Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< April 6	April 8 >

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 delete. Star Mississippi 17:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SallyAnn Mosey[edit]

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

Fails the WP:GNG. Not seeing any significant coverage in reliable sources. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, New York, and Pennsylvania. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Not enough WP:SIGCOV. PopoDameron ⁠talk 02:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not finding any independent, significant articles about here. Lamona (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tun of the mill big city broadcaster. Bearian (talk) 12:25, 14 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 Doctor Who fandom. History thereunder for folks to decide how much to merge. Star Mississippi 17:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who News Page[edit]

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

Previously tagged maybe not meeting Wikipedia's notability guideline for web content. 1keyhole (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. None of the sources included in the article can be considered significant coverage in reliable sources, and the "award" the page claims as a point of notability was, in fact, just a non-notable online fan vote. Searching for sources turns up a few name drops here and there, but no actual real coverage on the site itself. Rorshacma (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Doctor Who fandom where it would fit nicely, as notability, not verifiability, is at issue. Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Doctor Who fandom per above. // Timothy :: talk 14:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I'm not strictly against the idea of a Merge to Doctor Who fandom, the lack of any real coverage in reliable sources for this site makes me question whether it even has enough notability that would warrant it being mentioned there. Rorshacma (talk) 17:56, 13 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 The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1985 Non-Aligned Foreign Ministers Conference[edit]

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

Fails GNG and EVENT, WP:LASTING and WP:INDEPTH. Sources in the article are:

Primary :: 1. "NAM Declarations – Conference of NAM Foreign Ministers at Luanda- Letter from Angola (excerpts)". United Press International. 5 November 1985. Retrieved 8 April 2023.
Primary :: 2. ^ "RESOLUTION ON THE SEVENTH MINISTERIAL MEETING OF THE NON-ALIGNED COUNTRIES" (PDF). African Union. 1985. Retrieved 8 April 2023.
Mention in article about another subject, no SIGCOV :: 3. ^ Marcum, John A. (1986). "Angola: Twenty-Five Years of War". Current History. 85 (511): 193–231.
Yearbook, not IS RS with SIGCOV :: 4. ^ Yearbook of the United Nations: Volume 39. Department of Public Information. 1985. p. 371. ISBN 0-7923-0503-5.

BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. // Timothy :: talk 23:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of the topic is not to be established exclusively by the sources used in this (in the best case scenario) START level article. There are numerous other online and non-digitalized sources covering this event both in English and in other languages so it seems to me that the event is clearly notable.--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – pretty well attended conference with significant accomplishments. I think it already meets WP:HEY and there's still more reputable sources to be add, some with in-depth coverage. –Vipz (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep be added a couple of refs and overall I’m satisfied there’s enough coverage for this to pass, though I agree there is not much by way of in-depth coverage that I could turn up with an online search in English. Mccapra (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vipz. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 02:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Angola. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adequate sourcing now present in the article. There's further material from contemporaneous press reports, I found pieces from the UK Guardian and Associated Press. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:39, 12 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 Hesta Prynn#Turn It Gold. Star Mississippi 18:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turn It Gold[edit]

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

Tag for notability in 2011 1keyhole (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 01:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is coverage of the single in a number of sources thefw, afterellen, autostraddle, werk.re, & godisinthetvzine. I do not feel qualified to comment on the reliability however.... ResonantDis_tortion 06:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of the sources posted above:

1. The FW doesn't really say anything about the song itself.

2. Werk.re gives approximately one sentence to the song and one to the video, neither of which are very substantial. And just reading its about page will assuage any notions of potential reliability it has immediately.

3. AfterEllen is much too short to be worth anything.

4. God Is in the TV (generally a reliable source, I find) and Autostraddle are both explicit WP:INTERVIEW fails.

So none of those are any good, and the one source in the article doesn't even work. I found nothing more than the same sources listed above. The only good source I see is the Entertainment Focus page at Hesta Prynn#Turn It Gold, but since there's only the one and it's already there with as much information on the song as is worth including, I say redirect there. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

redirect per QuietHere - unless better sources then please ping me. ResonantDis_tortion 22:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I have added references. It is thin, but I think it is notable. It was used in a 2012 Super Bowl commercial. There is non-trivial coverage. Lightburst (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per QuietHere. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per QuietHere. // Timothy :: talk 15:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - there are sources, but not really reliable. A redirect is a reasonable outcome. Bearian (talk) 12:27, 14 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. Star Mississippi 18:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Real Life with Sharon Caddy[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a television show, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:TVSHOW. This was originally created by a user named "RealLife" (and thus probably a conflict of interest) in 2007, a time when we basically extended a notability freebie to any television show whose existence was verifiable at all -- but the notability standards have long since been tightened up considerably, and now require the show to actually pass WP:GNG on its sourceability. This show, however, just doesn't have the coverage required: the article cites no sources at all besides the show's own self-published content about itself, and even on a ProQuest search for older sourcing that wouldn't have Googled, I only found one article and one short blurb within the local coverage area of the host station, which isn't enough -- it verifies that the show existed, but failed to support anything else this article says, such as any of the claims about guests or remote visits to travel destinations or being added to the lineup of a cable channel, and I can find no source whatsoever that establishes when the show ended, either. There just isn't enough coverage out there to salvage this with. Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage. Fails WP:NTVNATL and WP:GNG. BruceThomson (talk) 01:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In 2007, we had much more lax standards in the Wild west days here. In 2023, we all know that we are much more rigorous and strict about what we include here. Bearian (talk) 12:29, 14 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. Consensus is she isn't independently notable. ConnectHear does not exist so this cannot be merged. However if someone does create that, I'm happy to restore the history and redirect this to the article. Star Mississippi 18:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azima Dhanjee[edit]

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

Notability doesn't established in reliable sources, fails to meet WP:NBASIC, references are unreliable, blog and business posts, few mentions in reliable sources of her startup. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and Pakistan. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per winning the Diana Award as the first Pakistan[[1]] and global impacts with connectHear[[2]][[3]] and also been selected National Youth Council [[4]] for me , it shouldn't be deleted.Epcc12345 (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Winning of Diana award (won by her startup, not herself) wouldn't make her notable, the refs you highlighted have no significance, only brief mention in the articles. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
M.Ashraf333 I am currently on duty today, if ping I will dig deeper to get more sources but was able to find this [[5]][[6]][[7]]. While I was making findings/reading about her impacts, she deserves to be here along with her start up ConnectHear.Epcc12345 (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC. The Diana Award and most of the media coverage is for the startup ConnectHear, not for the subject of this article. I think ConnectHear deserves a standalone article. Insight 3 (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. 2400:ADC1:468:400:7DD6:C651:21F1:A243 (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per argument by Epcc12345, which notes many sources, fulfilling requirements.Historyday01 (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think I see a merge potential. // Timothy :: talk 02:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. 08:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:02, 1 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!} 23:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per WP:ANYBIO criterion 1 due to winning the Diana Award. CT55555(talk) 16:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The award won by her startup, not herself. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 07:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep multiple WP:RS with sig cov meeting WP:GNG, plus leading team to win a notable award. ResonantDis_tortion 21:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As described above, the sources are about her startup and business blogposts. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 07:36, 9 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 House (season 7)#Episodes. Star Mississippi 18:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Massage Therapy (House)[edit]

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

It was previous tagged for notability in 2011 1keyhole (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to House (season 7)#Episodes Type-what-I-see recap with only one source not even in the recap itself, which is merely a letter-grade opinion. These terrible episode articles of procedurals were at their peak in the early-10s and this is an ur example of that. Also seeing that the article was denied a rightful A1 tag at creation (based on literal Fox PR!) from an IP by a WP:BITEy account who just up and disappeared the day after the episode actually aired; is it possible to WP:TROUT someone twelve years after the fact? Nate • (chatter) 00:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to House (season 7)#Episodes, non notable episode. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:33, 8 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 Survivor: Edge of Extinction. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Underwood[edit]

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

Outside of winning Survivor: Edge of Extinction, I have yet to see a reliable source deeming this person notable in other areas that are not Survivor or the Edge of Extinction season. (Of course, the overall season was heavily criticized, including the win, but....) Furthermore, to this date, this person hasn't reappeared in subsequent seasons. If WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, then how about WP:BIO1E instead? The main issue isn't solely about this person's notability. It's more about whether this biographical article about the Edge of Extinction winner is suitable and needed for this project. IMHO how this person won can be already explained in the Survivor: Edge of Extinction article, the target I want the article to redirect to, even when it appears brief. I'm also unconvinced that everything else about this person, including his current marriage, should be included in this project as well. (I'd love to mention other specific articles that were redirected to their own season articles, but... uncertain whether I can use them as precedents to this.) George Ho (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Television. George Ho (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had a minor sports "career" in college, and the remainder of his "fame" is having won Survivor. He gets some "local boy" coverage, but there's no other info about him. Lamona (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's comment - Almost forgot: list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants would be another target if the season page isn't a suitable destination. --George Ho (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think this is a case of BLP1E. Fame doesn't equal WP:N, and Survivor: Edge of Extinction already contains the information for the 1E, this article just adds more non-encyclopedic detail. No objection to a consensus redirect. // Timothy :: talk 20:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redifect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 12:30, 14 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. Consensus is this lacks notability as a list. Courcelles (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of women holding multiple British damehoods[edit]

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

Completely unsourced and entirely trivial; created as a result of a "listify" vote on a deletion discussion for a category. The article serves no meaningful purpose. Keivan.f^Talk 16:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Lists of people, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but add sources, and specify which orders (perhaps as a table, one column per order, so sortable as to which Damehoods they have/had). Perhaps split into living and deceased. This is a clearly defined group of people, and could well be the answer to a reader's question: "Do any women hold more than one title of Dame?", a reasonable question to which the answer is not available elsewhere. The list was created as the outcome of a discussion, so it seems perverse now to delete it. But where is List of men holding multiple British knighthoods? PamD 11:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Something on the lines of User:PamD/dames ... just to illustrate the idea. Needs sortkeys, completion, and sources, but this shows the kind of table which would make the list more informative. PamD 11:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that receiving multiple knighthoods may concern too many people. Damehood is a little bit more exclusive, multiple damehood even more so. Place Clichy (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the answer to that question isn't available elsewhere, how does it meet NLIST? JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, where is List of men holding multiple British knighthoods? And let's not turn it into a women vs men issue, because knighthoods are not bestowed upon people casually either. Both knights and dames receive the honour for their service to the country, etc. What I do find bizarre is that the list itself is not really encyclopedic. What is next? List of women or men honored with multiple orders of chivalry in France? It can be replicated for every single country, but what would be the point of this sort of categorization? Keivan.f^Talk 20:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are contexts where receiving several times the highest award of a nation is a recognized feat in itself. List of twice Heroes of the Soviet Union comes to mind. Place Clichy (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Celia Homeford, Place Clichy, William Allen Simpson, and Fayenatic london: as participants and closer of the relevant CfD. PamD 12:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The idea of having this information in a list, instead of a category, is precisely that sources and context can be added. BTW the damehoods themselves should probably be sourced on the individual articles of the recipients, otherwise they would not be mentioned there. Looking at a few of these articles (Mabell Ogilvy, Countess of Airlie, Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone Catherine Tizard), it seems they were mostly put in the defunct Double dames category in the first place by now blocked User:[email protected], so I guess there is no help to expect on this front. Place Clichy (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — better as a well-referenced list than a scattershot category. If the complaint is not enough references, why haven't you fixed that problem? Why waste our time complaining about something you could fix?
William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to fix here. It is not my responsibility to improve a list that clearly fails WP:NLIST, which states One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. And I happen to agree with the IP who commented below. The category should not have existed in the first place (because there's no such thing as "double dames") and it should not have been listified because even if references were to be added, they would not be originating from secondary sources that discuss this group of people together solely as recipients of multiple damehoods. Keivan.f^Talk 06:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No one has mentioned the elephant in the room here, which is that this is a complete failure of WP:NLIST (as far as I can find...not a single source, let alone scholarly, discusses this as a set). We routinely delete these sorts of crufty lists all the time. That this one is fairly short is irrelevant; it belongs on some sort of Fandom wiki for royalty. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First of all, the article lacks any citations. Second of all, how WP:VALUABLE could this article possibly be? All but six of those listed were either Queen, Princess or a Peeress and so would almost never have been known by their damehood anyway (nobody ever says "Dame Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon"). Third, their honors are either listed after their names in the lead sentence (such as for Catherine Tizard or Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone) or in a separate article (Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother or Mary of Teck). Anybody who wants to know if a woman held multiple damehoods could simply look at their article. Estar8806 (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There doesn't appear to be any reputable sources grouping these specific individuals together.98.228.137.44 (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It fails the test of Wikipedia:Notability because there should be citations for the topic as a whole, not just the individual entries. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:52, 6 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!} 22:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think Estar8806 sums up my feelings pretty much perfectly. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see a strong, valid reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The mere fact that no secondary sources group these women together based on the number of their damehoods is a strong reason to delete. And as Estar8806 pointed out, the majority of women listed are queens, princesses or peeresses, thus, they would never be referred to as "Dame [Name]" to begin with. Keivan.f^Talk 18:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks sources supporting the WP:NLIST is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:58, 15 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. Courcelles (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kira tto Kaiketsu! 64 Tanteidan[edit]

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

Not notable. See also ro:Wikipedia:Pagini de șters/Kira to Kaiketsu! 64 Tanteidan. --NGC 54 (talk｜contribs) 12:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. --NGC 54 (talk｜contribs) 12:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is it possible that the game has sources, but it's locked away in Japanese websites/magazines? The 1990s were a different time. Far less minor indie titles that receive no RS coverage. Most retail releases receive coverage. I could be wrong, and I don't know Japanese to check, but it's just a thought. Sergecross73 msg me 13:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only found this(so far) via Imagineer(the game's publisher website) [8] (release date + screenshots)

Pandora Box's(the game's developer) website also exists [9] Timur9008 (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Sergecross73 It is extremely likely. I legitimately don't like to even touch anything pre-internet due to itKatoKungLee (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found a full review here. There is also (sort of) a review from IGN, even though it reads like it was written by a 13 year old with a thing against Japanese games. [10]. Still reliable source coverage though. One more like this and I'd be saying keep, as it's just scooching up to the notability line right now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dengeki Nintendo 64 probably wrote something at the time but I didn't find a scan online. Japanese retro magazine Yūgē (now renamed GAME SIDE) wrote a two page article: [11] (pages 62-63) --Mika1h (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While I can't read Japanese, the discovery of the GAME SIDE review(?) seems to put it over the edge with regards to WP:SIGCOV. IGN's "review" is laughably bad compared to the actual effort N64 Magazine did to test the game out, but you can't say reliable sources didn't take notice and there should be enough from the two articles to summarize everything about the game, were the other one translated into English. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ZXCVBNM. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:55, 7 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!} 22:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per ZXCVBNM and the GAME SIDE coverage. Fulmard (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Right now there are two reviews, one paragraph mention from IGN, and one mention from Nintendo and the developer. The two reviews are strong, but not enough for me. SWinxy (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to sources found by ZXCVBNM and Mika1h. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:57, 15 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. Courcelles (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Kamen Rider[edit]

