (I reverted this closure and redid it because it was lacking archive template at the bottom of the discussion so it messed up the main AFD log page Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Alaska Synod[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. While the ELCA itself is plainly notable, not every one of its synods is. The sources in the article are all primary and I have found no in-depth, reliable, third-party sources discussing the synod. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 16:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 17:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 20:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Denis[edit]

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

This article has multiple issues. The topic of this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. Additionally, this biographical article is written like a résumé, and some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. IndyNotes (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and New York. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is short, giving only a bare sketch of Mr. Davis's life and accomplishments, and it does indeed read like a résumé. TH1980 (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If page creator wants this article restored in Draft space, let me know. Liz Read! Talk! 20:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Dalton[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Clearly WP:TOOSOON Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I created the article I wasn't aware of the possibility of creating the page as a draft. I propose creating this as a draft until the subject becomes notable. Asrieltheoracle (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not (yet?) notable. Inclusion of unsourced birth date (now removed by me) suggests COI. PamD 03:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect is ideal here. scope_creepTalk 11:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they haven't won — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one — but this makes no real claim that she would have preexisting notability for other reasons. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if she wins the seat when the byelection actually happens, but nothing here is grounds for her to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Election is not even scheduled yet. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Fails WP:NPOL.4meter4 (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elia Suhana Ahmad[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. Elia Ahmad is not inherently or independently notable - other than as the alleged second wife of Sultan Ismail Petra. Redirect to his page reverted, so we're here. Fails WP:GNG - redirect or delete are the options on offer, IMHO. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Can see why this is notable. No historical or encyclopeadic value. There is no depth to the article. You cant grasp onto anything worth reading. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 11:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per nomination and Scope Creep's reasoning. Empty article of non-notable person. 64.43.158.192 (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 20:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grandbridge Real Estate Capital[edit]

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

Coverage appears limited to deals, nothing of substance about the company to pass N:ORG Star Mississippi 15:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above, the article lacks SIGCOV and my BEFORE is turning up only standard corporate profiles and press releases. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 20:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Karapatakis[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG, lack of in-depth coverage in independent sources. MB 15:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, and Cyprus. MB 15:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I agree with the nominator. Haven't received in-depth coverage in independent sources. Yüsiacı (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not finding in-depth coverage, but the subject is a verifiable Olympic competitor, meeting the letter of WP:NOLYMPICS. Google Books has a few snippet view results. Is there still a presumption that significant coverage will likely emerge eventually for these sportsperson sub-stubs? • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOLYMPICS only says that Olympians that have won a medal are likely to have sig cov. Even that is not a guarantee of coverage. MB 20:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. I was unaware of the February 2022 change in the guideline. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is an interview which includes independent discussion of his life. Some limited coverage here. These are obviously not enough, but the issue is that most of Cypriot sports coverage, even nowadays is offline. --GGT (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 American Professional Football League. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas/St. Joseph Storm[edit]

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

Semi-professional American football team that played one season and existed on paper for less than a year. Unlikely to ever have significant third-party coverage Grey Wanderer (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preet Anand[edit]

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

Some good coverage here but I don't think this passes GNG or WP:NACTOR. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BIIG Problem Solving Method[edit]

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

Non-notable concept. Only WP:PRIMARY sources are available. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 15:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "academic" source is published in a predatory journal. Also the whole article isn't even WP:NPOV. Therefore delete. 0xDeadbeef→∞ 15:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a promotional article. 2601:647:5800:4D2:9DA1:D3F5:F6BF:A61C (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vanispamcruftisement. XOR'easter (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Noman☆ (Talk) 17:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, predatory-journal source, fails WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The references are an article in a journal that is predatory, a churnalism-style blurb by the author of said article, and a piece that doesn't even discuss the topic specifically. Spam masquerading as an article. Look at the article creator's contributions, it's highly likely that they are Chaitanya Hiremath and that this is nothing more than self-promotion. --Kinu t/c 03:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rupesh Patric[edit]

