Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 23	April 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 01:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony D'Amato[edit]

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

Despite having 24 references, the subject doesn't satisfy notability. It's WP:REFBOMB, with every single mention and review they could find. Also possible COI/vanity page. Nswix (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nswix (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT, Billboard and NPR articles all seem to satisfy 'In-depth coverage', am I missing something? JeffUK 20:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as AllMusic staff written bio here where there is also a staff album review, The New York Times here, NPR here, there is a dedicated article in the WSJ but its paywalled here, Billboard here and Rolling Stone here. In my view there is enough significant coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, passes WP:THREE and thats all it needs, NYT, NPR, RS. // Timothy :: talk 10:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Per creator's request Star Mississippi 01:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Evans (singer-songwriter)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability Nswix (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made this a long time ago, without citations. If possible, I would like this to be moved to my user space (e.g. User:Thivierr/sandbox or draftspace, or whatever is easy) and I may be able to provide appropriate citations and details to justify inclusion. A quick look at ProQuest shows some relevant hits, but I don't yet know if there's enough to justify an article. In its current state, the article can't be justified. --Rob (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm fine with this if it can be expanded on. I'm not on a crusade to have this deleted.

Nswix (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drafity As a good WP:ATD CT55555(talk) 04:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom and creator. Suriname0 (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or draftify per request. This is an old article (created in 2005) that met the inclusion and referencing standards of that time, but has obviously not kept up with the evolution in those standards over the intervening years — so it certainly doesn't meet contemporary requirements in this state, but the creator is a long-established Wikipedia contributor who's still around and should be given every opportunity to see if he can repair it. There are indeed hits in ProQuest that can be used; I don't know enough about her to fix this myself, but if Rob can't get into ProQuest to retrieve them, I'm willing to pull some PDFs. Bearcat (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft per request above. // Timothy :: talk 10:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 12:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander S. Bermange[edit]

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

No showing of notability. Reads like a resume. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Music. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a vanity page to me. Definitely non-notable. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A vanity page filled with puffery about a non-notable person. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. Very poorly executed (no footnotes) WP:BLP of dubious relation to WP:NBIO. At best this could be moved to a draftspace, if the author appears and promises to work on this more. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not a viable redirect per reasons raised below. Star Mississippi 01:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lebedinaya, Russia[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGEO, no meaningful reference. BTW, is this a place or a river? P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps it could be expanded with text from the corresponding article in the Russian Wikipedia at ru:Лебединая (приток Туманной) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A river. I have removed the zip code because rivers do not have them. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - If this was expanded upon with content from the Russian article, then we would have a decent article. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep named geographic feature...(Lebedinaya is a small river in the Khasansky district of the Primorsky Territory of the Russian Federation. It is the last tributary of the Tumannaya, flowing into it from the left). Djflem (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic features are not inherently notable, we would need something more than just the name and location. –dlthewave ☎ 13:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @TheInsatiableOne. Jeffhardyfan08 (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete First, we don't keep articles on features just because they have a name; we've deleted plenty of them. Second, the English article is just a translation of the Russian article, which not incidentally is peppered with tags about the lack of citations. Third, of the two citations, the first is to (apparently) the index to an atlas, and the other fails: GMaps doesn't show this stream at all except in aerial view, and does not label it. I did not search in Russian because the English search shows that there are other features with the same name, and I did not think I could distinguish them from one another easily, but that English search returns almost nothing; I could find only a single reference in a paper on the char (fish) that could be construed as even vaguely amounting to coverage. I'm sorry, but I think this fails GNG emphatically. At any rate it needs sourcing, which I haven't been able to find. Mangoe (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify May be improved and submitted for review. The person who loves reading (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete- Fails WP:NGEO, no meaningful references. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability since there's no significant coverage or information beyond location and statistics. Both the Russian and English articles are sourced to a single topo map (I'm not counting Google Maps). The Russian article only appears longer due to coverage of an unrelated territorial dispute. –dlthewave ☎ 13:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tumen River. This is the Soviet era military name for the last 7km of this river; it forms the border between Russia and NK, its unremarkable and an unneeded CFORK that fails GNG. I don't find any usage which would indicate this was a commonly used name. NGEO states, "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article." // Timothy :: talk 10:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see doing this. It's not claimed to be the same as the Tumen, and there's nothing in the latter's article about tributaries or the like. Mangoe (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tumen River. Despite it not being the same as Tumen, however, do we really need a page strictly related to a stream of water that ultimately leads into the Tumen River? I mean I have a stream in my backyard it leads into a lake but I don't see a page for it. Swaggalicious (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and not mentioned at the proposed redirect target. Avilich (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 00:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Davies[edit]

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

Not notable football player JoeNMLC (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did browse newspapers to see if I can find any WP:SIGCOV but was not successful. Best I could find were The Star, The Guardian and Nottingham Evening Post. With the last one, she is mentioned in the title but the actual article only trivially mentions her. I couldn't find anything that addressed her with any actual depth. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence Stone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a voice actor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, the notability test for an actor is not passed just because the article lists acting roles, and requires some evidence of third party analytical coverage about him and his performances in media to get him over WP:GNG -- but the only "sources" listed here are his own website and an IMDB-like voice acting directory, which are not notability-building sources, and he's so poorly sourceable that it's actually in question whether he's American or Irish by nationality, with the voice acting directory saying he was born in County Wicklow while his IMDB profile says he was born in Shawnee, Oklahoma, and no better sources have proven locatable to resolve that conflict at all.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on better sourcing than I've been able to find. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Ireland and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. BLP, fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject direct and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV, game news, database, promo. // Timothy :: talk 06:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC) // Timothy :: talk 06:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nomination Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is essentially unsourced, with just a few footnotes citing directory listings and the actor's own website which is a primary source. Searches in Wikipedia Library and ProQuest turn up only a few passing mentions of his name in secondary sources (e.g. listing of his name in credits for Tales of Earthsea and mention that he is appearing at ComicCon along with other actors). Fails WP:BASIC and does not meet WP:GNG. There are other websites and blogs much better suited for promotional purposes than Wikipedia. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the "best" piece of coverage is a 2019 Q&A interview on the making of Hearthstone that appeared on Forbes.com, but it's written by a contributor and contributed articles to Forbes.com are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia, plus it's essentially a primary source, and hence does not count toward notability. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 00:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Avraamidou[edit]

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

There are plenty of people called "Maria Avraamidou" but I can't find any significant coverage about a badminton player of this name. Her one claim to notability is being a runner-up in a tournament that does not seem to meet WP:NBAD. When searching in Greek, the best I can find is CUSF, which is not at all sufficient for meeting WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Florentyna (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what sources? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore per WP:JUSTAVOTE. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article and BEFORE fail to show anything meeting IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).

BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV, game news, database, promo. // Timothy :: talk 02:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No apparent notability, practically a database entry. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and QuicoleJR. Walt Yoder (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Street Fighter characters. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley (Street Fighter)[edit]

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

Zero WP:SIGCOV. It seems like this article might be also relying to the listicles for ex. "Top 10 satisying character" or included at the list of the worst character" unlike Balrog (Street Fighter) or Fei Long (which were notable). GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Street Fighter characters. Only hits were databases, list articles and character rankings. Doesn't appear notable enough to warrant a separate article. Merko (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Street Fighter characters. All game guides and listicles. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Street Fighter characters per WP:PRESERVE. The mentions here do not rise to WP:SIGCOV for a stand-alone article. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Street Fighter characters per above. // Timothy :: talk 11:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sacred Games (TV series). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Games (soundtrack)[edit]

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

There is no officially released soundtrack for the series. As the music has no independent notability in my research, it needs to be merged with Sacred Games. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 22:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Television. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 22:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge trimmed down and properly sourced material to Sacred Games (TV series)#Music as proposed. // Timothy :: talk 11:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Magical Moment[edit]

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

Article is about a collection of tweets published as a book. The only cited source is the blog of the tweeter. A Google search turned up only Wiki mirrors and three booksellers, one of which turns out not to have the book available. There is essentially no coverage of the book, anywhere. Donald Albury 22:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ This almost looks like a hoax. There is no coverage of the book in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 22:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just to be sure, I ran the same searches and found no RS coverage. This video from the "Paulo Coelho Forum" YouTube channel is almost a parody of the self-help genre, but unfortunately the book does not appear to be a hoax. Just eminently non-notable :/ Generalrelative (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Echoing everyone above. I almost wonder if Coelho isn't even aware this book ever existed. -- asilvering (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to add, it seems obviously not notable due to lack of RS. Doug Weller talk 07:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As well as everything else, the article was started by Coelho's own publicity team and has remained virtually untouched since, so WP:PROMO applies here too. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like the book does actually exist. Using the title in Korea, I was able to find it in Google Books, where I also found the ISBN. Using that, I was able to find listings in both Amazon and WorldCat, complete with listings in various libraries. The Google Book view shows that it is official merch (so to speak) of the author. So now it's just a question of whether or not there's coverage. It looks like the book was likely never released in English, only Korean, so if any coverage exists it's going to be in that language. I'll see what I can find. Not fluent in Korean, but I am fluent in Google Translate, so there's that. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever reason my computer does not want to open any websites that originated in Korea. It's sometimes picky, probably firewall related. I did find a few hits in Google News, but no telling if they're actually usable. Of note is that they do seem to be pretty sparse. Here are the results, if anyone can get them to come up for you. I ran the previews and it looks like one is a merchant site, but another mentions that the book was a bestseller, but I can't tell more than that. I'm going to ask at the Korea WP if any of them can run a search to see what they can find. Offhand leaning towards probably non-notable since the previews otherwise didn't look very promising, but I'd like a search in Korean first. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Related discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea#Search_in_Korean?. Short paragraph. Short paragraph. A dedicated if short-ish article/review. A very short paragraph. A short paragraph. Another dedicated f shortish article/review. With the two short-ish review, mimimum standard for GNG/NBOOK seems to be met. Remember about SYSTEMICBIAS, folks, and the need to do BEFOREs in non-English languages! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I'll ping the editors above who expressed concern about this being a likely hoax: @Oaktree b @Generalrelative @Asilvering @Doug Weller