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

This disambiguation page isn’t really necessary per WP:DISAMBIG, because there is already a {{For}} hatnote on the Shin Kamen Rider: Prologue and the Shin Kamen Rider (film) articles. Regards, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 21:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Japan. Regards, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 21:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move Shin Kamen Rider (film) to Shin Kamen Rider. - Areaseven (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A request to move Shin Kamen Rider (film) to the plain title and delete the disambiguation page was closed as "no consensus" after a month of discussion a few days ago (Talk:Shin Kamen Rider (film)#Requested move 28 February 2023), which means there was no agreement as to a primary topic for this term. I'm sure it was not the intent, but renominating this for deletion a few days later has the effect of forum shopping here, since deletion of the disambiguation page would again result in moving the 2023 film to the plain title as unnecessary disambiguation. With that in mind, I suggest keeping the disambiguation page for now. Dekimasuよ! 01:23, 1 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!} 22:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Put a CSD G6 speedy deletion template on the page around 20 minutes ago. Regards, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 08:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I put a CSD G14 speedy deletion template on the page around 2 minutes ago because the disambiguation page is unnecessary, per what I said in the nomination statement. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 01:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Due to the Requested Move discussion, which only occurred recently. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; I have also added a third entry to the dab page, which would normally be uncontroversial, but pointing it out in case the change is altered at some point. Dekimasuよ! 11:40, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed my decision to Keep per WP:TWOOTHER. Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 (his talk page) 12:22, 15 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. Aoidh (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bagiswori College[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable. I can't find any references to this collage outside of sites dedicated to collages. Daveman115 (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Nepal. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since this AfD can't be closed as soft delete in the light of the previous keep result
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 23:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep. I've added in some of the sources about the institution from those sources Daveman115 was mentioning that are primarily dedicated to colleges. They might barely be enough to qualify under WP:GNG. I'm not sure if this is really a question of notability as much as it is a question of quality of the sources and the article. Could definitely use some work, but might be doable. - Navarre0107 (talk) 04:06, 7 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!} 22:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, following the advice of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the same argument as in the previous nomination. Nom has raised no new issues. GNG doesn't proscribe "sources dedicated to [category of topic]." small jars tc 21:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, and because there are more, easily discovered sources, such as Google books. Bearian (talk) 12:47, 14 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. Aoidh (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ERA 9[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable band that fails the WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Though it looks like there are a number of references being used, actually looking through them reveals them to be from unreliable (and oftentimes defunct) sources, promotional pieces, trivial mentions, or some combination of the three. Searching for any significant coverage in reliable sources now did not turn up anything. I initially WP:PRODed this, but then found that it had previously been Deleted via an AFD before being recreated, and thus needed to go back to another AFD discussion. Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Canada. Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nominator is correct about the sources currently in the article. The band has gotten some media notice but it is largely in the form of softball interviews that were probably reactions to press releases (e.g. [12]), minor product announcements (e.g. [13]), and a few very short album reviews (e.g. [14]). It's a close call but they simply haven't broken through to the significant and reliable coverage that is needed here. And be suspicious of any WP article that says things like "broke down all stylistic boundaries" and "the honest brutality of modern rock" as if the band wrote such doggerel themselves. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I am leaning weak keep as they have some news coverage.Pershkoviski (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Even if we found and added sources, it's a huge mess. Bearian (talk) 12:48, 14 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) 14:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bandel Vidyamandir High School[edit]

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

not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find sources in English to meet WP:NSCHOOL. There might be sources in Bengali. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as article is ineligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 23:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article. I'm happy to reconsider if independent sources are found. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:52, 15 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 07:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glass Ceiling Index[edit]

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

An index created by the Economist. Sources in the article are 3 primary and 1 data scrape site. BEFORE showed no IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. Unneeded CFORK from The Economist#Indexes, a concise and properly sourced edit could be merged. Even if the lack of sourcing for notability was resolved, the CFORK issue remains: just because a subject can squeak by N, doesn't mean there must be an article. In this case this content (edited per above) should be in the main article, there is no reason for a nn stub.

Here is the link to the CopyPatrol mentioned in NPP which will need to be looked into if there is a merge (I did not). [15]. // Timothy :: talk 21:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is likely to become another maintenance chore because the index is updated periodically. It is better to provide a link to the primary source, which already contains all the information that we needn't parrot on Wikipedia. If it is to be kept on Wikipedia, that chart would probably be better either as a horizontal bar graph or a sortable table. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's interesting that two other subheadings from The Economist#Indexes have been expanded into their own standalone articles. Should that be reconsidered, especially given that they too create 'maintenance chores'? Patr2016 (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least the Big Mac index has become a well-regarded index reported on by a number of secondary sources (see nytimes, for instance). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Economics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Established index commented upon by publications around the world including Politico [16], The Pioneer [17], Al DIA [18], KBS World [19], Japan Times [20], Fair Play Talks [21], MarketWatch [22]. Isn't compulsory to update in detail each year. Article could be developed along the lines of Big Mac Index. This popularly titled index name is likely much more easily remembered by many than say the Gender Equality Index. Rupples (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE and Rupples. Bearian (talk) 12:50, 14 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. Aoidh (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bos Wars[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. The article currently cites some primary sources, 2 mentions (literally 3 words each) at a Linux directory site, and some trivial coverage (a few paragraphs each) at 3 download sites. Searches for "bos wars" via the WP:VG/LRS custom Google searches returned 0 results. A general Google search found only the usual primary sources, database/download sites, etc. Ironically, I can't even find any forum posts about this game, let alone reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normally I'd say merge to Stratagus as a WP:ATD but that particular engine doesn't seem notable either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's not lacking coverage. Viewing as only a "video game" is too narrow an approach; this is software. Likely due to its permissive licensing model, the subject of this article appears to be utilized extensively in academic and analytical settings for various forms of scientific research. Wherein coverage is at a depth much greater than typically found in banal press covering simple entertainments and amusements. Some examples: doi:10.1155/2011/834026, doi:10.1145/2598394.2598486, doi:10.1155/2011/834026, doi:10.1145/2700529, [23] (pdf), etc. -- dsprc ^[talk] 14:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these! However, I'm not sure how usable these are. They appear to be open-access research papers, a conference presentation, and a master's paper/dissertation, all from graduate students. I'm no expert but from my understanding, they wouldn't meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Woodroar (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They cover not only gameplay and design aspects, but also – at extreme detail – the underlying technologies. This software is clearly notable for its unique algorithmic approach as stated in the aforementioned journals.

What does open access have to do with reliability? Open access isn't preprint, or a blog post; it simply means not being locked behind a multi-million dollar subscription or $500++ paywall to read a single article, and nothing more. (Not having corporate publishing cartels holding monopolies on distribution of knowledge is a good thing) These journals in particular are peer-reviewed, scientific journals, with IJCGT having a distinguished international editorial board (instead of a single individual as sole editor). Association for Computing Machinery is one of the oldest, premier computer science research and knowledge organizations in the world. The research within the ACM article in question, was cited at least 13 times by numerous other prestigious journals… Also clearly stated it's peer-reviewed (that's what "Refereed" means…): doi:10.1145/3026723 – which means it meets the plain reading of SCHOLARSHIP. (Also!: grad students are the ones conducting most actual research at educational institutions… at least in the true sciences…) -- dsprc ^[talk] 02:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This fails WP:N and there was no significant coverage that I could find. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it was covered twice by LinuxUser, see de:Bos Wars. Matthias M. (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:GNG: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AmigaOS4 version was reviewed in the Amiga Future 86 (September/October 2010), p.21 [24]. Other sources: short review on idnes.cz [25] (major Czech news site), review of the Linux version on root.cz [26] (Czech news site covering Linux). I´m leaning to keep. Pavlor (talk) 05:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have struck through my delete !vote above. Several alternate-language sources have come to light that proves it got WP:SIGCOV. They seem reliable and enough to base an entire article on, unless someone can prove otherwise. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:01, 14 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 Garbage (band)#Touring members. Move suggestions can be handled by a later discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Shulman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No individual notability. Daniel Shulman is far more likely to refer to sportscaster Dan Shulman. Delete, or at the very least move to Daniel Shulman (musician). 162 etc. (talk) 15:45, 31 March 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 March 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 21:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Daniel Shulman (musician) to eliminate confusion and Redirect to Garbage (band)#Touring members unless individual notability can be shown. md m.b la 23:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks coverage as an individual, and notability is inherited from the bands. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:47, 15 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. 3 weeks and, well, no one could possibly find a consensus here. NPASR. Courcelles (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

State Disaster Response Force, Assam[edit]

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

Organisation doesn't seem meet WP:NORG - lacks independent coverage meeting the WP:ORGDEPTH thresholds. MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Assam. Randykitty (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The State Disaster Response Force (SDRF) is a crucial Government organization in Assam, India. It is an auxiliary branch of the Fire and Emergency Services Department of Assam and plays a significant role in mitigating disasters and managing emergencies in the state.

The Wikipedia page of SDRF Assam contains all the necessary information and links to make it an authentic source of information about the organization. It is essential that the page is maintained and not deleted to provide accurate and reliable information to the public. 2409:40E6:1D:C418:562:E1C4:ACB7:6177 (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a widely used online platform that provides information about various subjects. The SDRF Assam page on Wikipedia contains all the necessary information and links to make it an authentic source of information about the organization. The page provides valuable insights into the SDRF's organization, functions, and achievements.

For your reference here's the Document of Government of Assam Which is a Minute of a metting chaired by then Chief Minister of Assam, Tarun Gogoi which talks about the creation of SDRF Assam.

https://asdma.assam.gov.in/sites/default/files/2nd%2520Meeting.pdf

Moreover, the page serves as a reference point for researchers, journalists, and other interested parties who wish to gain more knowledge about the SDRF. It is also a valuable resource for the public, especially during times of emergencies when people seek information about the organization's activities and preparedness. Erric679 (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Erric679. Do you have any COI to declare for this organisation? So far, all of your edits seem to relate to it. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 04:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MrsSnoozyTurtle. Its a Indian Government Organization. Government Doesn't Issue COI's for its Organization. SDRF Assam is a branch of Fire and emergency services Assam. You can check the Official Website of Fire and emergency services Assam which is a Government website with Government domain which clearly mentioned about The State Disaster Response Force and its creation. Erric679 (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SDRF Assam is a Government organization Under the umbrella of Fire and emergency services Assam. Its a indian Government organization but yes i admit that it doesn't have much online presence because its a indian government organisation here's not every organisation has online presence. That is why i am trying to protect The SDRF Assam Wikipedia Page from its deletion the page serves as a reference point for Peoples who wish to gain more knowledge about the SDRF. It is a valuable resource for the public, especially during times of emergencies when people seek information about the organization's activities and preparedness.

And For your reference about the creation of SDRF here's. Here's are some links and news reports.

1. Here's the minutes of the metting chaired by the then Chief Minister of Assam Tarun Gogoi on Creation of State Disaster Response Force, Assam. -

https://asdma.assam.gov.in/sites/default/files/2nd%2520Meeting.pdf

2. Here's the news report reported by Assam's leading news paper The Assam Tribune -

https://assamtribune.com/disaster-response-force-in-state-soon

3. Here's the Website of National Disaster management authority of India where you can find India's all State Disaster Response forces Creation date. -

https://ndma.gov.in/Response/SDRF

4. Here's the Official Website of F&ES Assam where you can see the how The Assam Fire service has been renamed and Modified as Assam Fire and emergency services after Tagging State Disaster Response Force with F&ES -

https://fireandemergencyservices.assam.gov.in/about-us/our-history-1

These are some References for the authenticity of State Disaster Response force Assam About its creation and there are plenty of News reports on its operations and its achievements all the fects mentioned on the Wikipedia page of State Disaster Response Force, Assam is backed by Reference/ Links from authentic scources.

I hope This is all for prove its authenticity feel free to reply if you need anything else. Erric679 (talk) 09:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Erric679, I think you misunderstood the question. To clarify, do you have a WP:COI for this organisation? Please see the linked guideline for Wikipedia's definition of a conflict of interest. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MrsSnoozyTurtle

I have no Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

As SDRF Assam is a Government organization. I neither close to this Organisation nor i have interest on this. I just want to protect a well written and Well Rescarsed Wikipedia page. Erric679 (talk) 08:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying, that is good to hear. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 08:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 21:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards keep. It should be a fair call to presume notability for a governmental agency dedicated to rescue operations covering over 30 million people. Furthermore there is news coverage of their activity referenced in the article, and a quick check on google news has further verification with examples such as [27], [28], [29], and Due to the scale of the disaster, NDRF (National Disaster Response Force) and SDRF (State Disaster Response Force) teams had to evacuate 98,509 persons marooned by floods,” said Sarma.. Note - I expect WP:NONPROFIT is the appropriate guideline - I would say this article meets the spirit of WP:NONPROFIT#1 (30 million is bigger than many nations) and I contend that WP:NONPROFIT#2 is met by non-passing mentions in many news sources - including the sigcov posted by Erric679 above. ResonantDis_tortion 09:56, 14 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. Aoidh (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potawatomi Point, Indiana[edit]

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

I can turn up a single 1960s news article on Indiana place names that got passed around between a bunch of different papers that calls this a "village" without any detail, but everything else I can find suggests that this is an accumulation of vacation homes. Doesn't meet WP:GEOLAND and the coverage I turned up does not rise to WP:GNG. Hog Farm _Talk 21:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Hog Farm _Talk 21:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete I found nothing. The only hits were for similarly named places in two other states. The long string of houses along the shore is not promising. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. This community is only notable at a local level. TH1980 (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and my standards. This is a poster child of small, run of the mill localities. Bearian (talk) 12:55, 14 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. Aoidh (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Principe[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PERP. I was able to find a few articles that mention a Thomas Principe with mafia connections but I'm not sure it's the same person; the Thomas Principe mentioned in the articles I found is a businessman with ties to the Genovese family, while the Wikipedia page is about a hitman for the Gambino family. I can't find any sources supporting the claims made about Principe in this article. There are WP:BLP issues if Principe is still alive. It's a poorly written article about a non-notable person that appears to consist almost entirely of false information. Baronet13 (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far too poorly sourced for a biography of an alleged murderer. I guess it's possible he was called the .22 Caliber Killer, but that moniker usually refers to New York serial killer Joseph Christopher. pburka (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am a fan of naming, shaming, and blaming criminals, but that is not the current consensus at WP:PERP. Bearian (talk) 14:11, 14 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. Aoidh (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgios Ermidis[edit]

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

Repeatedly recreated article. Ermidis is a non-notable semi-pro footballer who, to date, has played in a friendly for FC Desna Chernihiv, a few youth matches and 2 minutes in the Russian third tier. The article gives the illusion of notability by using the WP:REFBOMB tactic; flooding the article with references to stats pages, non-independent sources and trivial mentions. WP:SPORTBASIC requires multiple WP:RS independent of Ermidis showing detailed coverage. This wasn't met in the old versions of this article and this new version still doesn't meet it. Searching "Георгіос Ермеідіс" and "Γεώργιος Ερμίδης" yielded nothing better.