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

I do not believe this person meets WP:NARTIST and WP:BEFORE has not found any references to add. Tacyarg (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, India, and Switzerland. Tacyarg (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NARTIST, only sources that I found [7], that is insufficient to prove notability. ZanciD (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:Not Notable. Contributor008 (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This autobiography of a self-taught charcoal sketch artist does not meet the guidelines for notability per WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. There is no evidence that the artist's work has been included in significant exhibitions nor museum collections. That he donates his work to charities is wonderful, but does not contribute to notability as an artist. Netherzone (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 20:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adams House (Harvard College)[edit]

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

Is not notable. Just because it's a dorm from a famous university doesn't make it notable. No indication of notability given in the article. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's the oldest and it shows up in some google books results. It could be merged I guess but leaning keep. Andre🚐 16:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reason this one was nominated is because after the nominator wholesale deleted the names and descriptions of every residence hall at National University of Singapore (as well as information about its faculties and research institutes) with the excuse that Harvard University doesn't "go in great depth about very specific and not notable details" like this, I pointed out that we not only include coverage about Harvard's student residences but have articles such as this one and List of Harvard College freshman dormitories. While I could conceive of splitting out Harvard_College#House_system and then merging articles about the individual houses, I see no need to delete them entirely. Reywas92Talk 17:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vettai Muthukumar[edit]

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

Up-and-coming Indian actor who doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR inclusion criteria yet. All sources I could find are brief mentions, no in-depth coverage. May be WP:TOOSOON. No objection to draftifying, although the original author of this article wouldn't be improving it due to being blocked as an undisclosed paid editor. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD A7. Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ambed Sakil Khan[edit]

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

Non notable profile, repeatedly created. Delete and salt. Lordofhunter (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David Oscar Markus[edit]

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

Was AfD'd back in 2013. Like that prior version, this is full of citations which merely mention the attorney. Many are primary sources. But can't find enough in-depth coverage of them in independent, reliable sources to show that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm the author of this article. I'm admittedly relatively new to Wikipedia, and I know you all have a lot more experience, but I'm not sure why this article is marked for deletion. I took care not to cite to anything that David Markus had any control over whatsoever, and all the points are supported by independent sources including many sources to highly reputable publications. The article does not cite to his blog or web site as a source. The purpose of the Federalist Society cite was merely that he spoke there, not for the content of what he said (which was the self-written part). While it is true that many of the citations are not in depth coverage, they are used only as evidence of single-point facts (Markus was quoted here, Markus wrote this there, etc.) that are not suitable for in-depth coverage. And there is a fair amount of in-depth coverage as well in the 46 citations. As Markus' former student from several years ago, I have followed his career and he is one of the most well-known criminal defense lawyers in the country, and his list of high profile clients is substantial (all citations supported by independent news coverage of the representation). I also think it is important to have a listing for him to differentiate him from David (Evans) Markus who is also a Harvard Law grad. That's actually how I thought to do this entry - I searched David Markus and got the wrong guy.
Before working on this article, I spent some time looking at other biographical pages to see what the standards are. Even a casual 5 minute search reveals dozens of biographies of far less notable people with FAR less substantiation (and many far less notable). Here's just a handful of examples: Anthony J. Casey, Maura R. Grossman, Roy Black, Howard Shelanski, Sean M. Berkowitz, Marvin Bower, Steve Davis (scientist). There must be thousands of people on wikipedia that have weaker entries with less substantiation and less notability than this one. I don't think I saw a single biography of anyone with 46 sources, and I could have included double that many but didn't want to overdue it.
I'm thinking maybe I erred in including his basic biographical info at the top that I got from an old resume I had from when he was in his class. I read a wikipedia guide that said it was acceptable to cite those basic things with no substantiation, but perhaps a solution would be to delete that stuff and just leave the details of his notable publications, clients, podcast, etc., all of which are supported by independent reputable sources.
Thanks for considering. Jane Whitmor (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi sorry one more thought: I don't know anything about an article from 2013 or what the content was, but wanted to point out that most of what makes Markus worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia has occurred since 2013, so it seems that prior entry may not be relevant. Jane Whitmor (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete support the initiator. The sources are empty if to look for good coverage. --Driodr (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A close look at the sources show that (i) nearly all are trivial mentions rather than in-depth coverage (ii) a lot are self-published (eg, the subject's blog, his firm's site, a profile at the Federalist Society webpage that was provided by the subject that the site disclaims doing any editing or fact checking (iii) dead links, or links that don't mention him at all, (iv) primary sources and (v) other sources that would not pass as reliable at RSN for a BLP. It also looks like the editor who wrote this article is pretty close to being a SPA. Banks Irk (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law, and Florida. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but I would expect it to pass in a few years. He's a leading federal criminal defense lawyer and he's one or two decent-sized newspaper profiles away from establishing notability. Jahaza (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like it was deleted in a previous AfD in 2013 for the same reason. If we establish in this discussion that the person would meet notability if it had 1-2 reliable sources, it seems a bit of grey area. – The Grid (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 08:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable Development Policy Institute[edit]