PPS. Regarding the reliability of the sources cited, the two longer reviews were published in ko:디지털타임스 and Kukmin Ilbo. Two of the shorter mentions come from The Dong-a Ilbo. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have misunderstood us? I don't see anyone here saying that this is "a likely hoax". -- asilvering (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I did, way up top. The book image looked like a bad photoshop cover and I couldn't find an isbn. It seems I've been proven wrong. Oaktree b (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on the Korean language sources described; not the best, but it seems the book exists and has some (minimal) critical notice. To be fair, the market for Korean books is small to begin with, so I don't expect to find a dozen reviews. Oaktree b (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per Asilvering. This seems to be a coffee-table book by a person in Korea based on Cuelho's tweets, not a book by Cuelho as is implied. The sources Piotrus provides aren't particularly convincing, and suffer from the same problem as the article: they are about Cuelho rather than the book. Walt Yoder (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Lenoresm's source is more convincing, and after Doug Weller's edits the article is no longer promotional. Striking my vote - editors more familiar with the Korean media will have to decide this. Walt Yoder (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found this Kukmin Ilbo article about the publication of Coelho's Maktub in Korean, which notes that Magic Moment sold over 200,000 copies in Asia. For anyone new to looking up news in Korean, here's a link to a search for the book on Naver News, which is Korean news aggregator. (And here's the same link sorted by oldest articles, in case that's helpful.) There are many mentions of the book being on the Korean Publishers Association's best sellers list throughout 2013. Lenoresm (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep I'm convinced but I've also gutted the article, if anyone wants to restore, well, the material I removed was unsourced or sourced to Cuelho. I found a Phd thesis mentioning the illustrator and added that. But surely what we need is an article on Cuelho mentioning this? Doug Weller talk 13:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there an article about this book on the Korean WP? As its claim to notability is based on its reception in Korea, the existance of an article about it on the Korean WP might help here. (Understood that the Korean WP does not necessarily have the same standards for creating an article as we do.) - Donald Albury 17:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it is listed as a best seller in the article List of 2013 bestsellers in South Korea. :3 F4U (they /it) 07:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm heartened by the article Lenoresm found that (at least in google-translate-ese) says Coehlo "commissioned" it, but I still don't see any reason to keep this as a standalone article. All we appear to be able to say about it is that it exists and it sold over 200k copies; that's all the coverage is talking about, and it's not enough to build much of anything. The article is not, realistically, going to get any longer than it is at present. I'm not against stubs, but I don't see the purpose of this one - the chances that someone would be trying to find this book by searching Wikipedia for "The Magical Moment" seems slim-to-none, and they won't learn anything once they get there anyway. This would be more useful as a single sentence on Coelho's article, and as evidence for notability of the illustrator - who doesn't appear to have an article yet. -- asilvering (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering For the record, I think the Korean name of the illustrator is ko:황중환. What I read in the reviews suggests he may be notable indeed, but Korean Wikipedia doesn't have an article on him yet (a copyvio for someone with that name was deleted in 2009). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another review in the Seoul Shinmun and a review in Seoul Culture Today. At bare minimum, it exceeds WP:NBOOK and there is more than enough content to expand the article out from a stub. :3 F4U (they /it) 07:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above: Another review in the Seoul Shinmun and a review in Seoul Culture Today. I think these two put it over the line, so I didn't bother looking for more because this was enough for GNG. // Timothy :: talk 11:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Less Unless (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ganj-e Qarun[edit]

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

NN film with promotional language UtherSRG (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Iran. UtherSRG (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 2 sources on the page seem to show a certain notability, particularly the quote from Social History of Iranian Cinema. I fail to see any "promotional language" there nor what there is to promote. We are talking about a 1965 film by a very important filmmaker. The film is also mentioned in this 2020 article as "an influential cult film" (p. 67) that has "pioneered this brand of fatalist cinema" and became its "undisputed quintessence'" etc. (p. 64) — MY, OH, MY! 23:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Mushy Yank. فرهنگ2016 (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also found this, not mentioned before I think. An entire scholarly article focusing on this also generally indicates more sources should exist in Farsi. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The individual sources aren't particularly conclusive, but I believe that the sum total of them scrapes across the line to meet WP:NFILM. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vênus[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years and never been updated. Refs are really poor. No social media or streaming coverage. Potentially notable right enough. scope_creep^Talk 21:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability per nom, though I think this should've been prodded first. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:GNG, although I am in agreement with Aaron Liu that this should have gone to PROD. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 08:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNGGNG and WP:NBAND. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Fails IS RS	1. "Resenha: Vênus – Vênus (1986)". 4 July 2017.
Brief entry, no SIGCOV about subject	2. ^ DOLABELA, Marcelo. ABZ do rock brasileiro. São Paulo: Estrela do Sul, 1987, p. 162.
Portal page	3. ^ Portal SCUD http://www.scudband.com/index2008_eng.html Archived 27 March 2010 at the Wayback Machine
promotional, including contact information	4. ^ Radiofônicos : Bandas Archived 21 October 2009 at the Wayback Machine. Rockwave. Retrieved 21 October 2011.
Failed V, 404	5. ^ Rede Música Piauí – Soluções criativas de sustentabilidade para produção musical do estado do Piauí[permanent dead link]. Redemusicapiaui.ning.com. Retrieved 21 October 2011.
Failed V, 404	6. ^ http://www.icoalmendra.com/ico_orange_002.htm[permanent dead link]
Myspace	Gratis muziek, tourneedata, foto's, video's. Myspace.com. Retrieved 21 October 2011.
Failed V, 404	8. ^ Avalon. Metaleros.de. Retrieved 21 October 2011.
Failed V, 404	9. ^ CD Full Bloom http://www.tratore.com.br/cd.asp?id=7898369065760
Nothing about subject	10. ^ Olivia (cantora e compositora) » Visão Geral – Conexão Vivo Archived 9 April 2011 at the Wayback Machine. Olivia-cantora.conexaovivo.com.br (23 May 2009). Retrieved 21 October 2011.
Promo flyer	11. ^ Dynamite – Conheça os indicados do Prêmio Dynamite de Música Independente Archived 23 December 2009 at the Wayback Machine
Myspace	Gratis muziek, tourneedata, foto's, video's. Myspace.com. Retrieved 21 October 2011.
Show dates	13. ^ "Frank Almendra – Music & More". Archived from the original on 1 August 2017. Retrieved 1 August 2017.
Nothing about subject	14. ^ "Erisvaldo Borges". Archived from the original on 7 April 2011. Retrieved 4 August 2010.
Failed V, 404	15. ^ VI FENAVIPI – Programação[dead link]

BEFORE showed promo but nothing that meets SIGCOV. There is a substantial amount of unsourced content about BLPs in the article, if kept this needs to be removed. // Timothy :: talk 20:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 04:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yahya Birt[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to Fail GNG, and probably WP:NACADEMIC. This one is an edge case. I searched for quite a while for RS that discuss Birt in detail, both under Yahya Birt and his birth name, Jonathan Birt. The most significant by far appears to be a short interview from 2006 in The Guardian, cited in the article. The other two — from The Economist and The Intercept, also cited in the article at present — appear to be passing mentions only. NACADEMIC Criteria 1a seems to be the only possible justification of notability — in Google Scholar, Birt does appear to have a decent amount of citations, but this is not the case in Scopus, either under Yahya Birt or Jonathan Birt. The Google Scholar counts appear to have some duplicates, and as discussed at NACADEMIC, it does not do a good job of filtering legitimate sources from illegitimate. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 17:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and United Kingdom. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 17:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This one seems like no harm in keeping, and he was interviewed in a notable newspaper as a subject expert: keep. BhamBoi (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Guardian interviewed him as a subject expert — it's a short series of questions about his personal conversion, etc. No discussion of his work or the subject matter he is cited for (Islamophobia in Britain). WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 17:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After coming back in and looking now, I think a case can be made that he passes NPROF C7 as he is quoted in The Intercept and The Economist. Also, being one of The 500 Most Influential Muslims is a pretty big deal, considering there are about 200 of them... BhamBoi (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

to above^, I meant 2 billion. BhamBoi (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been through the list of books in the article, and find that there are two reviews of each Birt's first two books. This means that the books meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (books). This isn't in itself an argument that Birt is notable, but keeping the article about him (and perhaps developing it with a bit more coverage of his notable publications) strikes me as neater and easier than creating new articles for the books. Since I don't see that Wikipedia gains anything by deleting this article and replacing it with articles on individual books, I suggest keep. Alarichall (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they were authored books I would think it would make a case for WP:AUTHOR notability. But one is an edited volume and the other is a translation. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete it seems he fails both WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF, so I dont see a good case for notability here. --hroest 14:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: What I see is a short interview article from The Guardian and a Muslim 500 listing; the rest are trivial mentions or promotional. More reliable sources would be useful. Multi7001 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't turn up any published reviews for his poetry book; this is not unusual for poetry books, and not a sign in itself of non-notability, but it was the only remaining hope I had of finding enough to make a case for notability. The rest of the books are not the kind that help much for AUTHOR notability, and we seem to have exhausted other avenues. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 07:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poupette Kenza[edit]

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

article about an non-notable influencer Panam2014 (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and France. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The Huff Post is rehashing celebrity gossip, the Monde and Parisien seem ok-ish, Le Monde appears to be a decent article about her, but it's pay-walled. She's accused of mistreating her children and is under judicial watch (I'm not familiar with the intricacies of French child-welfare laws, but she's being monitored by the authorities). Rest are typical fluff articles. Oaktree b (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brief profile of her on France Inter, [1], I think she's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Morocco. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A portrait in Le Monde... and the list goes beyond... — Preceding unsigned comment added by CassiJevenn (talk • contribs)

Comment There may be sufficient sources for an article, but just because we could have an article does not mean that we should. Elinruby (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it meets GNG, she's notable. "Influcencer" is a job now, we recognize it. Oaktree b (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a short-term notablity. Sources have been produced in end 2022/early 2023. Panam2014 (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Several of those sources mention her as the most followed French influencer, that's something. Oaktree b (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The 28 Dec 2022 France Inter piece appears to be a podcast opinion post, so not really a news profile that could otherwise be stronger support. Based on what I can view of the 18 Mar 2023 Le Monde source, that looks like a news profile. But there does not seem to be WP:SUSTAINED coverage to help us write a balanced biography or more than a WP:BROCHURE at this time. I also removed content from the article that seems problematic per WP:BLP policy, and I think WP:BLP policy adds support for deletion at this time. WP:GNG is not the only consideration for notability; per WP:N, we should also consider WP:NOT, and this appears to be an article that should be excluded per e.g. WP:NOTSCANDAL (which links to BLP policy), and WP:PROMO (what seems to remain after problematic BLP content is removed). Beccaynr (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's also this from Le Parisien [2] which discusses her legal issues in a neutral tone.Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP policy is about more than the tone of coverage, and the brief 21 Feb 2023 Le Parisien report is filed in the "Faits divers" ("Miscellaneous facts", per Google Translate) section, opens by introducing Kenza as "Habituée des polémiques" ("Accustomed to controversy", according to Google Translate), reports allegations against her, her quotes, and mentions the Le Monde profile. Overall, the limited available coverage appears to focus on scandal/WP:BLP problems - coverage includes her statements (not independent), scandal and gossip (not encyclopedic), allegations of criminal conduct (which we should seriously consider not including) related to children (see WP:AVOIDVICTIM) over a limited time, mixed in with mentions of how popular she has recently been on social media. Deletion policy seems to support deletion under these circumstances.