Given the huge number of sources, I will do a source analysis to explain why each one does not confer notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Greece, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source analysis - I'm disappointed to see several instances of references being used where Ermidis is not even mentioned once. Fails WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
http://fczt-oz.ru/player/georgij-ermidi/	Website for his current employer		No info	✘ No
https://sports3.teliaco.gr/oykrania-petaxan-proedro-mesa-se-kado-aporrimmaton-vid/			Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.footballdatabase.eu/es/jugador/detalles/437568-georgios-ermidis			Stats	✘ No
https://upl.ua/ua/people/view/66778?id=66778			Stats	✘ No
https://www.desna.football/georgios-ermeidis-mi-vse-doveli-na-futbolnomu-poli/	Desna was his employer		Basic Q&A with no independent content	✘ No
https://www.desna.football/georgios-ermeidis-v-gretsiyi-znayut-shho-ukrayinskij-futbol-dosit-silnij/	Desna was his employer		Basic Q&A with no independent content	✘ No
https://www.ua-football.com/ukrainian/high/1602004469-desna-zayavila-na-upl-grecheskogo-poluzaschitnika.html			Basic transfer announcement with no in-depth coverage	✘ No
https://goldtalant.com.ua/?p=115256			Basic transfer announcement with no in-depth coverage	✘ No
https://goldtalant.com.ua/?p=118907			Mentioned once	✘ No
http://footballfan.net.ua/news/ukraina/georgios-ermeidis-popolnil-ryady-desny	?	?	? Inaccessible for me	? Unknown
https://globalsportsarchive.com/people/soccer/georgios-ermeidis/432422/			Stats	✘ No
https://fcvorskla.com.ua/players/18175/			Stats	✘ No
https://upl.ua/ua/people/view/66778?season=31			Stats	✘ No
https://cheline.com.ua/news/sport/desna-vigrala-u-tovariskomu-matchi-iz-olimpikom-280741			Not mentioned	✘ No
https://www.ua-football.com/ukrainian/high/1636969576-desna-provedet-tovarischeskiy-match-s-olimpikom.html			Not mentioned	✘ No
https://www.desna.football/tm-fk-chernigiv-desna-perevirili-molod/	Desna was his employer		Mentioned twice in the main report	✘ No
https://suspilne.media/206151-desna-viletila-na-zbir-do-tureccini-hto-v-skladi-komandi/			Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.chesport.cn.ua/2022/02/15/desna-zigrala-pershyj-match-na-zborah-u-turechchyni-arveladze-zabyv-gol-krasen/			Squad list mention	✘ No
https://www.ua-football.com/ukrainian/high/1645125893-desna-na-sborah-obygrala-gruzinskoe-torpedo.html			Mentioned once	✘ No
https://www.ua-football.com/ukrainian/first/1645367256-krivbass-v-sparringe-ustupil-desne.html			Not mentioned	✘ No
http://fczt-oz.ru/2023/03/24/georgij-ermidi-novichok-znameni-truda/	His employer		Barely any detail - date of birth and previous clubs	✘ No
http://fczt-oz.ru/2023/04/03/vazhnaya-pobeda/	His employer		Squad list mention	✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/matches/2023/04/03/russia/2-division/elektron-vn/znamya-truda-orekhovo-zuyevo/4061291/			Stats	✘ No
https://int.soccerway.com/players/georgios-ermidis/675125//			Stats	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I am point out that some Independent sources were marked as incorrectly but they are correct. In particular the souce http://fczt-oz.ru/2023/03/24/georgij-ermidi-novichok-znameni-truda/ you marked incorrectly as HIS EMPLOYER, but the guy has been hired but the club in Russian Second League and he has already played one match. The souce https://int.soccerway.com/matches/2023/04/03/russia/2-division/elektron-vn/znamya-truda-orekhovo-zuyevo/4061291/ and https://int.soccerway.com/players/georgios-ermidis/675125// as the official website that I've added, prove that they genuine evidence that the player was hired by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FC_Znamya_Truda_Orekhovo-Zuyevo Iliochori2 (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FC Znamya Truda Orekhovo-Zuyevo is his current employer as per the article that you yourself have written so I am correct to label as such. He is employed by them and you yourself have admitted above that he has even played one match (or 2 minutes of one match) for them!! Anything that his club publishes about him is non-independent by definition. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the souce https://goldtalant.com.ua/?p=118907 wasn't mentioned once but more than one time Iliochori2 (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is mentioned only once in the main prose. Even if we count the squad list mention at the bottom as coverage, that's still only two mentions in a whole article, which is not WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is not mentioned only once but more and there are genuine sources. Iliochori2 (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there evidences, look here https://int.soccerway.com/players/georgios-ermidis/675125// - http://fczt-oz.ru/player/georgij-ermidi/ - https://ua.tribuna.com/football/1089729130-desna-zayavila-19-letnego-grecheskogo-xavbeka-ermeidisa/ - https://val.ua/ru/site/129072 Iliochori2 (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: - I've pinged GS for you, Iliochori2. I'll give my reasons as to why these 4 sources are not acceptable for WP:SPORTBASIC. Soccerway is a stats page, this type of source does not show significant coverage and SPORTBASIC is very clear about this. FCZT is hosted by his employer and also contains zero useful info about the footballer. Tribuna is 3 sentences about him and admits to using Transfermarkt as a source, which is unacceptable per WP:TRANSFERMARKT. Val mentions him once in a list of players attending a training camp! None of these sources are even close to significant. For significant coverage, I expect to see several paragraphs written about the player from an independent party, as an absolute minimum. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah these are just databases and trivial pieces, some of them questionable. Giant Snowman 07:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but some of them really show genuine sources Iliochori2 (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying that they aren't genuine. The problem is that every single source that has been discussed is just a trivial mention or a stats database. Where are the reliable & independent news sources that have paragraphs of prose dedicated to Ermidis? None have been brought forward. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you have lot experience regarding the sources to be included on wikipeda. At the same time I am sure that the sources https://ua.tribuna.com/football/1089729130-desna-zayavila-19-letnego-grecheskogo-xavbeka-ermeidisa/ and https://int.soccerway.com/players/georgios -ermidis/675125//, https://val.ua/ru/site/129072 and especially http://fczt-oz.ru/2023/03/24/georgij-ermidi-novichok-znameni-truda/ being the team's official website, are evidence to show that the player's trustworthiness. Iliochori2 (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. Ermidis exists. If that's the point that you are making then I agree. The point that I'm trying to get across is that Ermidis is not notable because nobody has written at length about him. For example, there are no lengthy articles dedicated to him nor are there news articles with multiple paragraphs of coverage all dedicated to Ermidis. Please stop posting the same trivial mentions and familiarise yourself with the guidelines including WP:N, WP:SPORTBASIC, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I getting the point, I think I'm not posting the trivial mentions themselves, and I'm familiarizing myself with Wikipedia's guidelines. I agree that there are no long articles dedicated to him, but there are reliable statistics and also quite reliable resources. Iliochori2 (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's the fact that there are no long articles dedicated to him, like you say, that is the issue not whether the statistics are reliable or not. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but statistics are not reliable enough? Iliochori2 (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is not the issue. It's that there is no significant coverage. I have already stated this several times now. Also per WP:SPORTBASIC Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. This comprehensively fails that requirement. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Iliochori2 (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. If I may offer you advice, you clearly are working very hard on trying to improve the project but sometimes spending too much time on really minor and non-notable footballers. There are plenty of very notable Ukrainian footballers for whom many sources exist but our Wikipedia articles could be better sourced, for example Serhiy Rebrov, Andriy Shevchenko, Yevhen Konoplyanka... If you put that level of effort into improving articles like those then you will benefit the project even further as these are articles that people are much more likely to be interested in. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Same reason as above. Anwegmann (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are many evidences, I've added more suitable please check also that in some source the player wasn't mentioned only once but more. Iliochori2 (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the above source analysis. Statistics do not contribute to notability, long articles (WP:SIGCOV) do. JoelleJay (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the sources are genuine and it looks like they provide good evidences. Iliochori2 (talk) 12:12, 13 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. Aoidh (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parkside student residence[edit]

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

Article about a university student residence, not properly referenced as passing Wikipedia's notability criteria for buildings. The notability claim here is essentially that the building exists, and the referencing is not cutting it in terms of getting it over WP:GNG -- it's referenced far, far too heavily to primary sources and blogs that aren't support for notability at all, such as transit schedules and directory entries and the self-published website of the neighbourhood residents' association and the student media of the university that operates the residence.
And even after all of that is discounted, what's left for genuine GNG-worthy reliable and independent third party sourcing is still about half tangential verification that the company that redesigned this former hotel into a student residence also designed other buildings that have nothing whatsoever to do with this one. What's left for genuinely reliable source third party coverage about this building is just one magazine article and one newspaper column, which isn't enough coverage to get this over GNG all by itself if all the rest of the footnotes are primary or bloggy or irrelevant. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless anyone can think of a good ATD. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Also, this has red flags of non-notability, such as undue weight to the developer and builder rather than why it's notable. It also would fail my standards for hotels. Bearian (talk) 14:24, 14 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 The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bruxton (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olgaon[edit]

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

the article is very short and only has one reference on it. 1keyhole (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be a village with census data so should pass WP:GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (I came here from the ARS listing.) I agree with Crouch, Swale that the census data make it pass GEOLAND. Having a small population, and being, at present, a short page, do not prevent it from being notable for our purposes. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the editor Crouch, Swale. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep small population in the village, but passes WP:GEOLAND#1-2. Lightburst (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 11 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. Aoidh (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cabin in Go Home Bay[edit]

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

Article about a private residential home, not properly referenced as passing Wikipedia's notability criteria for buildings. The strongest notability claim here is that the architect won an award from the provincial architecture trade organization, referenced only to the organization's own self-published content rather than any evidence that it's an award whose presentation receives WP:GNG-worthy media coverage for the purposes of being able to make its winners notable for winning it.
Otherwise, the article amounts to "house that exists", and the footnotes aren't establishing that it's been a subject of significant GNG-worthy coverage in real media: out of twelve footnotes, just one represents a genuinely reliable source writing about the house in an analytical fashion, while the article is otherwise "referenced" to a mix of blogs, the architect's own self-penned writing, directory entries and primary sources that tangentially support the existence of Go Home Bay, green roofs, stack ventilation, thermal mass, solar shading, sustainable technology evaluation and The Group of Seven without verifying anything whatsoever about this house's specific relationship to those things. And even the one legitimate source doesn't actually establish that "Cabin in Go Home Bay" is actually the house's name -- it just describes the house as a cabin located at Go Home Bay, not as a building with the proper name "Cabin in Go Home Bay".
This just isn't how you establish an individual residential home as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above nom. Yet another fake notable habitation as found by Bearcat. Again, this has red flags of non-notability, such as undue weight to the developer and builder rather than why it's notable. It also would fail my standards for hotels. This appears to be a run of the mill Air B and B type of place. Bearian (talk) 14:27, 14 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. Aoidh (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OpenHV[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. The article currently cites 3 Gaming On Linux articles, but per WP:GAMESOURCES that is an unreliable, self-published source. It also cites Game Pressure, which is considered reliable but at ~4.5 paragraphs isn't significant coverage. (About half of the longest paragraph is about Hard Vacuum, another game.) Searching for more sources with WP:VG/LRS didn't turn up much. There was this gry-online source that is identical to the Game Pressure source (as the sites are related) and this GameStar source that's a roundup of several games, with only a few paragraphs about OpenHV. Perhaps this game will be notable in the future, but I'm not seeing significant coverage at this time. I should also note that the article was created by the game's developer, so there are COI concerns. Woodroar (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly, it looks like a cool, well done game, but Wikipedia is not advertising. There is not sufficient WP:SIGCOV from what I can tell, nor any real place to merge it that makes sense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no coverage outside of blogs for this fame. Nothing we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that sources are also judged for notability on a sub-page of some wiki project. It is a bit confusing as e.g. Bos Wars has similar coverage, but was never nominated for deletion. Matthias M. (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The English Wikipedia has 6.6 million articles and some of them fall through the cracks. That being said, you are correct that Bos Wars has similar (poor) coverage, so I'll be nominating it for deletion shortly. Woodroar (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I must unfortunately agree. The game is awesome but it is my duty as a wikipedian to point out that this does not meet notability standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blitzfan51 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to insufficient WP:SIGCOV per Zxcvbnm. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:58, 8 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 Oklahoma City Stars men's basketball. Aoidh (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frederickson Fieldhouse[edit]

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

Don't see the Notability, no WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:NBUILDING 1AmNobody24 (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Sports. 1AmNobody24 (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Oklahoma. Skynxnex (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, please see relevant newspaper coverage:
OCU Fieldhouse To Be Dedicated On Wednesday
This old house
End of a landmark

Garuda3 (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete University structure demolished after just 40 years despite claims of architectural notability however newspaper sources appear to quote PR without WP:RS/fact checking; second half of article is incoherent. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NGEO. Sources are all ROUTINE local news, it was built, it was used, it was torn down, ROUTINE news. Nothing showing N. Evidence of existence in newspapers does not equal encyclopedic notability. // Timothy :: talk 12:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE applies to events not buildings and thus your argument falls flat. This passes GNG as there are multiple articles focusing on the building. Garuda3 (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something doesn't have to have "architectural notability" or last longer than 40 years to be notable. All that matters is that there is significant coverage in multile reliable sources, which there is. Garuda3 (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage in non-WP:ROUTINE sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Garuda3's argument (that the article meets GNG and that WP:ROUTINE does not apply) has not been adequately addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of evident lack of independent notability. The lack of supporting sources is decisive. Or, generously, Merge whatever little of this text can be salvaged into Oklahoma City University. -The Gnome (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you consider the Daily Oklahoman to be unreliable? Garuda3 (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda3 I can't answer for the Gnome, but in my opinion this source (*OCU Fieldhouse To Be Dedicated On Wednesday) is fine for using to verify content but is not usable for notability purposes. There is no by-lined author and it is likely a reprint of a press release given to the media directly from OCU. Press releases, even if published by reliable secondary sources like The Oklahoman, are not considered "independent" from the subject as required by our policy at WP:GNG. Likewise, End of a landmark is clearly an advertisement piece to help the university sell items connected to the Frederickson Fieldhouse and it likely also lacks independence. The only quality source from The Oklahoman is This old house because it has a by-lined article, is independent, and would count toward GNG. Hope that makes sense. Some of the other Oklahoman pieces are better because they are independent with a named author. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, thanks for explaining. Though I do think it's a rather extreme view to take for something as uncontroversial/harmless as a building. Garuda3 (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda3 Understandable. I think everyone feels that way when they are new or newish to deletion discussions. At WP:AFD everything gets scrutinized under a policy lens, largely because it would be impossible to have any consistency in the way we treat content inclusion without having policies to guide decisions. If you haven't read through WP:Notability I would suggest you do so. You will notice "Independent of the subject" is listed as a core rule in WP:GNG; so analyzing the independence of sources is a routine part of evaluating all topics in AFD discussions whether they are things, people, places, concepts, etc. We also have subject specific notability guidelines for almost everything; such as WP:NBUILDING. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and maybe try and merge a bit to Oklahoma City University per other editors comments. – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 13:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge/redirect to Oklahoma City Stars men's basketball which is a better target than the page on OKCU. The reliable refs above mention that this structure served as the team's basketball court from the time of its construction in the 1950s until the opening of the Abe Lemons Arena (incidentally another unreferenced article on a OKCU structure) in 2000. Clearly the structure can and should be covered in an article on the basketball team given it was the building hosting their games for nearly 50 years. I don't mind taking the responsibility of pruning out unverifiable content and only merging in content verified to the sources above into the article on the basketball team. 4meter4 (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objection at all about that target. -The Gnome (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as suggested. I don't see how much will be written in the future about this structure. Bearian (talk) 14:30, 14 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kekkon Dekinai Otoko[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable, nothing found in BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2015.