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

Brought to attention via this Teahouse thread. I strongly considered a WP:G11 speedy, but ultimately decided against it based on the third paragraph of the lead. Still, that organization does not seem to be notable. (There’s also some copyvio, but if we delete it entirely anyway...)

Ref #2 is not even a ref, it’s a bio blurb for a newspaper writer (likely self-published, and a passing mention anyway). Ref #1 and #3 make it survive WP:A7, but that’s it (a 15th place ranking in a regional category of a ranking obtained by a poll of academics is not much notability-wise).

Looking through the English-speaking Pakistani press, one finds a couple of routine coverage mentions (example) but nothing that comes close to GNG. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 09:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is very evidently written by the institute and doesn't show notability. Most information can not be checked. I tried to improve it as much as I could. But still feel it should be deleted. Thank you. ANLgrad (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not seem to meet WP:ORG. (👋 • 🗣 • ✍️) 21:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2022 Racquetball World Championships. Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Racquetball World Championships – Mixed doubles[edit]

2022 Racquetball World Championships – Mixed doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable sports event within a larger competition, a search brought up nothing more than statistical tables, meaning that this fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTSTATS. Suggest a redirect to 2022 Racquetball World Championships. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What the what? I'm astonished by this suggestion. The Mixed Doubles category was added this year to the Racquetball World Championships as a parallel for other sports that have mixed doubles, such tennis and badminton. The players in the competition are elite level players, so they are notable athletes. As such, I'm entirely baffled by the suggestion of these article being deleted. Trb333 (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 Racquetball World Championships. It is a notable event, but not notable enough to warrant an article by itself. ArdynOfTheAncients (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to 2022 Racquetball World Championships. Not notable enough to need a separate article on every event at that championships, the content is already sufficiently covered at the parent article. As for anything relating to other sports being used as a parallel, that's just WP:OSE, which isn't a good argument to use in AFDs. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • what about the rest of the events? Frietjes (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is also my question, and concern. In fact, I'm so concerned about it that I didn't want to raise it lest people think that the other event pages for the championships be deemed to be apt for deletion. If the mixed doubles event gets deleted, then I'll put that info on the "parent" page (2022 Racquetball World Championships) but doing so for all individual events would clutter that page - in my opinion - and that's why I made sub-pages for the individual events. The team events I left on the parent page. I understand that "other articles are like this" isn't always a good argument, but if this is a notable event, then why aren't all the parts of it notable? Again, I'm a little baffled here. Trb333 (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 political parties in Cyprus. ✗plicit 14:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Party Cyprus[edit]

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

Political party in Cyprus founded 2014 has never won a seat. Virtually no independent media coverage, no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Hubbs[edit]