From my view, trying to construct a biography based on limited mentions of her recent popularity and a general description of her social media activity creates an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article - there appears to be no support for WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER notability that we would typically expect to help balance articles. Per WP:BIO, "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary and WP:BASIC states, Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, [...] such as those listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. At this time, this article seems squarely within WP:NOT, and there also does not appear to be sufficient depth, independence, and sustained coverage in reliable sources to support WP:BASIC notability for a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no long-term coverage.

Panam2014 (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

— Duplicate vote: Panam2014 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. (as AfD nominator) Beccaynr (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating an article does not necessary imply that the people supports the deletion. Panam2014 (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to WP:SUSTAINED. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source eval:

Comments	Source
Promo bio	1. "Poupette Kenza : qui est cette nouvelle influenceuse ?". Ohmymag (in French). 2023-01-16. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
Seems like gossip column news	2. ^ ""Elle pleure comme si elle avait perdu un proche" : Poupette Kenza effondrée après avoir perdu son compte Snapchat, les internautes se moquent d'elle". purebreak.com (in French). Retrieved 2023-03-28.
Meets IS RS SIGCOV	3. ^ "Rouen. L'influenceuse Poupette Kenza visée par une enquête pénale réagit dans TPMP". actu.fr (in French). Retrieved 2023-03-28.
Promo	4. ^ Jump up to:a b "Poupette Kenza débarque sur TikTok et pulvérise tous les records !". MCE TV (in French). 2023-01-24. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
Meets IS RS SIGCOV	5. ^ "Poupette Kenza, la Française la plus suivie sur Snapchat". France Inter (in French). 2022-12-28. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
Meets IS RS SIGCOV	6. ^ Jump up to:a b "Poupette Kenza exhibe sa vie de femme au foyer à son million d'abonnés sur Snapchat". Le Monde.fr (in French). 2023-02-18. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
Promo	7. ^ "TPMP - les internautes atterrés par l'interview de l'influenceuse Poupette". Yahoo News (in French). Retrieved 2023-03-28.
Photos, not SIGCOV	8. ^ "Découvrez les photos des nombreuses robes de Poupette lors de son mariage féerique !". Public.fr (in French). Retrieved 2023-03-28.
Routine entertainment news	9. ^ "People: Poupette Kenza quitte la France et s'installe à Dubaï". 20 minutes (in French). 2023-04-08. Retrieved 2023-04-19.
Meets IS RS SIGCOV	(from above) https://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/poupette-kenza-visee-par-des-accusations-je-nai-jamais-maltraite-mes-enfants-21-02-2023-WTW2VEFJ5JFCHHGYH5I4RYNMNM.php

Two of the above I've marked IS RS SIGCOV are questionable. I can't !v to keep even though subject has sources; I don't think this passes BLP policy. Just because there can be an article, doesn't mean there should be an article and // Timothy :: talk 17:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above source evaluation. The subject is not convered in depth in reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation in the future should additional coverage develop. BD2412 T 01:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CollegeDekho[edit]

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

Routine sources with not enough in depth coverage; not notable entity NortonAngo (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are significant coverage from many reliable sources. Most importantly from [3], [4], [5]. These all are not routine coverage. Pentashantha (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An unremarkable startup that fails WP:NCORP. Unable to locate any WP:CORPDEPTH coverage in the sources linked above by the article creator. The WP:ADMASQ tone used in the article raises COI/UPE suspicion. Maduant (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/NCORP guidelines apply. I am unable to locate a single source (including the sources listed above which are regurgitated company PR) that meets the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Portland[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. 2 of the 5 sources relate to a racial incident at the hotel. Other sources are mainly local as per WP:AUD. LibStar (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Business, and Oregon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are refs but they are very small time and don't push this over GNG. Desertarun (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG (disclaimer: creator). Yes, the article needs to be expanded and 2 of the 5 sources (at time of nomination) were about a racial incident. On the article's talk page, I've shared numerous sources about the incident (BBC News, The Guardian, The Independent, Essence, etc). Additionally, there have been other incidents and the hotel has been credited for helping develop the city's eastside. I've added many more sources to the article, including travel guides (Fodor's, Moon Publications) and other newspapers and magazines with reviews of the property. I've not even started with the Oregonian archives, which will surely yield many more returns. This entry should be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found, and added, a source indicating the hotel was the second-largest in the entire state in the 1980s, which makes it much more notable than the article's previous text on that point, that it was only "one of the five largest in Portland". I have also added several more newspaper articles as sources, most of which are specifically about this hotel. – SJ Morg (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help and article improvements! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since its nomination, this article's sourcing has been significantly improved, and it meets WP:NORG, thanks to WP:HEY efforts byAnother Believer and SJ Morg. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has sources and is relatively well-written. However, it feels like the editors involved in this article have some relationship with the hotel. In addition, the majority of the sources that provide significant coverage are local which does not meet the standard for notability. Business Wire republishes press releases and, therefore, is not an independent source. The Ebony link is not significant coverage. So, the entire case to keep relies on whether or not an entry in a travel guidebook qualifies a hotel for notability. I think not as this is more of a directory listing than an actual article--and Wikipedia does not exist to duplicate content from travel guidebooks or other such directories. Yes, these books are qualified secondary sources but do not make something notable on their own. I suggest merging some of this content into DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel as this article is currently longer than the article about the entire chain. Rublamb (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please not accuse me or User:SJ Morg of having "some relationship with the hotel"? That's not necessary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Apologies. What I should have said was that sections of the article read as promotional. Rublamb (talk) 04:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to identify specifically problematic text on the article's talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The news event mentioned on the talk page is about this particular location, not the chain, and certainly meets requirements for widespread, major, independent coverage. Perhaps not the sort of coverage they want, but hey... Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 2019 racial profiling incident is the last paragraph of the History section. Were you intending to !vote? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability claimed as the (former) largest hotel in the state. Refs for that are independent although not online (newspaper.com's search is utterly useless). They are borderline local, but that alone seems to meet the bar for me. It's the several worldwide-noteworthy events that occurred that push it over. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sources do no have to be online; that is not a problem. The issue is that the article's significant coverage is local. Refering to WP:BRANCH, "As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area." Since we don't have substantial coverage outside of the hotel's area, it does not meet the standard for notability. Rublamb (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rublamb, I encourage you to read The Oregonian article, which explains the paper's circulation exceeds the "local area", and meets the criteria for regional or statewide circulation. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rublamb The paper is the largest in the state, and the second in Cascadia as a whole. Saying this is too local for NOTE is like saying we shouldn't use the Toronto Star as a source on anything that happened in Toronto. The copious numbers of mentions as far away as the UK meets the criterion for "reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area". I reiterate my keep. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sourcing is there to pass GNG. Along with The Oregonian, The Columbian out of Washington State also had a few articles published[6][7]. Also found an AP article from when Red Lion bought them, that was published in other publications in WA[8] and OR[9]. WikiVirusC^(talk) 14:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Contributions by Another Believer and SJ Morg have significantly improved the quality and sourcing of the article since nomination. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 08:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review of General Sources
Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Reach	Pass/Fail	Notes
"38 Portland hotels that tell the Rose City's history". The Oregonian.	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Regional	P	More of this history should be added to the article if it is kept.
"Newest $40 million Red Lion largest hotel in Oregon". The Oregonian.	Might be significant but is potentially trivial coverage	yes	yes	yes	Regional	P/F	Per WP:CORPDEPTH: standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage of expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sales, or closure of the business is considered trivial
"List Leaders: Check in with Portland's 5 biggest hotels". Portland Business Journal.	No, fails under trivial coverage	yes	yes	yes	Regional	F	Per WP:CORPDEPTH: inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists is considered trivial
"6 Portland Hotels with Outdoor Pools for Your Summer Staycation". Portland Monthly.	No	yes	yes	yes	Local	F	Per WP:PRODUCTREV: Brief and routine reviews do not qualify as significant coverage. Per WP:CORPDEPTH: inclusion in lists of similar organizations, is considered trivial.
"Photo essay: Outdoor swimming pools, public and private". Oregon Business.	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Local	F	mentioned in one sentence
"Portland Sheraton Hotel Job Progresses". Mail Tribune. Medford, Oregon.	No,	Yes	Yes	Yes	Local but UPI	F	Per WP:CORPDEPTH: standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage of expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sales, or closure of the business is considered trivial
"Grand opening today, Sheraton-Portland Hotel". The Register-Guard. Eugene, Oregon.	No	No	No	No	Regional	F	Paid Advertisement
"Lloyd Corp. may change hotel firms". The Oregon Journal. p. 1.	Assume so, but falls under trivial	Yes	Yes	Yes	Regional	F	Per WP:CORPDEPTH: standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage of expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sales, or closure of the business is considered trivial
"Thunderbird–Red Lion buys Lloyd Sheraton". The Oregonian.	Assume so, but falls under trivial	Yes	Yes	Yes	Regional	F
"Red Lion Dining has arrived at Lloyd Center" (advertisement), in The Oregon Journal	No	No	No	No	statewide	F
"Red Lion considers 300 additional rooms". The Oregonian.	Assume so, but falls under trivial	Yes	Yes	Yes	Regional	F
"Doubletree To Pay $1.2 Billion For Red Lion". The Seattle Times.	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Out of state	F	Article is on the chain, not this specific hotel
"Downtown Red Lion Is Now Doubletree". The Spokesman-Review.	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Out of state	F	Per WP:CORPDEPTH: standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage of expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sales, or closure of the business is considered trivial
"Last of Red Lion Inns' holdings to be sold to Ohio lodging company". The Columbian.	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Out of state	F	Article is on the chain, not this specific hotel
"DoubleTree by Hilton Introduces New Global Brand Identity, Creating One of Biggest Hotel Groups". Business Wire.	No	No	No	Yes	National	F	Article is on chain, not this hotel; Business Wire published press releases. See WP:ORGIND
"Washington man arraigned in homicide at Portland's Doubletree Hotel". The Oregonian.	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Regional	F	Articles are about a crime at this location, not the hotel itself. See WP:INHERITORG
"Family suing Hilton hotel group, Backpage.com for enabling prostitution, daughter's murder". Statesman Journal.	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Local	F
"Murder victim's family sues hotel chain after Portland killing". KATU.	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Local	F
"Portland's outdoor hotel pools, ranked". The Oregonian	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Regional	F	Per WP:CORPDEPTH: inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists is considered trivial
Fodor's Pacific Northwest: with Oregon, Washington & Vancouver. Fodor's Travel.	No	Assumed, but not always	Yes	Yes	International	F	Per WP:PRODUCTREV: Brief and routine reviews do not qualify as significant coverage. Also, some of this content is routinely provided by the subject or its employee. See WP:ORGIND
Fodor's Oregon. Fodor's Travel.	No	Assumed, but not always	Yes	Yes	International	F
. "DoubleTree by Hilton–Portland". Fodor's. Archived	Possibly	Assumed, but not always	Yes	Yes	International	F
Moon Portland. Avalon Publishing.	No	Assumed, but not always	Yes	Yes	International	F
Number of significant sources						1 (or 2)	both are from The Oregonian