PROD removed with "try afd" DonaldD23 talk to me 18:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are 47 refs in the ja.wiki article. Not all would help demonstrate notability on en.wiki, but there’s enough there to make clear that this series was notable. Mccapra (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It had an audience share that reached the 20s, and has been ranked the most popular TV work of its star, Hiroshi Abe (who also won an award for his work in the series). We also have an article on the Korean spinoff, He Who Can't Marry (South Korean TV series). There was also a sequel series produced by KTV due to the popularity of the first series. Of course, this sort of information needs to be added to the article in order to show its notability. (The audience share data is already there but needs a cite; I have doubts that we would delete any TV shows with an audience share this high, and if a WP:BEFORE didn't turn this up it may simply indicate that Japanese sources were not considered.) Dekimasuよ! 05:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pretty significant and covered in Japanese sources. Fulmard (talk) 20:26, 11 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilesh Sheshmani Dubey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines nor is there any indication of subjective notability. Previous AfD did not receive enough participation, hence this! ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yup, fails WP:GNG. Most of the citations are trivial mentions of the sort, "Advocate Akhilesh Dubey, appearing for X, argued..." or "Y's plea through advocate Akhilesh Dubey said". Others are references to his opinion columns for The Daily Guardian (or, is it The Daily Guardian Review?), a publication that apparently sprang up in September 2022 and, afaict, has no reputation (good or bad) to speak of. Dubey has some notable clients but that does not justify or enable us to write an encyclopedic biography. Abecedare (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the editor Abecedare ~

‪AShiv1212‬ (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons discussed above, and because he would fail my standards for attorneys. I note especially that belonging to the Inns of Court sounds impressive, but is a nothing-burger. The only big factor in his benefit is representing major clients. Bearian (talk) 14:35, 14 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. Aoidh (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hymner til natten[edit]

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

article only supported by one source: the play itself. lettherebedarklight 晚安 17:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Denmark. lettherebedarklight 晚安 17:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a useful stub. If this topic is notable (a poetry circle that seems to have been performed only once in 1991), someone needs to write at least a stub with refs demonstrating independent sig coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:22, 7 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) lettherebedarklight 晚安 02:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Farrell (police officer)[edit]

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

fails general notability guideline, a before gives 7 results on google. lettherebedarklight 晚安 17:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New Zealand. lettherebedarklight 晚安 17:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Has an entry in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography and dozens of AfDs have all shown that this signifies notability. Note that a 'Before' on 19th century New Zealanders must include a search on PapersPast, which Google does not index.Schwede 66 18:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mine is a very firm "keep" recommendation. As noted by Schwede66 above, the subject has an entry in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography (which is a "country's standard national biographical dictionary" as expected by WP:ANYBIO). Subject is also covered in several books about the period/region. Some of which I've added to the article. Others of which are readily available. Guliolopez (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per entry in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Spleodrach (talk) 10:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep there is nothing to debate as he has an entry in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography and that is deemed to be sufficient to attain notability under the New Zealand Project and in various past discussions and AfD's NealeWellington (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A DNZB entry is usually considered notable enough. Grutness...wha? 11:34, 10 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ioan Evans (footballer)[edit]

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

Semi-pro footballer with no evidence of notability presented; I can't even find one source suitable to count towards WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC let alone the multiple required. There are a lot of namesakes but I did find some sources which are about this particular Ioan Evans. He is mentioned 3 times in the prose of Yahoo, a match report and once more in the squad list. Western Telegraph is a trivial mention and Y Clwb Pêl-droed mentions him only twice. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, no independent sources where Evans is more than a passing mention I could find. Dank Jae 01:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:54, 13 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Martin (footballer, born 1986)[edit]

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

Article I created 15 years ago, long before WP:NSPORTS2022 when the community made it clear that sports biographies must satisfy WP:GNG. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources available; the article comprehensively fails WP:GNG. There is plenty of routine coverage of his exploits in Israeli football ([30], [31], [32]), but these are brief name drops in articles covering Liberian footballers abroad rather than in-depth coverage. Jogurney (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per page creator's request. As mentioned in nomination, he was mentioned quite a bit on AllAfrica.com and The New Dawn in Liberia, but these are passing mentions – generally not more than "hasn't yet scored any goals", "is one of the Liberian players in Israel", "will be playing in this match", and "scored goals along with others". The one focused article about him is the Radio Liberia piece cited, regarding how much abuse he received from ZESCO fans in Zambia; we don't discuss the specifics in the WP article currently, but in any case it doesn't really offer any meaningful information about the player himself, and there is also a concern that we're indirectly spotlighting the negative for a non-notable individual in the Wikipedia sense. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per page creator's request. Props to Jogurney for reassessing his own creation in light of WP:NSPORTS2022. Cbl62 (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:59, 8 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Harris Ramdev[edit]

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

Fails WP:NARTIST. Theroadislong (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article fails to demonstrate that this individual has been the subject of in-depth enduring coverage required to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people), and nor has his art been the subject of critical commentary etc required to meet WP:ARTIST. You can't construct 'notability' around a letter of praise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:ANYBIO as well as NARTIST. This might be a case of WP:TOOSOON; let's wait for obituaries. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROMO, WP:SPA --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia's notability criteria, the entity must have atleast 2 reputed articles that is not just a mention, but the entire story must be of the entity. In this case there are 35 articles and more written about the entity in detail. The letter of praise is from the World's most powerful man Prime minister of India Narendra Modi and the entire news is completely about the entity Steven Harris. Also, the entity has been mentioned for other notable achievements like the WorldSkills and also the Painting competition for which the articles have been given citation. I kindly request the panel to please go through the news publications in detail and research about the same. I strongly believe the entity has enough news coverage as per Wikipedia's guidelines and I would like to appeal for the non-deletion of this page. I also request all the editors and contributors to help the newcomers with the relevant information and not discourage them or delete their articles. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason why you keep referring to the subject of this biography as an 'entity'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the person in a more formal and a professional tone. The editors suggested that when we are describing someone or something, it has to be in a neutral way. So I am referring to the subject of this biography as an entity. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 04:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well don't. It is disrespectful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. So please refer to the claims that I have mentioned about Mr.Steven Harris. Please do your research. I am confident that I have included everything as per the references from various news sources about the person. I would like to appeal for the non deletion of this page. As per Wikipedia's notability guidelines, Mr. Steven Harris has enough news articles (minimum 2 as per Wikipedia guidelines) to be considered notable. Thanks. Indiantal"entnews123 (talk) 06:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we supposed that Narendra Modi was actually the "World's most powerful man" receiving a letter from him is NOT notable and does nothing to establish his notability as an artist. Theroadislong (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about doing a little research yourself, ndiantalentnews123. You could start by actually reading the Wikipedia notability guidelines, since you clearly haven't if you think that 2 'news articles' are sufficient to meet standards. They aren't. Not remotely. Not if they merely repeat the same transient page-filler journalism. Notability is demonstrated through depth of coverage, not repetition of the same shallow feel-good fluff. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have read them. They are not just mere publications. It covers the in-depth information about the artist. Please read the articles again completely. I know 2 articles aren't sufficient, I just specified what Wikipedia has mentioned. As per your comments, Mr.Steven Harris had enough articles written about him in depth about him being a notable artist and also his achievements. It's very well covered by the Indian Press. There is enough depth of coverage. I again appeal for the non-deletion of this page. Once the page is agreed for non-delation, as a community we can improve the article's writing, remove repeated stuff and improve the neutral point of view. That would encourage us and also make sure we don't make mistakes while including the needed content. Thanks. It's a kind request. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 07:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the criteria listed in WP:ARTIST is met? There are four. Provide evidence for at least one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great, thanks for letting me know about this. You just made the job easier.

The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; Mr. Steven Harris has received an Honorary Letter of Appreciation from the Prime minister of India. The news coverage also covers about the 100 awards and recognitions that Mr.Steven had received. Multiples reputed news sources have confirmed the same. You can check all the news articles.

2. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Mr.Steven is appreciated by various celebrities and recognised people of India.

3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work. Mr. Steven had made 2 paintings of Prime Minister of India. These paintings have been published in major news articles and talks about the finesse of the works. Please check the news articles.

I hope this information is sufficient enough to prove that Mr.Steven Harris is notable for his works and achievements as per the criteria mentioned and also has enough news articles from reputed sources to be included. Thanks Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An "Honorary Letter of Appreciation from the Prime minister of India" is NOT a a well-known and significant award or honour. Theroadislong (talk) 09:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A letter is not 'a well-known and significant award'. None of the sources even remotely suggest that Steven Harris Ramdev is 'regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors'. And the two paintings have clearly not been the primary subject of meaningful reviews as artwork anywhere. I suggest you stop wasting people's time with this nonsense, since you aren't going to convince anyone with such ridiculous claims. This is a young man who apparently has some artistic talent. Good for him. Maybe he will someday develop his talents enough to merit an article in Wikipedia. As for now, he hasn't. Not remotely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please mind your language Mr.Andy. You just want to delete this page for your selfish reasons and that's pure nonsense. The ridiculous fact is that a senior like you can't bear the fact that an article created by a newcomer is rated c-class and accepted by the articles of creation as well. Please stop targeting this page. There are other thousands of articles on Wikipedia that doesn't even qualify for basic standards. This article for Mr.Steven qualifies all the parameters and you can't deny that. Stop this conversation. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it would probably be contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia:Civility to respond to that by using the word 'delusional', I won't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden (more usually his office) sends out letters of appreciation all the time- it's not considered a high honor. The high honor is the Presidential Medal of Freedom, a specific award. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And while we are at it, can I have a clear explanation for why, when the sources seem to all refer to this individual as 'Steven Harris', does our article call him 'Steven Harris Ramdev'? What is the source for 'Ramdev'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"India at WorldSkills Competition 2022: 2 Silver, 3 Bronze and 13 Medallion for Excellence Medals – Curriculum Magazine" "Graphic Design Technology" I hope this is sufficient. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficient for what? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficent for the name confusion. Steven Harris Ramdev is clearly mentioned in these sources. First do your research properly and then ask questions. Don't just bring up issues for no reason. That's ridiculous. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your source here [33] does NOT mention Ramdev please don't insult our inteligence. Theroadislong (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://worldskills2022se.com/skills/graphic-design-technology/

https://worldskills.nsdcindia.org/special-edition-2022.php

Check these sources again. It clearly mentions. Please check your intelligence again. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 10:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We still haven't had any explanation as to why we should use a name found in very few sources, rather than the name given in the majority. It isn't particularly unusual for someone to be known by different names, but if we are going to chose one rather than another, we'd need a good reason to use the less common one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The name issue probably belongs on the talk page of the article not here. Theroadislong (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're probably right. Seems an odd decision though... AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. So as discussed, I appeal for the non deletion of this page and please consider the news sources for Mr.Steven Harris. I have created this article and we can definitely improve it rather than deleting it. I am very confident that the article for Mr.Steven Harris deserves to be on Wikipedia and goes well with respect to the notability guidelines. I have come across many biography articles on Wikipedia and some of them don't even have enough number of articles or it's quite vague.

I will make sure the templates added by the contributors will not be removed further, instead we can discuss the same and improve the article. I totally respect their decisions. But please, this is my first article and I have tried my best to learn and improve it. I will definitely adhere to the rules and will learn more. Please encourage by not deleting this page and please do remove the deletion template. We can definitely improve the quality of writing without any biases. Looking forward to a positive response. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 04:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will be very honest, the conversations are getting really confusing now. It's confirmed that the name is right and there are no issues in using them as long as we have the right authenticated sources. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree on all notability complaints. Subject has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable and intellectually separate sources. The reliable sources are simply mentions of prizes in competitions that focus on worker skills. Although exceptionality in some of those skills might warrant a degree of notability, I highly doubt winning prizes in Graphic Design Technology, which does involve art but is hardly about artistry (also see the PDF) does. Additionally, I couldn't find any famous past winners of WorldSkills whatsoever. The other sources were short mentions in a handful of unreliable (web) press releases. Their depth is unsubstantial and they are mostly primary. A letter of appreciation from PM Modi does not indicate notability; he even personally wrote one to all(?) Indian covid vaccinators. But besides all notability issues, the entire article has very little encyclopedic value - it's a list of marginally significant prizes. Douweziel (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, Mr.@Douweziel. There are many articles with very less notability and hardly any articles. Why don't you look into them as well and why target only this page? Those articles have been there for years with hardly 2-3 news sources. This kind of discussion never happened in those pages. Again, I strongly appeal for the non-deletion of this page, instead, we can contribute and improve it better. Please remove the article from this deletion talk. Thanks. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 05:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read other stuff exists. The existence of other poor articles that have not yet been addressed by a volunteer does not mean more poor articles can be added. Volunteers work on what they can when they can, and can only address what they know about. You are welcome to help us out by identifying other poor articles so action can be taken. We need the help. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, that's an OSE. If the existence of other low-quality articles (which is a given) is an argument for not targeting any specific low-quality article, low quality cannot be addressed.

If your purpose is changing my mind, or the minds of others with similar objections, I recommend refuting the arguments or proposing new ones. Douweziel (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article is obvious promo. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:12, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a promo. Please do your research. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

very dissapointed with the community. This is so wrong to target the articles of newcomers. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are not being "targeted" because you are a newcomer. Your poor article has been nominated for deletion because it does not seem to meet the criteria. This is done with all such articles when they are identified. If you had taken the time to learn what is looked for, and perhaps practiced by editing existing articles first- as we usually recommend- you would have the knowledge needed to understand what we are looking for. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a poor article. Just because I removed the templates doesn't mean you guys have to go hard on me. I'm sure some of the articles are not even discussed for deletion even though they have hardly any articles. So stop this conversation and remove the deletion template asap. Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't take orders from promotional accounts. And we aren't going hard on you: you were very lucky not to get blocked indefinitely for removing the deletion template. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process, accept that the biography is going to be deleted, and move on, before your behaviour here attracts further sanctions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...And even as I wrote that, Indiantalentnews123 has been blocked for harassment. [34] Clueless... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allan Nonymous (talk • contribs) 00:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - Subject is notable Indiantalentnews123 (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NARTIST, WP:RFNN, WP:SPAM, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:TOOSOON. If this were any body, we would delete it as just not being notable, much less an artist. It has many of the red flags of notability, including laudatory language for ordinary activities; we are not mom's refrigerator. It's very barely contained spam. In 2023, everyone knows we are not a free web host; voting to keep is untenable. We are a charity, not a victim for bullying. By all I see, this person is just too soon for a WP article. Impossible. Bearian (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Douweziel. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:26, 14 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. Aoidh (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Project Point Blank Blues Band[edit]

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

Delete: fails GNG and NBAND. Source eval:

Promo for event, interview :: 1. "Koncert "na zidiću": Di Luna Bluz Bend i Vlada Džet Bend | Najave | Nadlanu.com". web.archive.org. 2015-12-08. Retrieved 2023-04-07.
Database record :: 2. ^ Dr. Project Point Blank - Dr. Project Point Blank, retrieved 2023-04-07
About Us page, primary :: 3. ^ "Dr Project POINT BLANK Blues Band". www.pointblank.rs. Retrieved 2023-04-07.
Contributor post album review :: 4. ^ "Recensie: Dr.Project Point Blank - Unforgiven". web.archive.org. 2019-08-01. Retrieved 2023-04-07.