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

Musician and 'commitment stoner', single recording no evidence of chart placement, gold disk or widespread dissemination. Sourced to a listicle of strangest records on Spotify and an apparently broken link. Fails WP:GNG; WP:MUSICBIO. Hubbs love life wasn't very simple, apparently, but his notability is... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I couldn't find any RS (I'm not counting the listicle because I don't think that would go towards notability anyway). This article is the closest I could find. I will note, though, that given the timeframe of his activity it's possible that sources exist in print magazines focused on the genre, but I have no way to find or evaluate those. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 06:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brajesh Tiwari[edit]

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

Perfectly normal academic, co-authoring, publishing papers and so on. Article sourced to primary sources (papers etc), University website. Despite impressive looking reference section, subject presents no evidence of notability, no media coverage, no evidence of enduring academic impact. Strange mixture, in fact, of food processing and banking. WP:NOTCV very much applies here, and so does failing WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

I will say that I got a little twinge deleting an article that was created in 2002. Liz Read! Talk! 23:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Manifesto[edit]

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

No independent coverage located on a search. Everything from the bibliography is by the same authors so is not independent. Hits on GScholar & other searching are the same. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to D (data language specification); the book seems to mostly be notable as the origin of that language specification, and there is already significant overlap between the two articles. - IMSoP (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly I'm not sure that subject is notable either - all the citations are again to the authors of the language. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there are multiple languages which claim or aim to be implementations of the specification, and it has 37 articles linking to it (whereas The Third Manifesto only has 16, mostly the same ones). If it had a single author rather than two, I'd be fine with redirecting it all to a section on the article for that author, but I think it's worthy of covering somewhere. If it's lacking good references, that's as likely to be a sign that it should be improved as that it should be deleted. - IMSoP (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Incoming links are not indicators of notability (and in any case, some 30-odd of those incoming links are merely transclusions of the navbox Template:Query languages, so that really means nothing notability-wise). Independent reliable sources that cover the topic in some detail are needed to indicate notability. In the case of the book, I was not able to find any, hence this deletion nomination.
    In the case of the specification, it's a bit harder as single letters are basically impossible search terms. I tried skirting around the edge searching the authors' names and adding terms like "language" and "specification" but again mostly turned up sources by the authors, which are not independent and cannot support a claim to notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia overcovers obscure computer topics that don't meet out own standards for inclusion. The fact that another non-notable topic exists does not refute Premeditated Chaos arguments for deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lucifer (2019 Indian film)#Sequels. Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

L2: Empuraan[edit]

L2: Empuraan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The film fails the notability guidelines SP013 (talk) 04:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing nomination as I misunderstood the rationalle for nominating the article to begin with. If I had understood the IP's rationalle I wouldn't have gone through this procedure (per discussion below). (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bankleitzahl[edit]

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

Completing nomination on behalf of an IP. The issue is that this is just a definition for the German bank identifier code system which isn't enough for a stand alone article (fails WP:NOTDICT). If there's a good redirect target that could be a good WP:ATD. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Austria, and Germany. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic's notability, the availability of reliable sources, and the potential to create very substantial article is supported by the German version of the article at de:Bankleitzahl. (While that article discusses bank codes in general, more than half of it seems specific to the German and Austrian system.) —Psychonaut (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. However, I haven't nominated the article because it only consists of a definition but because that definition is outright wrong. It claims that Austria and Germany share a bank code system and (less importantly) implies that "Bankleitzahl" is a proper noun. --2A02:810B:43C0:800:C886:234A:FE67:3D70 (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Welcome to Wikipedia! The proper way of dealing with factually incorrect information in an article is to edit the article, not to delete it. You can use the "Edit" link to change the article text. If you know the content is somehow incorrect but are not sure what the correct information is, then you could start a discussion on the article's talk page (by following the "Talk" link). –Psychonaut (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think you would have been happier if I had removed the incorrect sentence from this one-sentence article. --91.66.203.114 (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: In case anyone besides User:Qwaiiplayer feels the article should be redirected, please first check out the comments about (possibly) improper redirect targets at Talk:Bankleitzahl#Re-instatement. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Our articles for deletion instructions are quite clear about how IP editors, who can not start pages in the project namespace, should go about nominations:
    If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process.
    On Talk:Bankleitzahl, IP justified article deletion with:

    "Bankleitzahl" is merely the German word for a Bank Identifier Code -- it is not a system, Germany and Austria don't even share one system for account numbers (except IBAN).