**Review of Sources for Racist Incident**
Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Reach	Pass/Fail	Notes
"Portland hotel calls police on black guest talking to his mom on phone". KGW.	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Local	F	Solid source, but too local to prove notablity
"$10M lawsuit claims racial profiling at DoubleTree hotel". Portland Tribune	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Local	F	Solid source, but too local to prove notablity
"Black Guest Kicked Out Of Portland DoubleTree In 2018 Sues Hotel For $10 Million". Oregon Public Broadcasting.	Yes for the incident	Yes	Yes	Yes	Statewide	P
"Tina Gordon on Making 'Praise This' Not Too 'Preachy'". Essence	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	National	F	Linked article does not mention the hotel
"DoubleTree Portland Hotel fires 2 workers for calling police on black hotel guest". ABC News	Yes for the incident	Yes	Yes	Yes	National	P
"Oregon hotel fires employees seen on video evicting black guest". The Washington Post.	Yes for the incident	Yes	Yes	Yes	National	P
"DoubleTree by Hilton scrambles to repair image after black guest is removed in Oregon". Los Angeles Times	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Out of state	F	Article focuses on the chain, not this specific hotel
Number of significant souces						3	Enough for notability if this event is the focus. seeWP:EVENT

Rublamb (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Way to ignore the other 30 sources shared on the talk page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reviewing existing souces is the typical starting point. The 30 potential sources are about the racist incident, the resulting court case, or the hotel chain's reponse to the incident. As indicated above, there already are enough sources to determine the notibility of this incident. However, the article in question is about the hotel rather than the racist incident, which is only featured in a couple of sentences. Rublamb (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SIGCOV Lightburst (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 1912 Summer Olympics. Less Unless (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasios Antonopoulos[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOLYMPICS and a WP:BEFORE doesn't produce much more. A chess player and a banker with the same name appear to exist. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Greece. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to event article. My search in Greek only brought up a brief mention here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources on Newspapers.com discussing the Olympic Games he competed in could prove useful. Someone should check that. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 1912 Summer Olympics: Fails GNG and BIO. Sources and BEFORE show brief mentions and database records, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 07:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Sources don't establish that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Less Unless (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

San Rafael City Schools[edit]

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

Unsourced for over a year, and seems to be non-notable. Stating ahead of time that school districts are not automatically notable. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, United States of America, and California. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I put a neutrally worded notice at Talk:San Rafael, California. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should place the same notice at WT:WPSCH, on any schools in the district that have articles and WT:WikiProject California. If you're in for a dime, you need to be in for a dollar. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Keep in mind a school district is a local government just like a city or a town, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#School_districts states:
""Populated, legally-recognized places" include school districts, which conveys near-presumptive notability to school districts per Wikipedia:Notability (geography)." (my emphasis added)
However I think I can also find sources and argue such on WP:GNG grounds, especially those that are about appointment/resignation of superintendents and/or construction and/or development of school facilities.
WhisperToMe (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on WP:GNG grounds after finding three sources in San Francisco-area newspapers. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WhisperToMe's statement and the sources he found. School districts in the US are governmental units, no different than a city. As a matter of fact, in at least one state (Indiana) they are commonly referred to as "school-city". They are not educational institutions, but rather quasigovernmental administrative districts with taxing authority and elected officials; the same reasons other governmental entities recieve a near presumption of notability under the geography SNGs. SNGs exist because certain things always have secondary coverage. Bond issues and elections are always covered by the press. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. School districts are in a special category, and serve as redirect targets for schools in the district that do not have articles, such as elementary schools or new high schools not yet covered in reliable secondary sources. Besides, this article meets eets GNG with sources identified by WhisperToMe. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the assertions above that this is a local government area rather than a grouping of schools (despite the current contents of the article). MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. There are sources that exist, but the discussion has not made it clear if they actually meet the bar of WP:GNG. Noone suggesting delete has explicitly discussed the sources found. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Susanne Kasperczyk[edit]

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

I can't find any sources that would count towards WP:SPORTBASIC let alone the multiple ones needed. FR is just an image caption and DFB mentions her once. ProQuest hits were all trivial mentions in U19 match reports. A German source search also didn't yield anything of note. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:16, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This from Aachener Zeitung looks promising, but is paywalled. Does anybody have access to it? Jogurney (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can only see this much before the paywall, but it looks like it could be in-depth: Von 2007 bis 2009 schnürte Susanne Kasperczyk, die in Eschweiler geboren wurde, selbst die Schuhe für das Team aus dem Ruhrgebiet. 170 Spiele hat sie in der 1. und 2. Fußball-Bundesliga für vier Vereine absolviert und dabei als linke Verteidigerin 23 Tore erzielt. Für ...

This Aachener Zeitung article looks promising as well: 1,62 Meter voller Kraft und Wille: Susanne Kasperczyk. Alsdorf Azzouzi, Lehnhoff, Frings - diese Kicker aus Alsdorf sind Fußballfreunden in aller Welt … It would be a pity if nobody can access these articles to find out. Jogurney (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's all paywalled for me as well, which is a huge shame. I find that I have this problem with most sports news sites in Germany & Sweden in particular, which I presume is why we have so many badly sourced BLPs on women's footballers from these two nations. It's a massive pain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not seem like a notable sportsperson to be honest. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. Ping me if multiple IS RS SIGCOV sources are added to the article. // Timothy :: talk 21:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can anyone address the paywall issue?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 14:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried using archive.today to bypass it, no success. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same with 12 foot ladder, no luck. I think it says you can pay one Euro and view the article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No success my end either Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:58, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not having any luck with the German firewalls either - though it appears that her autograph is available. What I did find though are brief mentions (prose) in Montreal and Edmonton newspapers when she played there around the time of the U20 World Cup (as they call it now) - including her captaining the team in at least one pre-tournament friendly. These aren't GNG worthy in themselves - but really, easy to find archived references for her brief appearance in Canada when she was 17 - but we can't search German sources because of a lack of online German material from that era, and firewalls. I've added these Canadian references, and fixed some of the ones already in the article. Nfitz (talk) 08:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 09:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to Nfitz, sources appear to WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above, sources exist, and thus notability has been proven. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 02:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Less Unless (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest of Jacob Gregoire[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS. Fails WP:SUSTAINED/WP:PERSISTENCE. The only reliable coverage dates to a two month period in Feburary-March 2014. Fire Law Blog, as its names suggests, is the personal blog of Curt Varone. Indy100 as The_Independent#Indy100, notes, selects stories based on upvotes by readers, which doesn't indicate long-term significance. The event doesn't have seem to have been a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation, as specified at Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Lasting_effects. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police, United States of America, and California. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fire Service CT55555(talk) 19:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As article creator. This was a notable event that provoked policy change, a legal case, national (CNN) and international (BBC) media attention. Coverage occurred in 2014 and 2020 so is WP:SUSTAINED. Indeed one later source is a blog, the blog of a fire service lawyer and author who writes about such issues. I would not call that a "personal blog" it's clearly a professional publication by an expert. It's not New York Times quality, but I think it's worth considering. Background Wikipedia as a clear policy on professional blogs Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications (from WP:BLOGS) so please note Varone's book Legal Considerations for Fire & Emergency Services published by Fire Engineering Books & Videos in 2020. On his expertise, see 1

WP:BLP1E is appropriate to mention here. Indeed it is what informed my decision to start the article. BLP1E exists to help us understand if, in the circumstances of an event reaching notability guidelines, we should create an article about the individual, the event or both (from WP:BIO1E). Following that guidance, I think a biographical article would not be well supported, which is why I created the event article. This article is doing what BLP1E calls for.

WP:NOTNEWS guides is to avoid "original reporting" (none is included) to consider enduring notability (above I note the coverage in 2014 and up to 2020) and to avoid Who's Who type things (I created an event, not a bio) and to avoid gossip (this is all well sourced, not celebrity gossip) so WP:NOTNEWS is fully met. WP:SUSTAINED is also relevant, and again it was the context of the coverage after the event, plus also the international nature of the press coverage but also the impact of the event that I think is what makes this event important (policy change and a legal case). I see no policy-based reason to discount a reliable source just because of its editorial policy of popularity. Relevant event notability criteria not mentioned above include WP:DEPTH (I think met) and WP:DIVERSE (I think robustly met).

Just to quickly give some sources to justify my WP:GNG assertion: 1 2 3 4 There are all significant coverage in reliable sources.