BEFORE showed promos, database records, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 15:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I googled the band and literally scrolled until the results got so sketchy a result got taken down due to a DMCA complaint, and nothing I found seemed reliable. I wouldn't be surprised if I scrolled until I found another DMCA complaint and nothing showed up that seemed reliable. interstate five 19:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no reliable sources and 4 sources is not enough for notability. Kakara69 (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep somuch notability in eastern Europe these references should be copmlate.Patricia Mannerheim (talk) 20:52, 9 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 01:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B Martin[edit]

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

Non notable. Does not pass GNG. Sources are PR-stuff. See related AFDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aiona Santana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farandula Records, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael McGuire, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clemente Romero Bedivere (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Winning "Who's next with Hot 97" is not notable. This musical person has no coverage that I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I thought that was relevant in the United States. I will be looking for new references. ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Superficial referenciness all turns out to be PR or unreliable sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:15, 8 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TicketBiscuit[edit]

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

Article about a company not properly sourced as passing WP:CORPDEPTH. As always, every company is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists, but rather has to have reliable source coverage and analysis to establish its significance -- but there are just four footnotes here, of which two are the company's own self-published content about itself, and one more comes from a marketing blog and reads suspiciously more like another press release self-published by the company than like a genuine piece of journalism. And while one footnote did come from real media, it's a dead link, and even if it proves recoverable from another URL, one valid source still isn't enough to vault a company over CORPDEPTH all by itself if it's the only valid source the company has.
Since this company was apparently founded in 2001 and thus might have had coverage 15 or 20 years ago that wouldn't still be found on Google, I'm obviously willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived USian media coverage than I've got can find enough to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be better than it is. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Alabama. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing I found meets WP:ORGCRIT. It was purchased by Etix a few years back. I am going to that page now to see if should come to AfD too. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Defunct company; article created by an SPA. No sources that would support a WP article. Lamona (talk) 01:12, 10 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 Dania Suleman, and merge Les malentendues to Dania Suleman. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dania Suleman[edit]

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

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

WP:BLP of a writer and an article about her book, neither properly referenced as passing Wikipedia notability criteria for authors or their books.
The only notability claim being made in either article is that she and her book exist, which is not automatically enough in and of itself -- an author needs to have notability claims like notable literary awards and/or the reception of enough media coverage about her and her work to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing -- but the author is sourced to one valid news article about her book (which is a start, but not in and of itself enough) and one video clip in which she's simply giving soundbite to the media on a topic that has nothing to do with her writing (which is not support for notability at all), and the book is referenced solely to the same news article.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she has a stronger notability claim and a greater volume of GNG-worthy sourcing to support it, but nothing here is already enough as of today. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Islam, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect to article about the author Dania Suleman as WP:ATD CT55555(talk) 17:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC) (since found second review, investigating deeper)[reply]

Keep the biography. Her book (really an essay), doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK so should be merged into the author's page. pburka (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the biography. The combination of a publication that attracted two series reviews, working on a (French Wikipedia notable) documentary, being featured in the documentary, and on The Current combined lead me to conclude she is sufficiently notable. I initially said to redirect the book, but since I found a second review, I am undecided, and waiting to see if more sources arise, leaning redirect on the book. This vote is informed by the spirit of WP:AUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE although it probably fails a strict reading of it...not a bureaucracy...no firm rules...WP:IAR...etc etc..CT55555(talk) 17:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep biography. Neutral on book but if it is not kept, do not delete but redirect to author keeping categories and incoming redirects. PamD 07:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suleman has made regular appearances in Quebec and Canadian media and is an author and journalist. Her thesis received awards. Likewise, she contributed to an award winning documentary. Jaireeodell (talk) 13:31, 13 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Robertson (politiican)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a political organizer and unsuccessful election candidate, not properly referenced as passing Wikipedia inclusion criteria. As always, neither political spokesmen nor election candidates are "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown as the subject of sufficient media coverage to establish a credible reason why they should be seen as special cases of significantly greater notability than other people who've done the same things. But five of the six footnotes here are not support for notability at all -- his own LinkedIn, his own Twitter, an alumni profile on the self-published website of his own alma mater, a Q&A interview in which he's doing the speaking (as opposed to being the subject whom other people are speaking about), and a piece of his own bylined writing (as opposed to being the subject whom other people are writing about) -- and the only WP:GNG-worthy footnote is a single piece of run of the mill coverage of his unsuccessful election campaign, which is not enough to get him over the notability bar all by itself since every candidate in every election can always show at least one of those. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely nothing here to suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single attempt at being elected in a local election. Searching on "Callum Robertson UK" is better than the "(politician)" search term.Lamona (talk) 01:19, 10 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. Aoidh (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paco Lala's[edit]

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

Poorly sourced stub about a lesser known Mexican TV host. Page has been practically unsourced since its creation. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Mexico. AllyD (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - His name is spelled wrong. It should be "Paco Lalas". Just from a basic google search, he's a fairly notable name with a decent bit of coverage: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Paco+Lalas%22&client=firefox-b-1-d&biw=1920&bih=947&ei=I24kZKarDIKs5NoP2ZqZsA0&ved=0ahUKEwjmyMKMzoH-AhUCFlkFHVlNBtYQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22Paco+Lalas%22&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIECAAQHjIECAAQHjIECAAQHjIECAAQHjIECAAQHjIECAAQHjIGCAAQBRAeMgQIABAeMgYIABAFEB46CQgAEB4QDRCwAzoHCAAQHhCwAzoLCAAQBRAeEA0QsAM6CQgAEAgQHhCwAzoGCAAQCBAeOggIABCKBRCGAzoGCAAQBxAeOggIABAIEAcQHjoKCAAQCBAHEB4QCjoICAAQBRAHEB5KBAhBGAFQVFiUDGC8EGgBcAB4AIABUogB2wGSAQEzmAEAoAEByAEJwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1 KatoKungLee (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But is he notable though? I'm not sure if these search results are enough to warrant a standalone article for this individual. I guess deletion would be preferable, since there's an obvious lack of notability in my opinion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:39, 7 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!} 06:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 7 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 Battle of Ciudad Juárez (1913)#Background. ✗plicit 01:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chihuahua (1913)[edit]

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

With the current sources, which do not have enough information to pass WP:VERIFY, difficult to ascertain the amount of coverage. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battle of Ciudad Juárez (1913)#Background. I think enough sources could be found to sustain an article on the Battle of Chihuahua, but that still doesn't necessarily mean it should have its own article, per WP:NOPAGE. This failed attack on Chihuahau was a relatively minor event in the grand scheme of things, and best understood as a prelude to the more important battle which resulted in the capture of Juárez. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Battle of Ciudad Juárez (1913)#Background. Orientls (talk) 06:03, 10 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 Banaras Hindu University. Aoidh (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Banaras Hindu University festivals[edit]

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

While the university (BHU) clearly meets WP:GNG, there's nothing to state this list does. The list contains a number of Festivals celebrated across the country (making their inclusion here irrelevant), or multiple college hosted events that are almost all non-notable themselves. Soni (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Lists, and Uttar Pradesh. Soni (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The list has been created to avoid cluttering and already exceeding WP:SIZERULE in the parent page, the list primarily aims at including cultural festivals (See: [35] [36] )of different colleges, etc. However, major celeberation of prominent national/local festivals is added for general information on the concerned subject, and backed by WP:RS. All inclusions are backed by WP:RS, and the list is based on Purposes of lists. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the list primarily aims at including cultural festivals (See: [37] [38] )of different colleges, etc.

That's basically my main contention. The primary purpose of the list is to note down well sourced but still likely non-notable events. Comparing to the two linked articles you mentioned, they both (now) have "Should be notable enough to have a wikipedia page" as their requirements. WP:RS is absolutely necessary to add any content to articles, it just isn't necessarily sufficient. In this case, I am not yet convinced based on WP:LISTPURP a list consisting inherently of non-notable events should be separate.

A (more experienced) second set of eyes on the matter would help Soni (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Banaras Hindu University#Student life. Some of the content can appear here, ideally in prose form. There's no need for a separate article on the matter. Ajf773 (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Ajf773. A WP:SIZESPLIT is not necessary here as the parent article has a readable prose of only 33kb, well within reasonable limits. If the parent article is too cluttered, the answer is to delete the excessive images and galleries. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:55, 12 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clemente Romero[edit]

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

Non notable. Does not pass GNG. Sources are PR-stuff. See related AFDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aiona Santana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farandula Records, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael McGuire Bedivere (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Venezuela. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is a businessman with a short career in the United States, specifically, in Miami, but who has achieved some recognition for his labor support to the Latino community with his company Paisclo. Really, it is a story of overcoming that as a Venezuelan I thought it would be relevant to share with the English Wikipedia. ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Creator, curator, and supporter of the text got it perfectly above: "A small businessman." Nothing more. Wikipedia is not a directory. Neither is it a collection of random information. We are not here to preach a person's achievements.-The Gnome (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promo for a small businessman, with no recognition in RS that we can use. Seems like an important person, but hasn't received the critical notice we require for wiki. I don't find any sources. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 7 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 01:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amol Kirtikar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced BLP. BEFORE shows fails GNG and BIO. Nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth. Found interviews, brief mentions, nothing with SIGCOV. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse. // Timothy :: talk 10:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone finds proper sourcing in Marathi. Mccapra (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP, Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG Khorang 17:28, 9 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Arabia[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Sources in article are not about subject. BEFORE showed promo, but nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth.

Source eval table:

Comments	Reference
Promo	1. "Haifa Wehbe, the star of the first issue of "Soul" magazine in the Middle East . www.rumonline.net . Retrieved 2023-03-31 .
Interview, nothing about subject	2. ^ "Shukran Murtaji reveals the secrets of her life with Soul Arabia" .
Dup rep, Interview, nothing about subject	3. ^ "Shukran Murtaja: Inner beauty and self-satisfaction are reflected in the outward appearance" . SBS Language (in Arabic) . Retrieved 2023-03-31 .
Nothing about subject	4. ^ "Dora's photo graces the cover of Soul Arabia" .
Nothing about subject	5. ^ "Yousra's photo on the cover of Soul Arabia" .
Promo, nothing about subject	6. ^ Bureau, T. V. N. (2021-01-14). "Urvashi Rautela- first Indian actress to get featured on THIS international magazine". The Vocal News. Retrieved 2023-03-31.

// Timothy :: talk 11:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Middle East and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 22:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything extra to use for sourcing. Source table above explains it, nothing in RS we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 7 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issa Ghaderi[edit]

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

In my searches in Arabic, I was not able to locate any detailed coverage that would meet WP:SPORTBASIC. Best I can find is Al Sharq, which mentions him once. Existing sources are two stats pages and Facebook, which aren't good enough. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 01:16, 11 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. Aoidh (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Théodore Jean Arcand[edit]

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

Unreferenced for 15 years. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the multiple issues mentioned on the main page. Charsaddian (talk) 07:27, 8 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 07:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen Tewari[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN businessperson. Was soft deleted via discussion, refunded to a zero-edit WP:SPA by me. Converted to a redirect by a page reviewer, and then restored today by another SPA. Strongly suspect WP:UPE farming. UtherSRG (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, India, and Uttar Pradesh. UtherSRG (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New to Wiki editing and being bitten.Would appreciate guidance in helping me contribute better, instead of nominating the page deletion. AABC234 (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If are new to Wikipedia editing, you must learn and adhere to the rules. There is no reason why this page shouldn't be nominated for deletion. It also does not makes sense why are you so willing to save this from getting deleted when this is clearly non notable and bogus! It is clear example of COI, paid editing or autobiography. Khorang 18:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, clearly fails WP:BLP , WP:GNG. This article reveals too much of personal information which needs clarification and sources for verification. Clearly it is a case of WP:COI and WP:SPIP. Khorang 18:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO and should be deleted in keeping with WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. Sources are press release/churnalism or passing mentions/trivial mentions that do not show notability for the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 01:49, 15 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. Aoidh (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Grassmann[edit]

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

While the man appears to have written a fair bit no one really seems to be writing about him the sources are lists of books and what looks like a self authored bio and I can't find anything better ©Geni (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IPs and socks blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Extropian73. SWinxy (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I was able to find a review of Out of the Ruins on a magazine website, which I've added. I'll continue looking for others. 2400:2410:C861:FD00:1A1C:AD94:950A:DE9D (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some article links from Wikipedia, but given his work as an anthologist, there are many more. 2400:2410:C861:FD00:1A1C:AD94:950A:DE9D (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are plenty of primary sources with a basic Google search. 2400:2410:C861:FD00:299C:EE96:9FE5:4A4F (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Liliana mentioned, primary sources should be avoided, but I agree that we should try to work with what we have. It's clear that he has a lot of work published. Yumi80 (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the provision of changing the bio. As an example of other author pages with a similar "notability," check Chris Kelso. Yumi80 (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a basic google search shows many primary source results. 2400:2410:C861:FD00:299C:EE96:9FE5:4A4F (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are abundant. 2400:2410:C861:FD00:299C:EE96:9FE5:4A4F (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Liliana mentioned above, we should avoid primary sources, if possible. The issue here is secondary source material. It's quite clear that he's published a lot of material, as you can see from a basic search online and the links to articles on Wikipedia (links on pages for China Mieville and Emily St. John Mandel, for example, with many more that haven't been linked). Yumi80 (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (see above) Yumi80 (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned, this name has many links to articles on Wikipedia, as the man is an anthologist. Primary sources are easy to find. Extropian73 (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are many more that haven't been linked yet. 2400:2410:C861:FD00:299C:EE96:9FE5:4A4F (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The process has begun to (de)orphanize the article. There are many links to the name from prominent writers on Wikipedia pages, including Emily St. John Mandel. 2400:2410:C861:FD00:299C:EE96:9FE5:4A4F (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The wording of the bio may need to change due to lack of secondary sources, but he clearly has many links within Wikipedia and works published with a variety of well-known publications. Yumi80 (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the provision of changing the bio. There are many pages on Wikipedia with the same "notability" standards. Please check Chris Kelso for reference. Yumi80 (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yumi80, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Kelso's notability (or lack thereof) has got zilch to do with Grassmann's notability. Also, please stop with the multiple voting. This is yer ~~third~~ fourth keep vote in this discussion, which is ~~two~~ three too many CiphriusKane (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong - the Wikipedia standards should apply to everyone. 2400:2410:C861:FD00:21FE:C2CA:AC9F:90F9 (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did ye even read the link I provided? CiphriusKane (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who originally PRODded the article, delete. I didn't find anything in terms of sources to that man's name when I googled him, and that's surprising - usually I'd find at least a few unreliable sources. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're referring to secondary sources? There's a lot of material on his publications and biographies on various websites. 2400:2410:C861:FD00:299C:EE96:9FE5:4A4F (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources should be generally avoided. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking in sources - either primary or secondary. Lamona (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Honestly, I would have been tempted to CSD this for close paraphrasing. Comparing it to his Titan Books bio, there's some clear copypasting of sentences going on. Also, to address the keep votes - being prolific and being notable are two different things. What counts is in depth independent reliable sources (i.e. what others say about the subject), not how many times their name comes up on Google or Wikipedia, and everything that I'm seeing is either dependent on the subject (bios, their own work) or is a passing mention (the Locus Online source added by the IP just names Grassmann as the editor and lacks any depth about the subject) CiphriusKane (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A CSD doesn't make sense here. What others say about a subject are based on the subject himself. In truth, this isn't different from many other author pages on Wikipedia, as Yumi80 mentions below. 2400:2410:C861:FD00:21FE:C2CA:AC9F:90F9 (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
G12 - copyright infringement, G11 - blatant advertising. Other author pages don't look like a mirror of their official bio. And if the sources are relaying what Grassman is saying then it's not independent and therefore doesn't contribute to notability CiphriusKane (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yumi80 was blocked for being a sockpuppet of Extropian73, the article creator. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved all of their top-level votes into a {{hat}}. The /64 range has also been blocked for 1 week for the non-checkuser IPv6s by GirthSummit. SWinxy (talk) 21:19, 14 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. Less Unless (talk) 07:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Mini Challenge UK[edit]

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

Another contested redirect - wholly unsourced, so reverting the redirect was a violation of WP:BURDEN. Appears to be zero in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, 0 sources or significant coverage. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to editing. Article is not finished, please advise on how to move article to drift form. WezMan444 (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to provide sources proving that the information in the article has been subject to significant coverage. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now or draftify - Article was only recreated a day or so before this AfD was started, and while it may have been better off in draft space not much time was given for it to be developed before being threatened with deletion. Doing a WP:BEFORE search on this subject is difficult due to deluge of false positives returned, but some leads do show up, such as in Autosport or the Irish Independent, so it is more than possible that sufficient sourcing exists. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per HumanBodyPiloter5's rationale. While I don't think WezMan444 acted correctly by reverting the redirect (perhaps because they're "new to editing"), neither did the nominator by opening this AfD just hours after the recreation. This article is obviously work in progress - and there's a possibility that it meets WP:GNG. Incubate in draftspace, give WezMan444 et al time to develop it, and then we will see. MSport1005 (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify To give the editor more time to hopefully improve the article and establish notability. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:05, 15 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Women’s Euro 2029[edit]

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

Very clearly WP:TOOSOON. No coverage in any sources (reliable or otherwise), since even bidding for the host is multiple years away. Tollens (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football. Tollens (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - likely to happen, but far too early. Giant Snowman 14:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's too early something could delay this event from happening.--1keyhole (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per point 1 of WP:CRYSTALBALL and it being WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Oppose draft, nothing will change in six months that will change notability. // Timothy :: talk 14:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify at least until qualifiers begin or a host is announced. No information is currently known about the tournament. Frank Anchor 16:30, 12 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michalis Demetriou[edit]