    — Preceding text originally posted on Talk:Bankleitzahl (diff) by 91.66.203.114 (talk⋅contribs) 2022-10-05T20:38:37 (UTC)
    They followed up with posting on WT:AFD:

    Can someone complete the AfD process for Bankleitzahl please? The article claims it is a system for Bank Identifier Codes but it's merely the German word for them.

    — Preceding text originally posted on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion (diff) by 91.66.203.114 (talk⋅contribs) 2022-10-05T20:40:28 (UTC)
    For unknown reasons, User:Qwaiiplayer has not posted IP's deletion rationale here, rather their own interpretation of IP's deletion rationale. IP has followed up above stating that I haven't nominated the article because it only consists of a definition but because that definition is outright wrong. And that the article implies that "Bankleitzahl" is a proper noun.
    A fundamental rule in our deletion policy is that
    If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.
    As we have had an article since 2004 at de:Bankleitzahl, I have added an {{expand language}} tag to our article, and I am surprised that IP insists on starting an AfD discussion regardless. I have now expanded the lead with a translation from German Wikipedia.
    Deletion policy is also quite clear about what constitutes reasons for deletion. None of IP's reasons do. Least of all the amended implies that "Bankleitzahl" is a proper noun as that is a mere MOS matter, and ought to elicit a smile on the face of editors mildly aware of German orthography. Sam Sailor 22:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mcbath (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shahi Kabir[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Mcbath (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. Mcbath (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He is a recipient of 52nd Kerala State Film Awards. As per WP:ANYBIO passes notability. 116.68.98.175 (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Mcbath, why on Earth did you move this page from Draft space to main space and a minute later tag it for AFD deletion? This page should have been left in Draft space until the editors working on it submitted it for AFC review or thought it was in good enough shape to move to main space themselves. I'm trying to AGF here but I can't understand your actions regarding this draft. Why do you move this draft and then tag it for deletion? Liz Read! Talk! 06:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is almost finished. No more editings needed. He is a recipient of an award itself passes the notability criteria. Am I right? 116.68.98.175 (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or Delete: This article has long-term UPE/socking issues. So this has to go through AFC process. The person is winner of a Kerala State Award. But that does not alone make him notable. 2409:4073:202:50DA:C3F:7AFF:FE38:6725 (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply As per WP:ANYBIO, The person has received a well-known and significant award is notable. 116.68.98.175 (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you are not right. Winning such an award means a person is more likely to be notable. However meeting that criteria is not conclusive evidence of notability not a guarantee of inclusion. Also, editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page about a specific topic. Wikipedia has no firm rules, and so there is no "mic drop" moment here. The discussion will continue. That is the point of an AFD. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Not qualified due to insufficient sources and better to be moved back to draft to be submitted. ZanciD (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - Why move to main and then nominate for AFD? Makes more sense to revert back to drafify. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mcbath per WP:SNOW I feel it would be appropriate for you to close your nomination early with an outcome of draftify, then move the article back to draft space. MaxnaCarta (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red X I withdraw my nomination
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohan Vishwakarma[edit]

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

Unelected politician, per WP:POLITICIAN TheWikiholic (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soumyen Bandyopadhyay[edit]