In summary, this article meets all the criteria for what a wikipedia event article should look like. Something happened, it captured national and international attention, it led to major other events, there as significant coverage in reliable sources. The event was short lived, but it was impactful. Obviously, I think we should keep it. CT55555(talk) 19:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The original justification to delete has been altered. It now says there was no lasting effects of the incident. The news article that follows talks about how in addition to an investigation that was ongoing at the time of the news, the Fire and the Police service will change their protocols and training in light of the incident:

https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/chula-vista-firefighter-handcuff-chp-incident-leads-to-protocol-review/59017/

That's not as strong as an example as in the "Lasting Effects" but it seems like two material lasting effects. CT55555(talk) 00:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A blog, even if by an expert, isn't good enough to pass WP:SUSTAINED. I think having an article specifically about an otherwise low profile living person getting arrested also presents WP:BLP issues (which per WP:DEL-REASON is a reason to delete an article). People are going to google this guy's name and see that he has an entire wikipedia article about him getting arrested. I think that's an issue. --Tristario (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a video of him doing a press event about the issue: https://www.nbcsandiego.com/on-air/as-seen-on/firefightersotweb_san-diego/2079512/ CT55555(talk) 00:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In 2014, in the aftermath of the incident. He's still low profile in the present as far as I can see. Tristario (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was doing press events. And so was his lawyer. If your concern is that this article might reflect badly on him, that seems unlikely considering the actual content, as I think any reasonable reading of the article only paints him in a good light. Also actual news of the event will be at the top of any searches about him what ever happens. The global news on this event will follow him what ever happens. I think the wikipedia article gives nuance and context. If your concern is his reputation (a valid concern to have) then I suggest that keeping this up serves his interests best, as Wikipedia will probably out rank the tabloid coverage, which isn't cited, but is also happening. CT55555(talk) 01:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I google "Jacob Gregoire" the only thing I see specifically about him getting arrested on the first page is this wikipedia article. And the difference between wikipedia articles and news articles is that news articles tend to go down in the results and disappear over time. But Wiki articles can stay at the top forever. Tristario (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After I typed a lengthy rebuttal of the reasons to delete, the justification has been changed. Requesting editors don't add to things once people have replied to them, it's an unfair way to conduct a deletion discussion. CT55555(talk) 00:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is not a notable WP:EVENT - there appears to be limited WP:SENSATIONAL coverage of 'police arrest fire fighter', without substantial coverage of the later court case - the outcome is not even clear. There does not appear to be a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance or a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group. WP:BLPCRIME suggests we should also seriously consider not having an article about someone who is not a public figure and only accused of a crime. BLP policy applies to event articles, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Beccaynr (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per others, this was a sensationalized non-event that only serves to violate BLPCRIME and NOTNEWS. JoelleJay (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete viral videos of minor arrests are not a basis to build an article on, especially when there are BLP concerns. --Jayron 32 12:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. CastJared (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Acknowledge the incident was widely reported at the time but the later sources presented do not satisfy sustained or indepth coverage. The Fire Law blog adds nothing new, merely repeats what happened. The court case reference is WP:PRIMARY and as such doesn't support notability. The Indy100 merely reports Twitter comments linking the incident to Black Lives Matter with no commentary/opinion by the writer as to whether the link is justified. Need additional sourcing to support the "policy change"; the source highlighted suggesting better communication needed hardly amounts to a change in policy. As sourcing stands the article falls within the scope of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SUSTAINED. Notability has not been established. Rupples (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and as per others and per WP:NOTNEWS. Clearly fails WP:GNG as notability has not been shown. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acklam Wold transmitting station[edit]

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

Another article about a transmitter, entirely WP:OR and unsourced. I have tried to find sources to improve the article, but WP:BEFORE reveals no coverage, there are zero hits on Google News and Google itself only brings up lists of transmitters that exist. I don't think this is notable in and of itself - it probably just merits a mention on the articles for the stations it transmits. Flip Format (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Random telecommunications tower, nothing notable. I can't find sourcing for it. Long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Oaktree B's comment. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Idera, Inc.#Subsidiaries. Closure can be reconsidered if additional sources emerge. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kiuwan[edit]

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

unsourced, largely promotional through its history; fails WP:ORG ~T P W 17:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 17:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Kiuwan is covered briefly at Idera,_Inc.#Subsidiaries, where the 2018 acquisition is referenced by a BusinessWire press release. AllyD (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect: Searches find some announcement-based coverage, such as a product summary and time-limited offer (SDtimes, 2013) and the later acquisition by Idera (BusinessWire, 2018) but I am not seeing evidence that this tool attained notability in its own right. However, a redirect to Idera,_Inc.#Subsidiaries could be a plausible WP:ATD outcome. AllyD (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iman Gadzhi[edit]

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

Non-notable influencer. Forbes contributor pieces and other paid PR items, also a crypto "marketer". Not meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Internet, Russia, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crypto spam - David Gerard (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
crypto spam ?? There's only one line about crypto on this article.... CassiJevenn (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article are interviews and promotional. BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk
Delete The sourcing is indeed dubious, and I can't find anything better. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Less Unless (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jahzir Bruno[edit]

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

Non-notable actor, "hero boy" isn't a notable role, rest are trivial. Not meeting ACTOR. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Georgia (U.S. state). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NACTOR#1: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. He's had significant roles in The Witches (Hero Boy was the lead character and being the lead in a mainstream feature film is a notable role), The Christmas Chronicles 2 (main cast), The Loud House (main voice cast) and The Really Loud House (starring cast). Pamzeis (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays several notable roles, therefore he meets WP:NACTOR. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lead role in The Witches seems to meet WP:NACTOR #1. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:01, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonatafy Technology[edit]

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

Non-notable company. The London Daily Post link doesn't work, rest are staff directories and an award that doesn't seem notable. PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nevada. AllyD (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The London Daily Post ref has a misspelt URL, presumably because the site is blacklisted and edits cannot be saved with the actual name. AllyD (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe this article was created by a UPE farm account. There exists a draft, Draft:Sonatafy Technology, that was created by a user (User:Pegsthais) who is now blocked as a sockpuppet of a UPE farm. The London Daily Post, Los Angeles Tribune, and NY Weekly sources might suggest notability, however I'm not sure how reliable they're considered—I'm guessing not very, since none have Wikipedia articles. In addition to the London Daily Post URL as the user above suggested, I also noticed the NY Weekly URL is misspelled, potentially to also avoid blacklisting or detection otherwise? Nonetheless, looking over these articles, they read like paid articles rather than genuine journalism. Uhai (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources are hot garbage. Known and blacklisted SEO sources (with the URLs slightly tweaked to avoid the filter), paid placement SEO-friendly sites, Forbes paid council posts, other PR. The awards are nonsense. Sam Kuru (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per submission. Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a recent IT staffing firm. The awards listed in previous versions do not appear inherently notable and while searches find articles by the company principal about their operating field, I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing sourcing sufficient to pass GNG/NCORP. Rupples (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mario (disambiguation)#Film and television. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mario movie[edit]

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

See WP:DABNOT, a disambiguation page is meant to disambiguate between pages with identical titles, not be a search index for related topics. This is improper use of the page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Video games, and Disambiguations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Split Between the Super Mario movies and the other non-Super Mario related films. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 17:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mario (disambiguation)#Film and television: And include List of non-video game media featuring Mario in the "See also" of that page. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge and redirect to Mario (disambiguation)#Film and television per Silvia. This did not need an AFD to accomplish. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, are we trying to delete the old mario movie, the new mario movie or the disambiguation page? Blitzfan51 (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mario movie, the article listed in the nomination. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you. We should Speedy merge and redirect. Blitzfan51 (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mario (disambiguation)#Film and television per above. Walt Yoder (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mario (disambiguation)#Film and television per above. No sources showing notability for a stand alone article. // Timothy :: talk 07:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tekken. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Williams (Tekken)[edit]

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

Given resources in the current revision are databases and list articles. Doesn't seem notable enough to warrant its own article. Merko (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Merko (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Merge Anna seems to be a possible breakout character. I found this [10] but there might be more or not that much. If more WP:SIGCOV are found besides listicles, I will cast my vote to keep them. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see this as a similar case to Quan Chi, where Anna Williams should and likely does have the coverage. It's also worth noting she kind of co-starred with Nina in the game Death by Degrees, where she had her own mode. However, I have not found anything besides what GlatorNator posted above. How did you find that, by the way? That link won't even show up in the Google searches I've been doing. MoonJet (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about Quan Chi being notable. Anna might be but wasn't sure yet. The source does appear on Google. Not sure why is doesn't show yours. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 07:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nominator here, I found three sources on Proquest that mention this character in apparent sections: [11] [12] [13] Whether the coverage is significant is up for debate. Merko (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Account "through your library or institution" required to access ProQuest articles. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can get access with your Wikimedia account, details here Merko (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge Seems like they should be notable, but there is not enough SIGCOV. Ping me if more is found. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball comment Well there's a first, but I'm going to ask that this be withdrawn for now, I do agree that it feels...off...that she wouldn't be notable and looking at the above even the nominator may have possibly found some sources. I don't want to "other stuff exists", but this might be a lot lower on spectrum of articles that should get the nuke for now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge Existing reception is pedestrian with the usual "sexiest babe" and "we want her for X game" stuff, which doesn't really tell us why she's notable. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a popular Tekken character like Anna doesn't have much, then I guess the same goes to King (Tekken). GlatorNator (ᴛ) 04:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GlatorNator: From the looks of it, no. Can't really find any SIGCOV to speak of for King either. I'd wager almost all Tekken characters with standalone articles are deep in "FANDOM article" territory, besides maybe obvious main characters like Jin Kazama who seem to possibly have scholarly coverage about them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Based on two of the sources found in here. The one provided by GlatorNator and the first one provided by Merko are good starting points. MoonJet (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The one where Merko provided were just passing mention, but anyway it seems like im on my way for this afd to be neutral. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 10:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The whole article was about her though, so it's not a "passing mention." However, I do agree that Anna could have a bit more (plus the benefit of the doubt she has more sourcing out there), hence I only went with a "weak keep." It seems that we're all in agreement here that this is a borderline case. MoonJet (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: per above. Fails GNG, Sources don't support notability for a stand alone article. // Timothy :: talk 07:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:GNG. Existing sources are not enough to prove notability. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 02:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Descent: The Abominable Snowman[edit]

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

Nothing to indicate notability for WP:NFO. No RS either. Htanaungg (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Htanaungg (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, ~~leaning~~ ~~keep~~. themoviescene.co.uk has a review, that also lists various alt titles ("Deadly Descent", "Abominable Snowman", the combination of the two "Deadly Descent: The Abominable Snowman" and even the even longer "Deadly Descent: The Legend of the Abominable Snowman").The film is ... #36 in this listing, that includes a small assessment.— MY, OH, MY! 09:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After further research:Strong Keep. There is a review in Czech (@Onel5969:, pinging you at your request). But most of all, 2-3 pages in Ski Films: A Comprehensive Guide, by Bryan Senn (McFarland, 2022), pp. 50-53, an extensive and comprehensive analysis of the film. The 2 reviews + this make the film appear quite notable.— MY, OH, MY! 22:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. If more reviews are found, feel free to ping me.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - changing my !vote as per WP:HEY, in light of the sources found by My, Oh, My.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the additional reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Less Unless (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moonlight Lady (anime)[edit]