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

Stats stub with no evidence of meeting WP:SPORTBASIC. I was able to find Apollon 1954 Retro Stories but this source is inappropriate as it is written by a contributor and hosted on a fan site for Apollon Limassol FC, so clearly not WP:RS. SPORTBASIC itself says Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Furthermore, SPORTBASIC also asks for multiple sources so clearly, even if the above source is okay, we still require at least one more in-depth source. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 01:00, 11 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Buckley[edit]

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

I'm not convinced that this person in any way meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for academics. Their most well-known book (according to the article and the only cited reference, a brief obituary) is in quite a few libraries (but whether it's a high number for a book like this, I can't say) ... but I can't find any significant coverage of this book anywhere. I can't find any exceptional coverage of his death (this doesn't count). Also, the article contains details that are not normally considered at all encyclopedic (e.g. his feelings about a rugby match), leading me to believe that the author may have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Graham87 08:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, England, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find anything to support this person's notability. In terms of NACADEMIC he fails on searches of "Martin Bucky" and "Martin Wildred Buckey". No indication that he meets the criteria. Lamona (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above, cannot find sources for notability, only small death notices, nor is the article in a salvageable state. Dank Jae 01:52, 11 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. Aoidh (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Svetlana Viktorovna Erkhova[edit]

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

Not a real politician, no parliament elections; fails WP ANYBIO, possible spam (absent in Russian wikipedia) Edit.pdf (talk) 08:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the subject has a knack for generating publicity about themselves but these are routine roles and non-notable awards. I can’t really assess Russian sources well but it all looks pretty unconvincing. Mccapra (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
btw, if they were, the Russian wikipedia page would exist. Edit.pdf (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES, and WP:SALT, as this appears to be some propaganda artist for an authoritarian government. In 2023, everyone knows we are not a free web host for a legislative spokesperson's LinkedIn and personal soapbox. Get off of our lawn. Bearian (talk) 14:52, 14 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 speedy delete. This page was moved around from main space to draft space to project space. I technically deleted it because it was a broken redirect but at this point, I can't locate the original page that was tagged for deletion, it's just turned into a circular bunch of broken redirects. Safe to say that this discussion is closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RPDR Contestant Progress[edit]

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

Not an article, fails WP:NOTSTATS. I first thought it was perhaps intended as a template and moved it to draft to give the editor a chance to correct this, but it was moved back to mainspace unchanged. Fram (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that as a template, it would be a duplicate of Template:DragRaceProgressTable/15. Fram (talk) 08:48, 7 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Valu[edit]

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

No reliable sources nor in-depth coverage; only routine announcements. Doesn't pass WP NCROP Edit.pdf (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The newspaper coverage is in-depth and reliable. I added some references. I would expect almost every company traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange to be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a stunningly poor nomination by User:Edit.pdf. The article is well referenced - and even it it weren't ... really, Pet Valu - one of the biggest retail chains in the nation? Also, the nominator has cited WP:NCROP in other recent AFDs - which doesn't exist. It's hard to believe it's a typo, especially after others have commented, without any corrections being made. Nfitz (talk) 16:55, 13 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 07:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Si Yo Me Muero[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NSONG: "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple,[2] non-trivial[3] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries or reviews. This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work.[4] Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created."

Sources are 3 promos, a database entry and two charts. BEFORE showed mentions in the context of the album and promos, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 02:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Puerto Rico. Shellwood (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion: previously PRODded.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSONG. LibStar (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It might be a cliche, but "as per nom" applies case here :) MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:18, 15 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 and with two silent relists, no indication further input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 17:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barnea Jaffa Lande[edit]

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

I can't find any sources that indicate that WP:CORP is met SmartSE (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Israel. SmartSE (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review. I just read WP:CORP and I concluded that all sources are reliable in the article and covers the subject in a good manner. As said above it is a distinguished law firm in Tel Aviv, so I think even if not from English speaking region it can have a page in the English language because most of the sources are in ENG language. I also came across these law firms in this category and I think the one I created is far more better and well sourced then most of them here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Law_firms_of_Israel To name a few you can see these, Balter, Guth, Aloni & Co., Amit, Pollak, Matalon & Co., Gornitzky & Co., M. Firon & Co. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GodTown (talk • contribs) 11:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:46, 7 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. Aoidh (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cherish Alexander[edit]

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

Lots of sources, but most of them are closely connected to the subject or are otherwise unreliable or passing mentions. Don't be fooled by the links to the Cannes Film Festival and the Venice Film Festival (both major ones obviously), the actual "festivals" meant are the Cannes World Film Festival (no importance at all) and the Venice Short Film Festival (ditto). There are also some weird things, like this Cherish Alexander, born in 1982, claiming to be the same as the "Cherish Alexander" who won "Our Little Miss" in 1982[39]. Oh, and despite being brand new, her about page on her website (page called "Journey" there[40]) ends with a link to this Wikipedia page, giving a rather strong impression that this page was created by or on behalf of the artist. In any case, they aren't notable[41] and haven't been picked up by independent news sources. Fram (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Texas. Fram (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2023-04 ✍️ create ← 2023-03 move to → Draft:Cherish Alexander

--Cewbot (talk) 00:04, 15 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 2008 Summer Olympics closing ceremony#Final last closing events. Star Mississippi 17:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing Beijing, I Love Beijing[edit]

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

I don't think it's been widely distributed and it hasn't won any awards or had a chart position in the sales charts. Caiyayu (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Caiyayu (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Olympics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2008 Summer Olympics closing ceremony#Final last closing events: Found no coverage beyond passing mentions in articles about the closing ceremony as a whole. WP:CHARTS doesn't have a Chinese chart for the time the song released, and I don't see it winning any awards either (although I do see a disturbing lack of apparent notability amongst most of Category:Chinese music awards; may have to look more into those). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:16, 7 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 Faye Wong#1996: Fuzao and Cinepoly EPs. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Faye Disc[edit]

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

I think this article should be deleted. This article is too light and meaningless. Lack of information and references. The songs and records about Faye Wong can be found from the page of singer Faye Wong. I think this article has no meaning. Hhhh2 (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hhhh2 (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Faye Wong#1996: Fuzao and Cinepoly EPs (with the history preserved under the redirect), where Faye Disc already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources about Faye Disc (Chinese: 菲碟). Cunard (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. I also didn't find coverage in my search. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced. BEFORE showed nothing with IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No objection to redirect after delete sinec article has no sources. // Timothy :: talk 15:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've added a source from Vogue to the article. I prefer retaining the article's history under the redirect per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion as it contains useful content like the track listing, the infobox, and the image of the album cover, which can be reused if editors find significant coverage in reliable sources in the future. Cunard (talk) 07:43, 13 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) 14:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Ravi Pegasus[edit]

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

The article fails to establish why it is notable. Director has only directed one low-key film. Best to redirected to Ravu(talk) 00:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Too early. His second film has not been released. He is the chairman of a company named Pegasus but all Google results are passing mentions. DareshMohan (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator says the subject has only directed one film. but the article about the subject in Pravasi Express - https://www.pravasiexpress.com/ajit-ravi-pegasuss-next-movie-venture-august-27-is-all-set-to-release/ clearly states August 27 is his 3rd movie. The first movie Ravu is censored and released in Kerala theatres as Malayalam Movie in 2013. Second movie Thottal Vidathu was censored and released as a Tamil movie in Tamil Nadu in 2014 and the 3rd movie August 27 which completed it's production and waiting release as per lot of news sources. Thus clearly passes and cannot be tagged WP:Too early. Moreover he is notable for a controversy which was subject for most of the newspapers and he is also known as the show director of many important beauty contests like Miss South India, Mrs South India, Miss Asia etc..

Also he did the main lead role in the movie Ravu and Thottal Vidathu and directed and produced 3 movies. So clearly he has done "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" and thus clearly should be kept Christopheronthemove (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete :Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Being involved in controversy does not offer you a Wikipedia page. All the sources are about some of his movies. This clearly fails the standards of wikipedia's notability. A person cannot be also notable because of some paparazzi news coverage about their illicit relationship. 112.133.211.182 (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment Clossing admin please note this IP came from no where. His first edit after hibernation from 2018 is here. I doubt its either the nominator or someone close to them Christopheronthemove (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as per WP:FILMMAKER it fails as user 112.133.211.182 mentioned being controversy doesn't make page.There are multiple people who have controversy.So do they also get a Wikipedia page? Can u tell who wrote this page https://www.pravasiexpress.com/ajit-ravi-pegasuss-next-movie-venture-august-27-is-all-set-to-release/ ? who wrote this? is this a press release? and it too early to make page for him WP:Too early Monhiroe (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC) struck second vote by the nominator, the nomination statement is counted as the vote, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment Clossing admin please note that the above deletion comment is by the nominator himself. He has not signed the nomination and the comment and also I doubt if delete vote is legally possible for nominator himself in AFD ? Christopheronthemove (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - when I see such strong feelings for one to nominate and then vote without signing, I always start suspecting the nomination is valid. So I'm looking at the article, and I think it's well-sourced although more work is needed, definitely not for deletion though. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Shahid. That is an unwarranted conclusion, based on someone just forgetting to add their signature. WP:AGF please. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Done one film and another one yet to release. There is very weak coverage from sources. It is not enough pass WP:GNG. 117.254.35.179 (talk) 14:38, 13 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Secret history[edit]

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

Multiple longstanding issues per maintenance tag. No SIGCOV, GNG not proven, long and generally crufty. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Starts as a DICDEF then turns towards the fantastical with time travel... Not really sure how we'd even source this. All I find are links for the "Secret History of..." TV show. Oaktree b (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Category:Secret histories. This is a "literary genre" that describes certain works of fiction. The current article is very "TVTropes"-esque, and has no sourced content that could form the basis of an article. The term can be defined on the category page. Walt Yoder (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't go for full deletion, I would support this as an AtD. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reviewed this article when it was originally tagged as a PROD. I was surprised to find such an active and long page history. Some form of this article has existed for over 19 years now. Of course, the fate of articles rests on notability and verifiability but I was surprised to find editors returning to edit this article over the past two decades. To discourage recreations, it might be better to redirect this article rather than deleting the page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some promising sources: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46] (p. 600), [47], [48]. I'm on my phone so I haven't checked these out in detail, but I'd wager SIGCOV is easily established, though the article may need a total TNT regardless. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reduce to a stub. The topic is definitely notable, as shown by the above sources, but the current text of the article is almost completely unsourced and mostly trivia. Anyone looking for this kind of content can indeed find it at TV Tropes. But as I say, there's a real topic here, and I think it would be better to keep a page at this title for the benefit of serious researchers, even if it's only a one-line stub with a list of sources attached. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Oaktree b, Walt Yoder and Liz, in case they want to revise their !votes in light of the sources provided above. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have journal access, but based on the abstracts, I think it is safe to assume an article could be written. But until somebody does write that article, I still prefer replacing the current content with a redirect to the category. Walt Yoder (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think this is an appropriate time to invoke WP:TNT. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. A stub article on a literary genre could work, but would need to be remade entirely. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have removed the WP:EXAMPLEFARM.Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the absence of any further interest, I plan to go ahead w/ a BOLD redirect after the closure of this AfD. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to WP:SYNTH. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:22, 15 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Coulter[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The lead is misleading as she appears to have 'not' been a part of the Rio Olympics, actually... but there is still extensive coverage about her competition results, along with an entire CNN segment about her. (CNN: [49]) The sources in the article are generally sufficient and pass WP:RS, but I can pull out more if needed on request. Nomader (talk) 06:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomader What would you say were the WP:THREE best sources covering Coulter? Alvaldi (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alvaldi: I wrote out a detailed thing for all three and I somehow didn't save it and lost the draft. Very frustrating. I also changed to Weak Keep which feels more accurate for where I'm at with this one. A more simplified version is below (also I changed to Weak Keep after diving for more sources -- I think that this article will never go past being a stub and she is barely notable enough to satisfy WP:GNG and the recommended requirements listed at WP:NEQUESTRIAN per her wins at the Adequan Grand Prix and the Longines FEI World Cup Jumping Sacramento competition in 2016):
The CNN segment that I linked to above.

The Palm Beach Post article about her win in the Adequan Grand Prix, an FEI World Cup competition.

A feature in Riding Magazine about her (although, I haven't been able to find any editorial explanation and I question its legitimacy, and if it doesn't qualify, I would say this article at The Gaitpost which does appear to have an actual editorial team and experts on horse riding writing the articles).
Nomader (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Participating in the Rio olympics does not satisfy WP:SPORTSPERSON which states "sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor" (emphasis added). Daughter of notable person isn't reason enough as per WP:INVALIDBIO MetricMaster (talk) 08:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]
@MetricMaster: Agree with you on the point about participating in the Olympics, but it's worth further noting that she didn't actually make the team and the article is incorrect here. Nomader (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I should note that the Delete vote comes from a sock.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the sources listed by Nomader are just about adequate for GNG. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources provided by Nomader demonstrate the subject passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTSBIO.4meter4 (talk) 14:27, 8 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 Porto. Should an article under this title exist? Likely, yes. But this is so duplicative that it doesn’t serve the reader. Feel free to spin it out again when it resembles ptwiki’s coverage. Courcelles (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of Porto[edit]