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

Unsure if he passes WP:PROF. Article looks like a resume. LibStar (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

if he meets WP:GNG, he needs significant coverage of him as the subject, where is that coverage? I don't think he meets WP:AUTHOR. 2 of the books you mention, he is an editor not an author. LibStar (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Here is some coverage 1, 2.
Journal articles 1, 2.
Books 1, 2. Even the books 1, where you mentioned that he is just an editor shows his significant contribution because he got the prominent credits in the title and on front page/book cover because chapters in those books are written by different authors. He maybe weak in the GNG criteria but he is still notable enough to have a Wikipedia page due to his academic contribution. Yes I agree that the article looks like a resume and needs editing. Fifthapril (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, India, and England. TJMSmith (talk) 05:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I see lots of books, I don't see much evidence of impact via citations or reviews. The route through reviews looks more likely, but I find only two reviews [8][9], both of edited volumes. This looks well short of WP:NAUTHOR. It is possible that I am missing reviews, and I'm watching this discussion in case better sourcing is uncovered. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Slightly weak Keep. I'm convinced by the WP:NPROF C5 case noted by Espresso Addict, and which I should have noticed myself. I'd normally expect to see a bit more other evidence of NPROF or NAUTHOR notability in an NPROF C5 case, but I think this is an effect of the field, and I think that the chair is the kind of position described by the C5 subcriterion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On a quick glance, holding a named chair (Sir James Stirling Chair in Architecture) at a reputable university, University of Liverpool, is a WP:PROF pass under #5; verified: [10]. Agree article needs work. Is there something I'm missing? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Named chair at a decent university meets WP:PROF #5. Have done a bit of work on the article, but more is needed. Edwardx (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bloods subgroups[edit]

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

Massive list of non-notable organizations built by cobbling together bits and pieces from random news articles and court filings. Fails WP:OR and WP:NOTDIR * Pppery * it has begun... 02:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I don't find that the keep arguments successfully rebut the detailed source analysis. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Lagasse[edit]