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

Show appears to fail notability requirements, which it has been tagged for since 2020. A previous PROD was removed when 2 "sources" were found and listed in the edit summary. Only 1 of those is a review, the other is a passing mention. Nothing else was found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, Japan, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Can't find any sources either.~~ Despite the sources found below, I remain unconvinced that reviews by themselves are capable of establishing notability, no matter how many there are, and especially considering they are all on anime-focused websites/books/etc. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC); edited 01:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Waxworker (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has a few reviews:
- "Moonlight Lady Vol. #1 - Mania.com". Mania. 2012-02-06. Retrieved 2023-04-24.
- "Shelf Life - Bambuu Saga". Anime News Network. Retrieved 2023-04-24.
- Clements, Jonathan (2015). The anime encyclopedia : a century of Japanese animation. Helen McCarthy (3 ed.). Berkeley, California. p. 548-549. ISBN 978-1-61172-909-2. OCLC 904144859.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
Jumpytoo Talk 20:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Internet Archive link to the book Snowmanonahoe (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~First review is user-generated. I'm 66% sure the second review is user-generated.~~ The third review is not a review, just a summary. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you are so sure they are user-generated; both Mania and Anime News Network are both listed at WP:ANIME/RS and are well-known in the anime field for their editorial oversight, particularly in Anime News Network's case. Link20XX (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was misled by the "submit your own review" link at the bottom in the case of Anime News Network. Mania had a lot of stuff on the front on "making an account to contribute to the encyclopedia". I stand corrected (and wow, WPANIME really likes the Anime News Network). Snowmanonahoe (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comment above, WP:GNG does not mandate that sources not specialize in a specific field, so I don't understand why they are all on anime-focused websites/books/etc matters. While there is something like that in WP:AUD, that is part of WP:NCORP, which doesn't apply to this article since it is not about a corporation. Regarding Anime News Network, while it is true that anime/manga articles frequently cite it, it is just because it happens to be really the only major English anime publication, unfortunately. Link20XX (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; in addition to the above sources from Jumpytoo, I also found this review in THEM Anime Reviews, which is also a reliable source. Link20XX (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by other AfD !voters above. GNG is met here. Nomader (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources mentioned. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- sources found meet GNG and are reliable per subject matter experts. Wanting something to be covered by other types of news isn't a valid criteria for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to the reviews mentioned above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Puaz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

i don't feel this article is notable enough under the relevant policies and even on a regional level, open to to be corrected regardlessXR98 (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. XR98 (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very promo, I'm not seeing that the awards are notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He was already deleted twice and temporarily salted once, and several participants in the previous AfDs recommended salting too. Make it permanent this time. The article is an obvious attempt at promotion, and is typical of hundreds of articles we've seen on beginners in the African music scene. Managers send promo blurbs to promotional sites that merely reprint them, and then those are used as "sources" for a Wikipedia article. Good luck to this chap in his next career move. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS I could find and as stated by doomsdayer this happens all the time. Nagol0929 (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can someone tells me if this articles are not reliable sources?

1. https://www.bbc.com/swahili/habari-46748076

2.https://www.bbc.com/swahili/49464385

3. https://www.musicinafrica.net/magazine/tanzanian-singer-publish-music-business-book

4. https://hivisasa.com/posts/66874273-mr-puaz-wins-most-supportive-man-at-starqt-awards-in-south-africa

5.https://afromuziki.com/mr-puaz/

6. https://mpasho.co.ke/inpictures/2019-01-04-exclusive-harmonizes-manager-mr-puaz-exits-wcb/

7.https://www.pulselive.co.ke/entertainment/mr-puaz-khaligraph-jones-diamond-sautisol-and-other-stars-nominated-for-africa/wg9882t.amp

I think you guys have mandate to fact checking things up with references as this article was also once reviewed by admins unless wikipedia has new rules that we dont know about. Being deleted twice does not makes us not to evaluate the subject to see if there is notability on other sources. This is my view. And when an admin says " we've seen on beginners in the African music scene. Managers send promo blurbs to promotional sites that merely reprint them" to me it sound like you have specifics site that your looking instead of fact checking professionally. This is my view. Regards Delvant (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made the "beginners in the African music scene" comment but I am not an admin. Meanwhile, BBC is potentially reliable but the articles have to be about the person in question. The two BBC articles listed here are about a different singer named Harmonize, and our subject here (Mr Puaz) is just quoted briefly as an associate of Harmonize. If there was a BBC article that is really about Mr Puaz then that would be useful here. Meanwhile, the other listed sources featuring Mr Puaz himself are still unreliable blogs and promo reprints. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

replyYes, Mr Puaz is a notable person in Tanzania's entertainment industry, known for his work botha as a musician and talent manager. He has won several awards over the years, including the "Most Supportive Man Of The Year" at the Starqt Awards in South Africa and the "Best African Talent/Artist Manager" at the Africa Entertainment Awards USA. He has also worked with some of the biggest names in East African music, including Diamond Platnumz, Harmonize, and Nedy Music. Read this article on BBC again as it doesnt talk about someone else but Mr Puaz on how he ended his music relationship with his artist who he used to manage.This ( https://www.bbc.com/swahili/habari-46748076 ) I am a swahili native speaker as well and i understand what its written there even when you translate it to english it still say "Top Tanzania manager" plus the awards he won and being nominated like the one on AEAUSA ( AFRICA ENTERTAINMENT AWARDS USA) this is also a notable award. Still am not conviced that this subject is not notable unless you tell me whats notability means on your aide and share examples as i uave seen lot of wikipedia articles with more blogs and still have been reviewed. 197.250.130.216 (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry i forgot to log in again and respond without logged in Delvant (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Native Swahili speaker here - negligible refrences to Mr Puaz on the BBC Swahili reports, the rest are personal blogs and all that -- XR98 (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So all these are just personal blogs that writing different things and get paid ( Promotion) as you described? Even for BBC and others?

1. https://bongo5.com/aliyewahi-kuwa-meneja-wa-harmonize-mr-puaz-azindua-chapa-yake-ya-mavazi-na-viatu-10-2021/

2. https://mpasho.co.ke/exclusives/2021-09-14-exclusive-five-things-you-need-to-know-about-harmonizes-ex-manager/

3. https://www.kahawatungu.com/harmonizes-manager-resigns-from-wasafi-records/amp/

4. https://barakafm.org/2019/01/04/harmonizes-manager-quits-accusing-the-singer-of-being-proud/

5. https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/entertainment/african-news/article/2001308626/harmonizes-manager-quits-cites-singers-pride

So all these seem to be personal blogs? 🤔🤔🤔 Delvant (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
nothing works in that list. they're all promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 16:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment i realize he is also mentioned on this notable award ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_African_Entertainment_Awards_USA ) under the nomination category ( Best Male Artist – Central/West Africa ) also more sources mentioned his name Joel Vincent Joseph at ( https://mbu.ug/2019/08/23/africa-entertainment-awards-usa-full-list-of-nominees/ ) Delvant (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

correction ( Best Male Artist Manager ) not Best Male Artist Central Delvant (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: promo BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article and above are promotional and BEFORE showed nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 10:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 14:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Roettgen[edit]

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

Fails NBUSINESSPERSON and NACADEMIC. The subject is not inherently notable for being a space entrepreneur. The first and third sources [14][15] are Q&A interviews of the subject, containing mostly trivial information. The fourth source [16] doesn’t even mention the subject or his companies. The rest of the sources [17][18][19][20][21] are mostly just profiles. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NBUISNESSPERSON and his company E2MC would probably be more notable than himself Nagol0929 (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is largely PROMO or first-person. Perhaps could redirect to the company. Oaktree b (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Professional support lawyer[edit]

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

This job category is not independently notable. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere. It seems noteworthy, if not independently encyclopedically notable, that some lawyers have this internal research support role. Perhaps this can find a home in Law firm#Structure and promotion. BD2412 T 02:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412, Fad Ariff, and Onel5969: can I ask you all to take another look? I reworked the article. Lightburst (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a merge, though I admit I wasn't sure a good target. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the additional sources were used to expand the article, and included therein, I wouldn't be upset in keeping the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would agree with a merge if the article had better sourcing and was better written. Until then, I'm leaning towards a delete or draftify. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:10, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet notability criteria.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @Onel5969: I see sources which can be used in the article. The Law Society Gazette, Knowledge Management and the Smarter Lawyer, A Handbook for Corporate Information Professionals, The Knowledge Manager's Handbook, Kirsty McFarlane: Why professional support lawyers are growing in importance Lightburst (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Due to the sources mentioned by Lightburst. The article is currently in poor shape, so hopefully someone will overhaul it if it is kept. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources found by Lightburst are sufficient for GNG. WJ94 (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify per consensus‎. Less Unless (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Smart[edit]

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

Contested prod. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSKATE. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Multiple time competitor at British National Championships, ISU international events including the 2023 World Championships. Highly likely to be competing at the Senior International level for several more years yet. Coverage exists from reliable sources such as the BBC, Statistics and results available from the International Skating Union and British Ice Skating, and news sources such as the Blackpool Gazette and Cardiff Journalism, as well as factual information sourceable from the subjects own website. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." This article is new and still being worked on, personally I am currently away until the end of the month but will be adding more content to this and related articles on my return (had to respond to AfD to ensure there's an article to update when I get back). WP:DINC and WP:IMPATIENT seem relevant here - it was less than a week from the removal of the old PROD tag to this AfD submission. DISCLOSURE: I am the original article creator. Jambajuiceuk (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more like WP:TOOSOON rather than WP:IMPATIENT. Merko (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep alternatively Draftify Borderline case. Reliable sourcing is a bit thin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Random person no 362478479 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Draftify, the Blackpool Gazette appears to be the only source that could pass as significant coverage. Might be WP:TOOSOON. Merko (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The Blackpool Gazette article seems to be on her youth activities, and as it's local coverage would be disqualified. The piece is also directly promoting her gofundme which is another strike. The subject does not yet meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete Insufficient coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Page was deleted G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion by Ivanvector earlier today. (non-admin closure) Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnydale School[edit]

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

Promotional article. Not enough in-depth coverage about this school to show notability. Fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. PROMO, non-notable school. The name is too common to try and find stuff about the school. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no references cited in the article and the tone is blatantly promotional. I had difficulties finding significant coverage. Merko (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertising. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this is just an ad for the school and there are no references. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 06:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems to be an NOR promotional essay. I've placed a g11 speedy delete template on the article but if that's denied it's a pretty clear delete per all the reasons cited here. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable school, and article is transparently promotional. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 programs aired by Studio 23. ✗plicit 12:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News Central (Philippine TV series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only source fails WP:RS, because [22] is tied to the admin or producer of the news cast (non-independent source). Unless more sources that are reliable and unaffliated to ABS-CBN are found, this article fails WP:Notability and must be removed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another outsourced and unnotable Filipino newscast. Nate • (chatter) 18:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Studio 23 --- Tito Pao (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs aired by Studio 23: as WP:ATD. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs aired by Studio 23 per nom. CastJared (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defunct airlines of Cambodia. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khmer Airlines[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources in article and BEFORE show nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS. There are brief ROUTINE mentions about accidents. // Timothy :: talk 03:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Cambodia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as a particularly accident-prone airline. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accidents:
- The first accident is to an incident where 2 people died. Because they were Americans there was a brief news article. Nothing SIGCOV about the subject of the article, the Airline.
- The second accident is to a plane hitting an animal. Unless you're the buffalo, it doesn't show notability.
- The third accident is not documented in any way. The database record used as a source states, "Little or no information is available".
None of the above meets GNG or CORP guidelines. The sources for the article are all database records and one article that mentions the subject, none of which is SIGCOV. One is literally a reference that says there is no information. // Timothy :: talk 13:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Google books Heckman, Charles W. (1990) The Phnom Penh Airlift, Confessions of a Pig Pilot in the Early 1970s, McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers .,.. (Google books) has some details... not sure how to add. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Here is the link to the above [23] This is not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth; its a mention in passing while discussing another subject. It also contradicts the assertion of the first keep vote, showing there is not reliable information about this subject, just opinions based on scant information. // Timothy :: talk 15:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 08:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It existed, and there is enough coverage to write a stub article. Are there reams of Khmer-language business press coverage that survived the ravages of time? Probably not. List of defunct airlines of Cambodia could be a redirect target. Walt Yoder (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of defunct airlines of Cambodia per ATD. References fail to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No objection to redirect to List of defunct airlines of Cambodia // Timothy :: talk 10:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of defunct airlines of Cambodia per above as an ATD. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As an WP:ATD. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Marquez[edit]