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

Already covered in the Porto article Chidgk1 (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Timeline of Porto The Bibliography section links directly there anyway. Preferably that article should be merged with this one. Felix Croc (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or reverse merge to Porto#history. I suspect that the account in that article is fuller. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different merge targets were suggested, which one would be more appropriate?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reduce the Porto article's history section to summary style. Furius (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Who would benefit from that? The History section of the Porto article is not excessively long, comparable with the History sections of similar articles. Delete. Athel cb (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As Eastmain indicates below, the history of Porto is well and truly detailed enough to sustain a longer article. Compare History of London, History of Berlin. At the moment, the history section on Porto is irregular, going into detail at some points (Aula de Náutica and the stock exchange) and totally omitting information at others (events since 1919). Converting to summary style would allow a more even level of coverage of the whole history on the Porto article, without losing details more suitable for a stand alone article. Furius (talk) 07:51, 7 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! 05:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The corresponding article in the Portuguese Wikipedia at pt:História_do_Porto has a lot of references and a list of books about the history of Porto. I think the city has enough history to warrant a separate article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looked at this AfD earlier and wasn't sure what to suggest, but now that Eastmain has directed attention to the Portuguese Wikipedia article I think there's likely more than enough to warrant a separate article on Porto's history. It is after all Portugal's second city. The article obviously needs referencing; without such I don't see what bits can be merged. Rupples (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is heavily duplicative of Porto#History to the point that this is a disservice to the reader, who would be confused reading the main article and then following the "main article" link and finding this that's largely the same content and paragraph structure with nothing more. A fuller article here can absolutely be written and I welcome such expansion from ptwiki, but with such poor summary style there should not be this sort of redundancy at this time – it should only be kept if someone's actually willing to do so. Reywas92^Talk 16:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge As per Reywas92. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:23, 15 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 The Mix (charity). Consensus is against a standalone article. Star Mississippi 16:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Get Connected UK[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Created by a single purpose editor. 8 of the 13 sources are its own website. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Defunct website with no mentions other than this page it seems. I can't find anything about it.Oaktree b (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh that's weird i found it listed on nhs website link 1keyhole (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge excerpts into The Mix (charity), the successor organisation. Wire723 (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage by The Times, Charity Times, and Third Sector (magazine) (shown as references in the article) is enough to show notability. Defunct organizations shouldn't be deleted just because they are defunct. "Once notable, always notable." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I Found reference from bbc children in need website as well link added it to article. 1keyhole (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a link to their website, not coverage of the org. JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BBC Children in need raises money for charitable organizations such as Get Connected and they also give out coverage so people can find those services that's why the charity is listed on the children in need website. 1keyhole (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is 100% irrelevant to the question of notability. JoelleJay (talk) 23:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails NCORP. The Times article is basically a PR puff piece (even containing a link to the site at the end); the Charity Times one is obviously not independent or secondary as it's an announcement from the org giving the subject an award and consists entirely of one quote from a judge; and the Third Sector piece is a routine merger announcement drawn entirely from a press release. JoelleJay (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the charity had many notable ties with the national health service trusts, schools, and other youth organizations throughout the united kingdom --1keyhole (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean by "notable ties"? It needs to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Mix (charity), or Keep, per Eastmain etc. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. JoelleJay (talk) 06:02, 8 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) 14:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spyro (singer)[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He is still an up-and-coming artist who is new to the Nigerian music scene. A Google search of the subject doesn't show coverage independent of him. The article makes multiple references to his songs charing on Apple Music music chart. However, this chart is considered a WP:BADCHART. References 2, 4, and 10 are unreliable promotional references. References 1, 5, 7, 8, 9 are not independent of the subject. It is simply WP:TOOSOON for the subject to have a stand-alone article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Subject is popular in Nigeria and currently has one of the most popular songs, the unreliable references can be changed and more reliable and independent sources added, the article needs to be improved not deleted Princeansa (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Princeansa: Spyro having a "popular" song doesn't mean that he automatically deserves to have a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. This "popular" song of his hasn't charted on any country's official music chart. He hasn't won or received a nomination for a major award in Nigeria or anywhere else in Africa. Just because he has a song with Tiwa Savage and Davido doesn't mean he automatically deserves a stand-alone article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If he has "Most Popular" song that means he is getting radio airplay and hence meets WP:MUSICBIO. One of his songs peaked at #2 in Nigeria according to this chart. Royal88888 (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal88888: Where is the source that says he has the "most popular" song? This statement is completely subjective. The subject has only released six songs and none of them meet WP:NSONG. Simply having one song chart isn't enough, especially when there aren't sources independent of him. He has not been discussed in reliable sources and none of his songs have been crticitally reviewed. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes one charting song is enough per WP:MUSICBIO which says: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." This chart will show that his track peaked at #2 in Nigeria. I am sure there are other sources out there to verify this, if someone knows where to check. I simply have no knowledge of music or charts in Nigeria. There could be some sources in non-English sources. Royal88888 (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. check this Article that confirms the #2 chart position in Nigeria and this article states that the track "has become the biggest song in the continent." Royal88888 (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turntable is a reliable chart; it is the only credible chart in Nigeria. I already acknowledged that only one of his songs charted; the only reason it charted is because of the Tiwa Savage feature. Outside of that one chart entry, the song itself isn't notable and doesn't meet WP:NSONG. None of the subject's songs have been discussed and the subject himself has not received significant coverage or coverage independent of him. The source did said that and also said it is a "global hit" and "the biggest song in the world with over 1 million videos on Tik Tok". Where is the evidence to support any of these statements? Ghana Web is not a credible source. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , he meets WP:MUSICBIO, because One of his songs peaked at #2 in Nigeria according to this chart. He also has top trending song in Ghana and he also has upcoming tour in Europe, so he most likely will meet criterion #4 soon. Plus I found tons more coverage in Google news, so if you don't see them, I can show you. The 2 linked here are new articles that I added.Royal88888 (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, his song "who is your guy" top of charts in more than 10 countries it was No. 2 on apples music Nigeria and No. 1 on YouTube music chart you can find that here and he has a good coverage on google and has collaborations with Top artists like Davido, Tiwa savage and mayorkun, his previous single billing was also a very popular song that was topping harts you can check here for full stats Princeansa (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, his song "who is your guy" being the most searched song in Nigeria on Google for first quarter of 2023 according to premium times shows the artiste meets WP:MUSICBIO, he also has good coverage on secondary reliable sources Obulesuccess (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Keep, his song "who is your guy" was named as the most searched song in Nigeria on Google in the first quarter of 2023 you can find that here Princeansa (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)~~ striking multiple !votes from the same editor. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Articles about him finding God and the like, very much celebrity fluff. Non-notable musician with no charted singles. No reason to keep the article, we aren't here to promote artists. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he has 2 charted singles and a currently charting remix with Tiwa savage, he is most likely to be nominated for a notable award later this year Nenub (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks in-depth coverage supporting that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:33, 15 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. And yes, saying up front that this was not an explicit !vote made in the discussion, however I believe it makes sense as an outcome for several reasons. Consensus is against keeping this in mainspace at this time. Among those arguing for a deletion is that there is no evidence as of yet that this election is notable. They do not appear to be saying it could never be notable, just that it is unlikely given the factors that relate to mayoral notability. Those arguing for retention show sourcing that could eventually pass EVENTCRIT when the election happens. While that is not exactly within six months, it's a reasonable timeline and we have editors interested in working on the article. If the coverage does not eventuate, this can be handled va G13 and or/MFD. Star Mississippi 16:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Carmel mayoral election[edit]

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

Election is of negligible importance.

Carmel is as suburban city. It is a secondary city in its metropolitan area, being a satellite to Indianapolis. Therefore, its mayoralty is of this city is not as consequential a position as a number of cities of similar size in Indiana, as those cities are the primary political and population centers of their metropolitan areas. Carmel is an oversized suburb, in effect. Its population is a result of its massive 49 square miles of area (which is more than sixteen square miles more than the size of Manhattan Island and comes close to the area size of the entirety of Boston). If it were subdivided into separate cities the area size of a standard suburb, none would be of substantial population. Carmel has the very low population density of 2,032.3/sq mi. Countless satellite cities and suburbs with substantially greater population density and importance than Carmel, such as Evanston Illinois (population density 10,041.14 per square mile and home to the prestigious Northwestern University) for instance, do not have separate articles providing coverage of its mayoral election, nor should they.

There is no individual notability established for this election. And it should be clear that Carmel lacks the importance or noteworthiness for its elections to automatically warrant coverage on this projects.

If the victor (or any candidates) become of enough notability to garner their own article, the election could be easily summarized as a section in their biographical article. If no candidates become notable enough, then that will be all the more reason why an article on the election would not be justified. This project does not need an entire article dedicated to a non-noteworthy election contested by non-noteworthy candidates. SecretName101 (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, United States of America, and Indiana. SecretName101 (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your point regarding of Carmel's population density is of little importance and has no bearing on the article. To put it into perspective other mayoral elections that have Wiki articles such as Wichita & Tucson have population densities of 2,454.05/sq mi and 2,251.44/sq mi. Additionally, Evanston can be a skewed number because of Northwestern as you pointed out as college students who do not live there full time can inflate the numbers. Carmel's population numbers are nearly identical to South Bend, Indiana which has Mayoral elections in South Bend, Indiana. Would you prefer something like that for Carmel instead?

The notability of this election stems from the fact that Carmel is 5th most populated city in Indiana and has a incumbent mayor who has been in office from 1996 retiring. Now the fact that it is the 5th most populated city in Indiana does not inherit notability in of itself. However, the race has garnered attention from major Indianapolis sources, an endorsement from someone who held a statewide office. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Grahaml35 I was framing/illustrating how Carmel is, in effect, a large suburb and not a conventional city.

South Bend, as was noted about other Indiana cities of similar size with article, is the center of its own metro area (South Bend–Mishawaka metropolitan area), is a county seat, etc. It was also, formally, a major manufacturing community in the automotive industry. And even then, only three mayoral races related to a nationally prominent-politician have separate article coverage. The remainder are condenced into a joint article aimed at compiling summaries of all mayoral elections in the city's history SecretName101 (talk) 07:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article of mayoral election history would not be warranted for Carmel. Carmel is a suburb that recently experienced a gain of population. Immense population growth in only a few decades. It has never been a major city center, however. South Bend, on the other hand, is city center of some historical and current stature. They are very different cases. South Bend had a population of over 100,000 as far back as the 1930s, when there were less than 100 US cities to exceed 100,000 in population. This garnered its elections going back decades some level of noteworthiness. Carmel doesn't come close to having any actual history of noteworthy elections.

Election history going back to 1995 would be more appropriately be summarized within James Brainard's own article. Election history before him is of next to no importance anyways. Current election has not been established as notable.SecretName101 (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article should stay for many different reasons. As I mentioned earlier in this discussion the regarding of Carmel's population density is of little importance and has no bearing on the article as other mayoral elections that have Wiki articles such as Wichita & Tucson have population densities of 2,454.05/sq mi and 2,251.44/sq mi. Carmel's population numbers are nearly identical to South Bend, Indiana which has mayoral elections articles.

Notability factors of this article include:
1. Carmel is 5th most populated city in Indiana
2. The retiring incumbent mayor was first elected when Clinton was in office.
3. Race has garnered attention from major Indianapolis sources - The Indianapolis Star, FOX59, Indianapolis Business Journal
4. Endorsement from someone who held a statewide office
5. One candidate has over 500K cash on hand which is more than some Indianapolis mayoral candidates^[1]
6. Had a live in person debate that was live streamed

These are just some factors that provide notability. These all provided by trustworthy sources. Not to mention the primary election is still over a month away. (Edit to include "Strong Keep") Grahaml35 (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of these indicate that the election is particularly notable.

1) Does not establish inherent importance for Carmel elections, as I've highlighted extensively already

2) Plenty of small municipalities have had similarly long-tenured mayors, and those too do not warrant enough notability for articles

3) Local news coverage is almost never enough to establish notability. Particularly with elections. It is beyond routine and expected for a local news outlet to cover elections in the region. Pretty much any suburb's election would meet the criteria you claim here.

4) Does not establish notability either. Also, not all that remarkable. The last mayoral election in Evanston, Illinois (for example) saw the governor of Illinois issue an endorsement.

5) That's a ridiculous amount of money for a candidate to have in this election. Don't see how that raises notability though

6) This is also super routine of elections small and large. Most universities even do this for student body president elections.

SecretName101 (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not if it was just one of them, however, the six together plus the quality coverage the article has received would qualify it to be. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://readthereporter.com/rider-has-500k-cash-on-hand-for-carmel-mayoral-race/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an average suburban election of little to no interest to anyone outside of Carmel or the Indianapolis metro; Carmel is a major city in the area, but ultimately this is an average mayoral election. Nate • (chatter) 21:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, many municipal elections this year have little to no interest to many people. I've checked other 2023 United States mayoral elections articles and this article has more trustworthy sources and/or has better coverage than Boise, Aurora, Arlington, Des Moines, Kansas City, Portland, Maine, and Savannah. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, some are these articles have sources of ActBlue donate pages which is clearly not a reliable source. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep (really the strongest possible): Candidly, I'm absolutely flabbergasted by this nomination. Why on earth would it matter if *we* find a subject boring if it receives significant news coverage? I suppose because it's a *suburban* city of only 105,928 *suburban* people that it shouldn't qualify (which I should add to the above comments, is now larger than South Bend according to 2023 population estimates)? I feel like previous Carmel elections didn't meet the WP:GNG standard because James Brainard has been Mayor *since 1996* and there isn't much interest from news sources in covering it. On the other hand, this article clearly and easily meets WP:GNG. Sources include:
- Republican Mayoral debate analysis from the Indy Star and from the Indiana Business Journal
- Coverage on the Dem running from the Indy Star
- Horse race coverage from the Monterey Herald
- Article about the current mayor deciding not to run (after being in office since 1996!! Not average at all!)
- The Times of Noblesville reporting on a surprise 4th contender
- FOX station saying the Mayor isn't running again
- Indy Star article about the 2019 primary loser running again

If an article receives significant coverage from reliable sources (which the Indy Star and these other papers clearly are), it should have an article. This should clearly have one. I've searched far and wide for any kind of notability standard that limits election coverage based on the size of the election and have found none-- if it's widely covered and meets WP:GNG, then it should clearly be kept. Nomader (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a major political center, and its governance doesn’t tend to be of major significance is what is meant. This is regional coverage. Regional coverage occurs with any election.

It’s effectively a suburb that annexed a lot of surrounding suburbs. An overgrown suburb. Not a true urban city center of major note. As a result, it does not have automatic notability. As was covered, South Bend is the primary city of its metro area and has long been a population center of note. carmel is a secondary settlement in its metro area that only recently grew as a result of suburban sprawl. There's not comprability, plus WP:Other Stuff is not a sufficient rationale SecretName101 (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you mentioned in a later comment that is purely your opinion. Additionally, any election does not receive regional coverage, especially to this extent. As I’ve mentioned the amount of coverage, this race has received with still a month to go until the primary election deems this notable. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not my rationale -- WP:GNG is. Frankly Carmel now *is* a more urban center of note than South Bend, which you brought up before. I'm a bit flabbergasted to be honest with you by your opinion here to be honest. Should we delete Portland, Maine mayoral election pages because arguably, it only has 60k people in it and it's part of the greater Boston metro area? I'm not arguing that *every* Carmel, Indiana election is notable. Far from it-- the previous one clearly wasn't (I was able to summarize it in two sentences). But this one, the first open election in a city of more than 100k people in nearly 30 years, and your approach towards "suburban" cities feels odd, candidly. Nomader (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomader For your Portland question: kinda yeah. Honestly, Portland Maine's mayoral elections should be combined into a single summarizing article rather than given their own articles. It is incredibly unjustified for them all to have separate articles. It's on my to-do list of cities to move from having separate articles for individual elections to a combined article amalgamating those. So, thank you for reminding me.

So, yeah, kinda should

However, this is a poor comparison regardless.

Portland, Maine is a very different city than Carmel. It is the primary population center of its metro area, a county seat, as well as the largest city in its entire city, garnering it political influence and consequence. What happens in Portland can often be significant to all of Maine. Are Carmel's politics really significant on a broader populace than its own citizenry? I see no evidence of that.

Additionally Portland is home to industries and of long-established economic importance/influence. It is the economic capitol of its entire state. Carmel certainly is not.

Portland, while itself small, is the primary population center of a metropolitan area in excess of half-a-million residents. The metro area that it anchors have notable economic and political consequence.

Portland is a long-established location of note and statewide/interstate regional consequence. On the otherhand, when popstar Britney Spears was born, Carmel was a suburb that was not even cracking 20,000 in population.

I hope this helps shed some light and un-flabbergast you a bit. SecretName101 (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomader Also, Portland was another (and very weak) other stuff argument that ignored:

1) the significant differences between the two cities in favor of looking at mere population (which is not an inherent signifier of political consequence, as some other deletion discussions on this project have settled)

2) The possibility (and, indeed, reality) that Portland Maine's too should not warrant individual articles for each of its mayoral elections (Portland should have a combined article, but Carmel does not warrant one, as I have noted earlier)

Also a similar other stuff argument that ignores similar differences (which I have laid out before): Your comparison to South Bend. SecretName101 (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on Carmel not warranting a combined article. I don't think that 7 election cycles worth of coverage "Mayor Jim Brainard won re-election handily again" would be anything other than routine. Carmel also had a population of 10,000 just 50 years ago, and a small town mayoral election certainly wouldn't merit any kind of coverage like this current one is getting. I'm more saying that specifically, this election should be construed as notable. (Looking at the consensus building here though, I doubt that's what is coming through to folks).

Also, I want to apologize for my bitey tone before, it was unbecoming. I was more put off by your deep aversion towards suburban cities that you were repeatedly emphasizing -- I think suburban city elections *can* be notable (and I still think that this particular one is), but I understand the point that you're trying to make. If you have a to do list somewhere in your userpage, would be happy to help you tackle some of these broader mayoral election notes that you're working on (and would be happy to move this discussion to User talk because it's probably not germane to this deletion discussion). Nomader (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for arguing that politics of most suburban cities are generally not notable is because (by the very basis of being suburban) such cities are not the a main center of their metro area. Their politics generally stay within their boundaries. Whereas, the main population/downtown centers of metro areas usually drive the politics and economic of their regions in major ways. Suburbs are, by their nature, tertiary communities within their metro area. Therefore, their politics is not usually even all that impactful upon even the rest of their metro area, let alone of note to individuals outside of those immediate environs. Obviously, it matters to those who live within the suburban city, whose schools and parks are impacted by the local elections. But that sort of coverage not what Wikipedia's goals are. SecretName101 (talk) 08:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cities like Carmel, as I was saying initially, are pretty much what happens if you draw bigger boundaries when dividing suburbia. That is all. That's why I call it an oversized suburb.