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

A highly promotional article that seems to be either an autobiography or possibly UPE. I spent a good part of the morning trying to unpack what substantial coverage I might find from the press releases, calendar listings, user-submitted content, primary sourcing and the like. There is not much left to substantiate notability; the closest thing is the Austin American-Statesman piece on a gallery he opened in Austin to sell his own work. However part of that article is press release material. A BEFORE search reveals his own website claiming he is a "Renowned Artist and Top 10 Sculptor in the World"[11] in ALL CAPS!; social media, auction listings, art sales sites to buy his "one dollar sculptures" or NFTs, but no serious reviews of exhibitions, art historical critical analysis or what we would normally find for a notable artist. It seems that the article is unambiguous advertising WP:ADMASQ for an artist who does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. Source analysis chart below. Bringing it here for the community to decide.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
midlibre No Press release or paid placement No Press release, no byline, includes his phone number at bottom ✘ No
TotemMagazine.com No User submitted content No user submitted content No user-submitted, not journalism ✘ No
Marbella rocks No primary source, interview ? unknown, defunct lifestyle magazine; seems like native advertising ~ small editorial introduction taken from his website ✘ No
Artistic Rezo No Press release ? press release No press release for a workshop ✘ No
Galerie St. Martin No His gallery bio, with a link to "reserve a work" (for sale) No Gallery PR for sales of art No Promo ✘ No
Yahoo news Yes ? No One sentence about a work he donated to a fundraising auction ✘ No
Ouest France ~ press release, calendar listing ~ press release about a sculpture he donated No One sentence calendar listing press release ✘ No
RTBF ? no byline; press release ? No name mention, the press release is about Maserati ✘ No
Over Blog ? blog, unknown if it is user-submitted content No blog, click-bait ? has a video and some photos ✘ No
France Culture Yes Yes No photo caption - trivial ✘ No
La Ventana del Arte No It's a press tease from his gallery for sales ? press release No press release, not journalism or a review ✘ No
Le Parisien Yes Yes No name is mentioned once in a sentence along with other artists in an auction ✘ No
Art Premium ? ? ? dead link ? Unknown
Paris Match ~ contains some boiler plate PR content ? Probably, PM is sometimes considered light-weight celebrity gossip, but it may be reliable Yes about a trophy he designed, about half of it is boiler plate press release content ? Unknown
Phillips auction house No auction house Yes auction house listing of a sale No sales listing ✘ No
Decentraland No user submitted online "virtual gallery" No user-generated content No UGC for a 4 hour event to sell his NFTs ✘ No
Austin American-Statesman Yes newspaper Yes has byline, editorial oversight ~ Some actual reportage here, but a large amount of boiler plate press release content ~ Partial
Karl Lagasse personal website No the artists personal website No artist's personal website No primary source ✘ No
Decentraland No user-generated content website event listing No user-submitted calendar listing No user-submitted content calendar listing for sales event ✘ No
ArtPrice.com by ArtMarket No pay-to-play "Art Market Trends" website No user-submitted pay-to-play website No 120,000 artist biographies and 30 million auction records ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Netherzone (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Visual arts, France, and Texas. Netherzone (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the wonderful source analysis above. Non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wow, I'm going to start providing this analysis in future AfDs. I did look for more sources and I found one weak source which is an interview with the Armenian Mirror-Spectator but it's quite short and doesn't support notability very well. This additional source was not enough for me to change my vote. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 20:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article as written is WP:PROMO and the original creator 3d.nftart is a one topic editor. Lagasse has a number of pieces listed on ArtNet. I don't know what the deal is with NFTs, but he doesn't seem to be selling any of them. Leaning towards delete. He isn't in any collections or been included in exhibitions of notable museums. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, WomenArtistUpdates, ArtNet is a marketing website and database for art auction sales, which does contribute to notability (no different than a listing). It is "place to buy, sell, and research art online." However ArtNet News is a different part of the same site with news items with bylines, and editorial oversight; there is a discussion in the archives of WP:RSP stating the news items can be reliable. I think it's important to keep in mind that any artist or gallery can pay ArtNet/ArtNet News for a "home page" subscription, so the site also contains user-submitted/user-generated content. I've always been somewhat on the fence whether or not we should use the news site, but I feel the database is not very useful for what we do here at WP. Netherzone (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Netherzone, Thanks for the ping. I didn't mean to imply that ArtNet was a RS for proving notability. I did think it was interesting that that were so many entries and it gave me pause. I am so out of tune with 21st century artists I just wondered if I was missing something. After looking at the article yet again and reviewing your source analysis, I realize that it is truly is a very slick piece of promotion. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NARTIST. He isn't in any collections or been included in exhibitions of notable museums. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A search turned up multiple reliable sources, which clearly show notability, with several of those sources already in the article. The article is overwritten and in need of paring down, some of which I have done, but that does not negate the reliable sources in the article that do show notability. The sales sites erroneously included in the article can easily be removed. Meets WP:GNG and passes WP:NARTIST. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST with multiple independent sources with significant coverage. These are already cited in the article or in the French language wikipedia article Fr:Karl Lagasse. Some of the RS from the French wiki page was not included in the source analysis above. That said, the article is horribly written and overly promotional and needs a thorough re-write or at least a trimming down to bare essentials. AfD is not cleanup.4meter4 (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would help if those advocating Keep either contested the Source assessment table or mentioned the additional sources they have located which would count towards establishing GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Source assessment table demonstrates a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Not seeing any convincing rebuttal from keep voters. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @4meter4: - could you provide examples of RS from the French Wikipedia page?-KH-1 (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Passes NPOL; closing as speedy per withdrawn nomination and refactored !votes. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bouchaib Benlabsir[edit]