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

Actor from the old Mortal Kombat games who longer meets WP:GNG guidelines. Tagged for notability since 2015. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero WP:SIGCOV. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 10:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:RS WP:SIGCOV of the subject that I could find. Nagol0929 (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search did not find the significant independent coverage I believe is required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ the UK list, no consensus for the U.S. list. As noted by Rupples, the latter was not adequately addressed by the "delete" !votes and should be examined in a separate deletion discussion if needed. In short, no prejudice for a speedy renomination. ✗plicit 12:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Centre points of counties of the United Kingdom[edit]

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

Centres of countries, okay, but counties? Fails WP:NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, United Kingdom, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the UK counties list (I haven't looked at the US list), the problem looks to me to be more one of WP:Original research than of notability. I tend to think it is OR whereas the notability of lists seems to be entirely in the eye of the beholder. I see that this old version of the UK list does not look to be OR and it is short enough to be reasonably merged into Centre points of the United Kingdom. That should be an editorial decision rather than one of deletion Thincat (talk) 11:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the table is stated to have been calculated (by the editor), i.e. it is pure WP:OR, which is forbidden. The fact that one county, Yorkshire, has had its centre professionally calculated indicates that this is a minor curiosity, not amounting to notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am finding the list of centres of US states very useful. I am going to visit them all and I will start by creating a an optimal tour based on the centres, to get a rough idea of the order in which I will visit them, for rough planning purposes. Then I will refine my trip by finding individual points of interest in each state and re-run the optimal tour algorithm. The list is a very useful resource - please don't delete it!

Blaise (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you download the contents so you can use it - unfortunately WP:ILIKEIT is not considered a valid reason to !keep. JMWt (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's unencyckopedic content and WP:OR. Unless someone can show a published book which directly addresses this topic, I can't see how we can possibly even consider !keeping JMWt (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 reasons:

-There is one source, which is for yorkshire, leading me to believe the rest is original research.

-This does not apear to be a very useful article.

I might change my opinion if the creator of this article can provide more sources. History person 2 (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above, there used to be several sources in an earlier verson but they were removed. Thincat (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - The UK article is almost entirely OR since the author admitedly did the calculations in QGIS. The US one is at least sourced to a research paper, but again there's no SIGCOV sourcing to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 12:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the UK counties listing as original research and an unlikely term of reference. Tried quick Google searches for 3 random counties and nothing came up. However I'm moving towards keep for the US states version as it's more likely credible sources exist. For example, there's this for Texas [24] and this for Georgia [25] to take two at random. There are sources for the grouping to support WP:NLIST here [26] and here [27] even if the latter contends there are no official centers. The topic looks notable. It requires narrative on the formal recognition of the centers (or lack of), but that's a content issue. Rupples (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think it was a good idea to bundle the two nominations. They're not inextricably linked. Looking at the comments left so far it looks as though only dlthewave and myself have specifically expressed opinions/!votes on each nomination. There's a risk of one article being deleted by default. Rupples (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: OR Listcruft. // Timothy :: talk 10:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 07:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Lindsey Donzis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability under WP:GNG. Zero independent third-party RS biographical coverage that I could find; total third-party cites are two questionable collections of gossip. There just isn't enough here to sustain the existence of a WP:BLP on the site. PROD removed without action to address the issues. Ashik Rahik (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ashik Rahik (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC) t[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bit-parts or one-offs, not meeting ACTOR. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Floundering between weak keep and weak delete: I was the one who removed the PROD on the article because I feel WP:NACTOR wasn't being considered by the nominator. Donzis has main cast roles in three different TV/streaming series (Punky Brewster (2021), No Good Nick, and Liv and Maddie: Cali Style (fourth season of that series)). The problem I'm having is interpreting the spirit of NACTOR #1 because I've been under the impression that main cast = significant role, which I'm now having doubts about that being true. If I understand the notability test correctly, either the more general test, aka WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, must be met ... or the more specific test, NACTOR for this subject, must be met. Both can be met, and still not guarantee the inclusion of the subject in article mainspace. Because of the NACTOR issue, I felt that PROD wasn't the right move, and that more feedback is needed from other editors. Having said that, I do agree with the nominator about the state of the sources in the article, with none demonstrating notability, and even with NACTOR (which should also be backed by independent, third-party sources, not just the fact that the series she's appeared in list her prominently in the credits), it might be best to delete. I just am on the fence right now. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no good sourcing within the article. Asa Kabir (talk)
I'm at delete based on article's current sourcing... The only "in depth"-type coverage of the subject at the article is Tiger Beat(! Tiger Beat! the teen gossip mag!!), so that's just incredibly weak. Other sources at the article would only be "passing mentions" of the subject, not in-depth coverage. IOW, the subject, while possibly passing WP:NACTOR in a "technical" sense, does not appear to pass the far more important WP:BASIC criteria... Now, if subject doesn't retire now that she is no longer a "child actress", that may change in the future. But, right now, the subject does not appear to pass WP:BASIC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diving Equipment and Marketing Association[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet NCORP/NORG. No significant coverage by independent secondary sources. Routine announcements in trade/industry sources announcing shows or briefly mentioning the CEO. WP:SIRS not met. Article creator was blocked for promotional username possibly related to article title. MaxnaCarta (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ . WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 02:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elastic scoring[edit]

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

The article is confusing/misleading, as it does not draw a clear distinction between the concept of elastic scoring and mere arrangement/re-orchestration of music; the actual topic of the article does not seem to be notable. A redirect to Arrangement might be appropriate. Noahfgodard (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Meadowood Springs[edit]

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

Sources are not independent enough, potentially fails WP:GNG. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 02:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 02:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 02:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Khoury[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails WP:GNG. This article was only just deleted earlier this month and nothing has changed since then. Simione001 (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: How is this failing GNG? Multiple sources provided showing significant coverage of the player both within Australia and recently as a professional player in the United States (USL2 is a fully-professional league). Has scored and won in a Grand Final in Australia in a nationally recognized competition. Nath1991 (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I direct you to the following page Wikipedia:Notability, it fails WP:GNG because none of the references in the article address the subject directly or in any great detail. Simione001 (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None? [28]https://www.oursportscentral.com/services/releases/tormenta-fc-adds-jackson-khoury-to-2023-usl-league-one-roster/n-5920481] - Whole article dedicated to the signing of the player. 3 mentions, and an entire paragraph dedicated to his performance [29]https://www.wjcl.com/article/tormenta-fc-defeats-triumph-fc-in-inaugural-peach-states-derby/43546224] He's mentioned directly in all the sources that have provided match reports on significant events that he's been involved in. Media outlets don't write up detailed articles on an entire player scoring goals, short of them doing something ridiculous like Archie Thompson scoring 13 goals v American Samoa back in 2001. Nath1991 (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first is routine transfer news and the second is a match report. This isn't sufficient. Simione001 (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add further, how does this not meet GNG after sources make several mentions of the player, yet James Bayliss (just one of many stubb articles), which only has a singular source (no other than the clubs own match report, where he gets a brief 5 word mention) does? I notice in the editing history that you created the article, but that wasn't deemed "not notable" by yourself? I'm not suggesting this player is Cristiano Ronaldo, but he's certainly mentioned enough to warrant notability for his recent history in a professional national competition. Based off your reasoning, it's clearly one rule for yourself, another for everybody else. Nath1991 (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes however that article was created at a time when WP:NFOOTBALL was sufficient. This is no longer the case. Regardless this nomination is not about James Bayliss so not relevant to this discussion. Simione001 (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the third time and SALT. No sources found; this was turned down 3 times in AfC and now 3 times in AfD, I'm not sure how much more clearer it needs to be. Not notable.Oaktree b (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again and SALT for mainspace - the only source even close to decent is Our Sports Central but it's just a copy and paste of a South Georgia Tormenta FC News Release, as per the header, therefore this is not truly an independent source and can't be used as a basis for notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT as per my comments at the last AFD. Giant Snowman 22:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Lacking independent sources to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rugg v Ryan[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG.

Case has not even gone to trial yet and if no new precedent is set in the outcome of this case, then the court case certainly will not be notable in the slightest. The existence of this court action is best covered on the individual Wikipedia pages of those involved (which it already is).

Information on the page is also outdated. The interlocutory application has already been determined and if the article was updated to reflect the outcome of that application, the article would only be a few sentences long.

This page should be deleted until the trial is completed and if the outcome of the trial has significance, (for eg. if it sets new precedents on what is reasonable hours of work, or has an impact on the allocation of political staffers) then it should be recreated.

At the moment this article includes:

Outdated information Accusations that have already been dealt with A biased summary of the case (contains no negative claims against Rugg, but the author of the article was happy to include the claim that Ryan defrauded the Commonwealth, despite that claim (from her political opponents) being disproven.)

Just because a court case has received a lot of media coverage, does not mean it warrants it's own article. Simba1409 (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Keep: A simple google search of 'Rugg v Ryan' show an overwhelming number of sources that establish the articles notability. Controversial information is in quotes and is attributed to the party that said it + has ben given WP:DUEWEIGHT in accordance to media attention of the matter. And to this point–
Just because a court case has received a lot of media coverage, does not mean it warrants its own article.
–in most cases it does. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 02:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a difference between something that receives a lot of media coverage over a short period of time, and something with ongoing coverage in the media. It seems this case made a big impact in March 2023, then almost nothing in April. Although some of the bias arguments are a bit confusing, Simba1409 makes a good point about impact - it could end up settling, or being decided on un-groundbreaking terms. Speedy keep doesn't seem to apply at all. I'm almost at delete or even draftify but will see if other editors have input first. Oblivy (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: For the reasons you provided I struck out speedy keep.
Media coverage started in January and ended in March. From what I gather, the reason for the lack of coverage in April is because there hasn't been any new development as the case is sub judice. As it is now, I believe the article meets wiki guidelines, but it is almost guaranteed to receive further large coverage in future as it will go to trial in June/July (which will receive large media attention), is not currently undergoing mediation, and has a big potential to set a legal precedent (which will mean papers, citations, etc.) ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 03:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this could escalate, but it seems to be too soon for an article. That's why I mentioned draftify, basically wait-and-see without dumping the article. Oblivy (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that it could escalate. If the case is ruled in Rugg's favour, this will certainly set a new precedent in terms of work hours (and perhaps political staffer allocation) and warrant a quite extensive article. Until there is a judgement though, this article should not exist. I wouldn't oppose draftify but it should be noted, in its current form, the article is not up to date and it would certainly be very out of date at the end of the trial. Simba1409 (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And tonight Rugg has drastically changed her overall claim, directly naming the Prime Minister. In the interest of Wikipedia presenting factual information to the public, it is best that an article on this case wait until there is a judgement. Otherwise, it will have to be rewritten and changed 100s of times. At this point, with the Prime Minister being named a settlement also seems more than likely as the Govt was previously the only barrier to doing so and if that were to occur, this case would likely have zero notability. Simba1409 (talk) 09:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per my comment above this is a moving target right now, unclear if it will prove to be notable. Per GMH Melbourne the trial is likely to start (if it doesn't settle) in a matter of months, which will likely generate the kind of sustained coverage which supports WP:GNG Oblivy (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This argument makes wikipedia less useful to readers. It suggests that the article stays as a draft all the case is in the news, when readers might want to look it up. Newystats (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The topic received further media coverage today ([30][31]), displaying continued coverage. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 08:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 08:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes, because Rugg has changed her claim again. This further supports the reasoning that this article should be deleted or put as a draft until AFTER the trial, for the reasons I already stated above last night. Simba1409 (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage - and the case raises questions about reasonable workload in parliament, with potential for longevity of interest. Newystats (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This court case is definitely notable, so I have rewritten and expanded the article's content with a variety of sources. I am also willing to commit to updating the article during the court case. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 10:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Even with your additions, the article is still out of date. Outside of potential precedents that this case may or may not set and noting that media coverage doesn't on its own make it notable, why do you believe this article meets notability criteria JML1148? I'd like to understand your argument. Thanks. Simba1409 (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Why are you excluding the possible precedents? Newystats (talk) 23:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm not Newystats. My arguments above against this article are because it isn't notable as no precedents have been set. You can't argue notability in terms of precedents before they actually occur. The case can very easily settle (particularly now that the PM is named in Rugg's altered claim) or have a ruling that changes nothing. Simba1409 (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Even if we do exclude precedents, from the source assessment table below, the article is definitely notable under WP:GNG. I would encourage you to answer the questions that Oblivy has asked you on your talk page. From your edit war at Monique Ryan, to your actions on your talk page, to your comments here, it would be in your best interest to answer the questions honestly. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  While I'm here, I want to make it clear that I am also okay with a Draftify result, until the article is over. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I appreciate your comments, User:JML1148 and basically agree with everything that's being said here - nobody can seriously disagree this has the requisite independent coverage, but for other reasons it could be a close call. I'd ask everyone to consider two things:
  what will this article look like if the case settles (or is otherwise discontinued before trial) on less-than precedent-setting terms?
  
  would it be acceptable to have this information maintained on Monique Ryan and then added back into the article later?
  
  Oblivy (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  In my opinion, the article's contents could be condensed and merged into Monique Ryan and Sally Rugg, with more emphasis on each of their perspectives in their respective articles in the case that the case is settled. I'm not exactly decided on the latter question, so I'll leave that to other editors. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was never engaged in an edit war JML1148. I've also stated that I am happy for this article to exist should the case set precedents, which should clear up any conflict of interest concerns that GMH MELBOURNE's projection may have caused. I missed the question on my talk page but I have now responded, thankyou.

Media coverage doesn't in all cases = notability, so I'd appreciate JML1148 if you could explain in your view how this legal case is notable outside of media coverage and precedents that are yet to be and may not be set?
My view as stated - if the case is settled or judgement is given that doesn't set a precedent or impact staffer allocations, then the case doesn't have any significance and therefore shouldn't exist. Simba1409 (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your direct response on your talk page regarding conflict of interest. These [32][33][34] is clearly edit war conduct, however I appreciate the third opinion provided. Regarding the case being settled, I think I have made my opinions clear in comments above. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 08:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An edit war requires three reverts by an editor within 24 hours. I did not engage in an edit war, I directed the discussion to the talk page as was the appropriate thing to do. The person providing the third opinion then agreed with my assessment of the content. Simba1409 (talk) 09:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 3-revert rule creates a presumption of edit warring, but overall conduct can be considered along with reverts. As things are not so heated now, I suggest we try to avoid focusing on editor behavior and instead focus on what would be a reasonable consensus exit plan for this AfD. Oblivy (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this statement. I will lay out my opinions as to what should happen regarding the article, and I request @GMH Melbourne:, @Oblivy:, and @Simba1409: to do the same.
For the time being, the article should be kept in mainspace for the duration of the proceedings, as it quite notable and aligns with WP:GNG.

If the case is settled, the article should be merged into Monique Ryan and Sally Rugg with emphasis on their actions in their respective article.

If the case goes to trial and a judgment is made, then the article should be retained. Provided I can get sources for it, I may pursue a WP:GA nomination.

JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds absolutely reasonable, JML1148. I would only hope editors will avoid writing based on pleadings and single-sided coverage, per WP:Primary and WP:BALANCE. That doesn't mean everything has to be both-sides'ed, but often parties generate coverage by saying controversial things. Oblivy (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article as a draft until the case concludes.

Most of us seem to be in agreement that if there is a settlement, this article should be deleted/merged. This is surely an argument that the case currently isn't notable without a judgement that sets a precedent. Otherwise, the argument would be to retain the article no matter what.

If the case is settled, update the Rugg & Ryan pages to reflect this and delete the article

Ditto above if there is a judgement that rules with Ryan & the Commonwealth with no impact on staffing numbers

If the judgement rules in favour of Rugg (or has an impact on staffing numbers if Ryan wins) then the case justifies its own article

We should also agree (if the article is to exist) not to include political commentary from those with vested interests made for purely political purposes (such as The Coalition alleging that Ryan may have defrauded the Commonwealth) as these claims are made without basis. Simba1409 (talk) 12:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A lot is being said in relation to the notability of this topic. It is pretty clear to me that the article meets the WP:GNG criteria (see below). In relation to the WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE policy, the topic has received persistent coverage over 3 months (and is guaranteed future coverage), its received "coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle", and has received "further analysis or discussion" following the initial reporting. P.S. Also note the notability is not temporary policy.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-31/monique-ryan-sally-rugg-federal-court-injunction/101910838				✔ Yes
https://www.afr.com/rear-window/monique-ryan-taken-to-court-by-sally-rugg-20230130-p5cgh2				✔ Yes
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/mar/03/sally-rugg-v-monique-ryan-court-documents-reveal-how-working-relationship-fell-apart				✔ Yes
https://theconversation.com/what-are-reasonable-hours-the-ryan-rugg-legal-stoush-may-help-the-rest-of-us-know-201093				✔ Yes
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/activist-adviser-sally-rugg-takes-former-boss-monique-ryan-to-court-20230130-p5cgi7.html				✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 00:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage exists for the overall incident. The trial itself might be too narrow a topic for the article, so perhaps a rename is in order; however that is a separate issue to AFD. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 00:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mathias Hellström[edit]

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

Fails GNG, SIGCOV and BASIC. Has only played one match on tour and lost it; does not fit other criteria of NTENNIS. Timothytyy (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Sweden. Timothytyy (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While he did play one ATP Tour match, seems it's all that happened sadly. Low peak ranking, no challenger wins, no junior GS wins. Couldn't find much in my searches (cited Swedish source in the Wiki article is a WP:ROUTINE match recap), if anything I'm getting more results for a businessman with the same name! Fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep While I don't disagree that the overall significance and accomplishments of this former player are quite muted, he does meet the standard guidelines set out for a notable tennis sportsperson by having competed in that one ATP-level match back in 2004. If this page were to be deleted, it sets a precedent that does not align with the guidelines, thus the guidelines should be ammended as well. mcburk 22:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mcburk, NSPORT was significantly revised after a 2022 RfC that showed consensus for just the kind of amendment you suggest. There was a community consensus that simply meeting the NSPORT criteria is explicitly insufficient to presume notability. Compliance with the GNG is specifically required. I recommend reading the FAQ at the top of NSPORT to get a better understanding of what the guideline actually says. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There should be no amends to NTENNIS, because it's still a great notability indicator. But just like any other, it's bound for situations like this one. A majority of players that played at least 1 ATP/WTA match are more likely than not to continue to play more of those and eventually get all the significant secondary coverage they need. No such thing here. Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ (NTENNIS is a part of the global sports guideline) says "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per lack of SIGCOV. No coverage has even been suggested. JoelleJay (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - failing WP:GNG far more critical here than a technical passing of WP:NTENNIS Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ . ✗plicit 00:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Auriga Leader[edit]

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

Appears to be a run-of-the-mill ship with no substantial coverage. References are press releases from a decade ago for a "PR stunt" installing solar panels that provide 1/2000th of the ship's energy. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Bensci54 (talk) 16:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's an expiremental ship so not "a run-of-the-mill ship". I have not yet looked for sources, hence only a comment. Nomination seems to be focused on references, rather than on sources, as we should per WP:NEXIST. On the upside, correct use of the concept "references". gidonb (talk) 03:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is extensive coverage of this ship, including 1, 2, 3 and 4. There’s plenty more beside this. Mccapra (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Mccapra's sources (and here's another one I found) show the ship passes WP:GNG. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Further to my initial comment, and the sources found by Mccapra and KN2731, this ship passes the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 12:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The amount of the ship powered by solar power is irrelevant to whether it is notable. There is significant coverage, so it is notable. Bensci54 (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ramya (actress). ✗plicit 00:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AppleBox Studios[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral on this, but it seems like this is WP:TOOSOON even though there are some reliable sources. Plus, maybe the company isn't going to merit an article but the movie will. Oblivy (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ramya (actress). Fram (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made. Anandhusureshcheruvil (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ramya (actress). Nowhere near satisfying WP:NCORP. RS coverage is about the actress and what she says about the studio. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ramya (actress) as per ATD. Topic fails GNG/NCORP criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ramya (actress). Agreed with other editors. CastJared (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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