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

This is complex. 1) Unclear whether being an MP is sufficient for notability and 2) complete inability to verify that he was indeed one. I can find nothing that isn't a wikipedia mirror in either English or French, even searching on the original French text which was probably an obit. While he died in 1992, there should be something that verified his career. SPA creator hasn't been active in seven years, so no luck there. Star Mississippi 01:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC) Edit: parliamentary role has been verified now that we have an alternate transliteration. This can be considered nomination withdrawn. Star Mississippi 23:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Morocco. Star Mississippi 01:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft delete (or delete for now) I was unable to find any verification that the subject served in the Parliament of Morocco. If a reliable source is found, this would be a keep per WP:NPOL. But NPOL requires verification of service in a national legislature (or a state/province-wide legislature). --Enos733 (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC) Keep per new sources found. Passes WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft delete after a bit of hunting around I found the Arabic spelling “ بوشعيب بن البصير” which I located because he has a street named after him in his home town of Settat. I guess he was a local notable on that basis but I can’t find anything about him at all. Mccapra (talk) 06:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What did you mean with point 1? Curbon7 (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I may have misread it, but NPOL to me says being elected isn't enough if we don't have coverage. Given when he served (possibly 1972?) we're not looking for volumes of text. But something to verify his inauguration or what sessions he presided over would be helpful. If we could find the obit, that might even be helpful. Star Mississippi 14:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For NPOL, we only need a source that verifies he served in a national or provincial legislature (latter only if it is a federal country). NPOL, along with WP:NPROF and a couple others, work as an alternative to WP:GNG; that is, we consider anyone who passes these guidelines to be ipso facto notable. So if we can verify he's an MP, that would be enough to pass. Curbon7 (talk) 17:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that clarification (and the transliteration consideration below). I was aware of it for academic/professors if they were well cited enough, but don't frequently edit political bios and hadn't realized it. Star Mississippi 17:24, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: His name may be misspelled, as I found this obit, which lists him under the name "Bouchaib Benlebsir". Curbon7 (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There is some mention of him when I searched for him last name first (Benlabsir Bouchaib), but still no verification of being an MP, just bullitains that mention him ([12][13]).However, there is a book on GBooks that may have some mention of him, as it keeps popping up when I search his name. I've put in a resource request at WP:RX; if it turns out to be a nothingburger, then soft delete. Curbon7 (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The source verifies that he was elected to the Parliament in 1977. I gutted the article of all the unsourced information. Star Mississippi, I can email you the PDF of the book chapter if you want to verify. Curbon7 (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No need, you're an established editor and there's no reason to doubt your sources. I won't close this as nom withdrawn as there are extant delete !votes but this is resolved. While AfD isn't and shouldn't be cleanup, sometimes it helps. Thanks for your research @Curbon7 Star Mississippi 23:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Mediterranean House of Human Sciences https://cinumed.mmsh.univ-aix.fr/collection/item/65526-documents-maroc says that he was member of Parliament (You can search by this term "Benlabsir Bouchaib") which means he is notable as of fourth line of Wikipedia:Notability (politics)#Politicians. Contributor008 (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that other editors have found sources. Mccapra (talk) 06:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 01:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brittle Days – A Tribute to Nick Drake[edit]

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

Survived PROD (Courtesy @Spellcast and Michig: as they're semi active) but I see no evidence this meets musical notability. I'm unable to find sourcing that isn't about Drake, and this seems UNDUE if merged there. Star Mississippi 01:16, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (unless there's a suitable redirect target) per NMUSIC. Other than this article from Cover Me I could only find passing mentions. QuietHere (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd be surprised if there was absolutely nothing in print media about this album... along with 2013's Way to Blue: The Songs of Nick Drake, it's the best known Nick Drake tribute album. But I can't argue for keeping it in its current state, and really Q and Record Collector are the only UK magazines that might possibly have reviewed this record back in 1992. Richard3120 (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this article way back when I was a noob. Agree with Richard3120; delete unless some sources can be found (which are likely print media). — sparklism hey! 10:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It would almost certainly have received reviews in print sources from the time of its release, although there isn't much online apart from the Allmusic review. --Michig (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_October_10&oldid=1121037383"