I'll pose an illustration. Let's look at the Northern Chicago suburbs. If Niles, Skokie, Lincolnwood, Morton Grove, Park Ridge, and Evanston all merged/consolidated into one government they'd have a population 223,504. Sizable, right? (and mind you, that population would be in a space under 40 sq miles, I believe, which is a significantly smaller than Carmel occupies).

Would the hypothetical this single government make the hypothetical merged area more notable in politics/economics than they are now? I don't imagine it really would all that much. And would that suburban city rival any other city of its size in importance? Not at all. Certainly wouldn't remotely rival the importance even of much smaller cities like, say, Salt Lake City; Hartford, Connecticut; or Providence, Rhode Island. Those cities are important centers. This hypothetical suburban city would still just as much be a swath of suburban space as it currently is. The only change would be a unified management of government resources. Being over 200,000 in population under a single government wouldn't suddenly make that land more important than it currently is.

Does that make better sense of what I was trying to say earlier?

Also, its s actually kind of insulting to countless other suburban areas of similar makeup to say that Carmel is far more important than they are because it happens to have a single government for a large suburban area while the other similar suburban areas are divided into more conventionally-sized suburbs. And we certainly don't have the manpower nor subject area to begin covering all suburbs. That is why the importance of a city should be appraised on more than just population alone.

SecretName101 (talk) 08:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomader Also, thank you immensely for apologizing for taking a more aggressive tone. I appreciate that greatly. SecretName101 (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have substantially improved the article using reliable sources. Per WP:HEY, pinging @SecretName101:, @Grahaml35:, @MrSchimpf: to see if this improvement is substantial enough or changes any views on it. Nomader (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomader The issue is not related to reliability of the information so much as the notability of the topic itself. from a cursory look at the reliability, I trust you did a good job there.

It is not a notable election, in my opinion. SecretName101 (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I'm wondering is -- why is the topic itself not considered a notable election? Per the general notability guideline, a topic is "presumed" to be notable when it has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Does this not meet that criterion? (And also, adding this in late, but thank you for saying that too.) Nomader (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomader This does not have sufficient coverage, for starters. It has nothing going beyond routine local coverage. SecretName101 (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nomader. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)<noinclu*de></noinclude>[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:NEVENT when looking at specific criteria at WP:EVENTCRIT. The sources have not demonstrated enduring historical significance as required in criteria 1. Per WP:PERSISTENCE events need to show sustained coverage across time; and all of the sources here are within a very short window of time. Likewise, the source are all local and have not demonstrated the event meets " widespread (national or international) impact" as required in criteria 2 of EVENTCRIT. Further, as a political event that is routinely covered in local news, the topic must demonstrate sources outside of local news coverage to prove notability per criterias 3 and 4 of EVENTCRIT and WP:GEOSCOPE; something that has not been demonstrated with the sources in the article or this AFD. Lastly, some of the sources are simply mirrors of each other or produced by the same media conglomerate, and overall there could be a greater diversity of sources per WP:DIVERSE. 4meter4 (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points, thanks for making them. I'd argue that for the WP:DIVERSE piece of this, it isn't difficult to pull sources from outside the Indy Star, but that's more of a reflection of me quickly pulling up sources for this AfD to improve the article. I'd also argue that WP:EVENTCRIT makes it clear that criteria 2 only means that a subject is very likely to be notable and isn't a requirement to meet, and that the background information (and the longer-term coverage about whether the Mayor was going to retire or not) indicates that this election meets the duration of coverage requirement in WP:PERSISTENCE. Previous Carmel elections likely won't meet the threshold and I highly doubt that future ones will, but I think that this one does. Nomader (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t agree with that assessment. PERSISTENCE requires continued coverage AFTER the event (“enduring historical significance”) which is not what we see here. Further, the speculative reporting on the mayor’s potential retirement beforehand is only tangentially related to the election itself, and isn’t significant coverage of the actual election as an event. Further, we would need to see national or international media coverage to pass EVENTCRIT; sources only within state of Indiana do not meet that threshold. In my opinion not enough time has elapsed since the passing of the election (well actually it hasn’t happened yet) to accurately judge whether this topic is notable because it is simply WP:TOOSOON. We need time for journalists and academics to publish literature on the election in retrospect. If they don’t, then the election shouldn’t have an article. If they do then we should create one, but not before. 4meter4 (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You would be hard-pressed to find any national or international media coverage on any mayoral elections in 2023 other than the Chicago mayoral election. Additionally, national or international coverage is not a requirement. Grahaml35 (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Grahaml35 that is not true. Philadelphia and other elections are garnering coverage too.

What you are effectively saying is "you'd be hard pressed to find national or international media coverage of any elections except those with significant notability". Which is the whole point. This election lacks that. SecretName101 (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I missed Philly. However, Akron, Arlington, Aurora, Boise, Colorado Springs, Columbus, Denver, Des Moines, Fort Worth, Green Bay, Hartford, Houston, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Knoxville, Lincoln, Manchester, Memphis, Nashville, Portland, Pueblo, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, Savannah, South Bend, Spokane, Tampa, Tucson, and Wichita all do not. 30/34 do not for those counting. I firmly believe a lot of those deserve to be deleted before this article. Some articles are pathetic in their lack of information and sources. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually another thing that I was thinking about -- there was an absolutely disgusting trainwreck mayoral elections nomination in 2020 that nominated hundreds of articles, that would probably be worth evaluating in detail for sources. If this is where we decide to draw the line in the sand (which to be clear, I am arguing that we definitely shouldn't be as I think it passes the EVENTCRIT guideline 4meter4 brought up above and passes GNG), there should be a slew of nominations to follow-up to this. Nomader (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomader Worth noting that a bulk of articles nominated in that past bulk deletion nomination have since (largely by me) been merged into single summary articles on mayoral elections in their parent city. And most others that were nominated in that are on my to-do list for the same treatment. SecretName101 (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good flag, thanks for pointing that out (and for your work on it). I might start digging in depending on how this AfD closes. Nomader (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. Although I stand by what I said above, I can definitely see how you can come to a different conclusion here as well (thanks for articulating your perspective here so well). I believe that Brainard's national media stature on his approach to roundabouts (which is weirdly high for such an oddball topic, including The Economist, WaPo (which refers to him as basically a "monarch"), USA Today, NYT) means that there should be a plethora of coverage once the election occurs about both his retirement and his replacement. I'd ask that if this is deleted (which I don't think that it should to be clear), that it be sent into draft space or userfy'd so if sources pop after the election is concluded, we can easily bring this back and not lose all of the work here. Nomader (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is about a local election to be held in the future, of routine context and uncertain notability, at best. Perhaps, come November, something would bestow upon this event enough fame, for some reason or other. But, we have no way of knowing that! The sources invoked are nothing more than routine local reportage about a local election without any trace of wider significance; there are literally thousands of reports like this every day. Yes, we could have all of them here, but, let it be noted, Wikipedia is not a collection of haphazard information, not a directory, and certainly not a newspaper.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Gnome (talk • contribs) 09:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the omission. -The Gnome (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see the thousands of reports or even a similar number of sources to those on this article for the larger population cities of Brandon, Florida, Palm Bay, Florida, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and/or Erie, Pennsylvania. You can't do it because they do not exist. I know Wiki is WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:RUMOUR, and WP:NOTCATALOG. I am not implying or stating that is. None of this coverage is routine. Search information for the Carmel 2019 election - there is practically none because it wasn't notable. However, 2023 is. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

I will offer further evidence that the mayoralty of cities like Carmel are generally not noteworthy enough to garner heavy coverage on this project. Cities that are not a central center of their metro area often just don't have mayoralties of inherent notability. One should look to the fact that this project does not afford many similar cities' current mayors articles of their own. Many mayors of Tempe, Arizona do not have articles. The current mayors of Chula Vista, California; Scottsdale, Arizona; Chandler, Arizona; Peoria, Arizona; Surprise, Arizona; Anaheim, California; North Las Vegas, Nevada; Irving, Texas; Santa Clarita, California; Frisco, Texas; Sparks, Nevada; Everett, Washington; Langley, British Columbia (district municipality); Henderson, Nevada; Arlington, Texas; Santa Ana, California all lack an article of their own. All of these cities are more populous than Carmel. Other cities that are close in populous to Carmel where this is the case include Pickering, Ontario.

Side note; @Grahaml35: I know its upsetting that one of your first original articles might be deleted for lacking notability. But it's better you learn now how to figure out notability than spend substantial time on a large number of non-notable elections only to see them later all get deleted for this same reason. Perhaps, if the the mayor elected after this obtains noteworthiness themselves some of the content/code here could be repurposed in a section of the article detailing their campaign/election. Reminder though, though: I don't think notability will come automatically for the next mayor upon their election. In my opinion, being mayor of Carmel is not an influential or particularly noteworthy thing itself unless you do something that itself is significantly noteworthy while in office). SecretName101 (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... It is had to communicate with you on this as you seem to have blinders on to any information communicated by myself or any other contributor on this page. I never implied or said "notability will come automatically for the next mayor upon their election". You purely and continue to use your opinion to impose on this article and ignore many many many sources on this page. Per your page and your continuous defense of it, you seem to very interested in South Bend; which other contributors suggest that Carmel has become more noteworthy than South Bend you should possibly stop comparing the two. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Grahaml35 You have misread what I said. I never claimed you had said that notability will come automatically for the next mayor. I am only cautioning you not to publish an article on the next mayor too early if you consider doing that in the future.

You seem to be adopting an aggressive tone in this reply, which is disheartening as my ping to you was actually an attempt to reach out and reassure you not to let the potential deletion upset you. It was a friendly gesture that you seem to be greeting with an offense.

You and Nomader also are the only editors in this deletion discussion that has argued that Carmel is more noteworthy than South Bend. I'm genuinely curious whether these "other contributors" making that suggestion are buried?

Ironically, YOU perhaps "seem to have blinders on to any information communicated by myself or any other contributor on this page" since I have many times here drawn a clear distinction between communities such as South Bend (long sizable population center; has been home to notable industry garnering it economic significance; center of its own metropolitan area therefore of greater political consequence) and Carmel (overgrown suburb that is a tertiary population center in its metro area, only recently garnered a sizable population, and of negligible established political consequence beyond of its own populace). Please re-read this section if you missed the vast number of times I have outlined that distinction.

Best regards, and hope you'll reconsider what seems to be a somewhat aggressive tact to someone simply reaching out a hand to you. SecretName101 (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize for my snippy tone. It was hard to understand with your intention previous comment. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All this talk about the elections in other cities is not helpful and is throwing this AFD off track. This is a classic WP:OTHERSTUFF argument which we do not consider valid at AFD. We don't need to analyze similar cities because we evaluate AFDs on individual cases. The main issue here is the sourcing isn't strong enough to pass WP:EVENTCRIT with this particular election. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, and it is very possible that once the election has passed the sourcing to prove EVENTCRIT will materialize. In which case this article was created WP:TOOSOON. In the mean time, we are not a news service or a crystal ball, and we shouldn't be writing on individual future events until they meet the threshold of WP:EVENTCRIT policy.4meter4 (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A quote from the IndyStar describes how important and notable this elections. Here is a quote "There's one thing that's clear — Carmel voters will make a choice for mayor with real impact on the city's direction." I will work into the article today. ^[1] Grahaml35 (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is anything more than stating the obvious; a new mayor in any city is going to do that. WP:EVENTCRIT criteria 2 requires "widespread (national or international) impact". Demonstrating local impact doesn't confer notability under the guideline's language.4meter4 (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a requirement. That is a guideline and tool to easily identify if an article is notable. However, it WP:EVENTCRIT states national or global reporting is preferred it does NOT it is a requirement for an article to be notable. Additionally, The Indianapolis Star is not a little local paper. It is a statewide paper and has the largest circulation in the state. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Grahaml35 Indianapolis Star is an Indianapolis-based paper. Its coverage of suburban Indy elections is as local as the Chicago Tribune's coverage suburban Chicago elections is local (that's to say that it 100% is local coverage). SecretName101 (talk) 02:22, 13 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 Mortal Kombat characters. Star Mississippi 16:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noob Saibot[edit]

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

Aside from being revealed as the undead original Sub-Zero, he really hasn't contributed anything significant to the series, which has certainly stymied any significant reception he could've received. There's one 2021 in-depth profile by Polygon but nothing else noteworthy was found; it's mainly the usual quips and recycled listicles. Could either be merged into the general list or Sub-Zero since he's basically an extension of the character. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Games. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Mortal Kombat characters - lacks any standalone notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Fails WP:SIGCOV. The same thing on Quan Chi's article which has one piece but lacks third-party sources. Both failing notability. GlatorNator (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sub-Zero (Mortal Kombat). Maybe something has changed with the lore, but if Noob Saibot is the original Sub-Zero, wouldn't it make sense to cover him under that page instead of a generic list of all MK characters? It seems a lot of this chracter's appearances are already mentioned there, though some could be merged as well probably. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never thought about that but it's not a bad idea. Edited my nomination as a result. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Noob Saibot was his own character for more than a decade, and that reveal was a plot twist, I feel it makes more sense to redirect him to the list for WP:SURPRISE reasons. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per others Andre🚐 03:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with it's section at List of Mortal Kombat characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The argument for why this needs to go is really not very strong.KatoKungLee (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KatoKungLee: Care to elaborate? The reason for the nomination is pretty clear. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I do agree with you, but other editors are expressing that, in their opinion, Noob Saibot doesn't pass the notability for his own article, which is a valid reason for a merge. If you disagree, and believe he does pass the notability, say why. If you have any coverage of him in reliable sources that might make your argument more convincing, please provide them. MoonJet (talk) 03:44, 14 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 07:58, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Venkateshwara Devasthanam[edit]

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

Unreferenced item which has been moved to & from draft and replaced in main by the creator despite a request to submit for review. Thus, to avoid further 'move-warring' a discussion needs to be undertaken. Additional search revealed little if any, SIGCOV. Eagleash (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and India. Shellwood (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find WP:RS. SuperSharanya (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 03:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discounting the comment by the blocked socupuppet, more input for establishing a consensus would be beneficial.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wall of unreferenced text that is presumably taken from the temple’s own website. The “references” don’t link to the text and are either about Hinduism generally or don’t substantiate what the article says. The external links just show that the place exists. There is nothing here to show that it is notable - no in-depth coverage anywhere in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 07:11, 7 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 / moot. Content is now where the student needs to edit it (thanks @Mccapra:, and Dolly City is advising them, so I do not see the need to draftify this. Closing procedurally, and deleting the mainspace version. Star Mississippi 16:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionist Zionism Draft[edit]

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

I move this obvious draft article to Draft space but the page creator insists on moving it repeatedly to main space despite its unsuitability and I expect a PROD tag would be removed which leaves AFD. I'm not adverse to Draftification if the article creator agrees to allow the AFC process to occur instead of just putting AFC tags on their page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Subject is not without merit scopewise, and page creator Dolphin372 (talk · contribs) is a newcomer student editor. Whatever fate the discussion takes, we should try and give both a chance. (See WP:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 04:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete: Clearly not ready for mainspace and should not remain there in its current condition. Move to draft would be the obvious solution but if the creator has unilaterally moved to main against process, then this AfD is almost inevitable. May be notable / usable (after much work) and if moved to draft could possibly be protected against further moves? Eagleash (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete – I agree with all of the above, and it's a pity to see a new editor get off to a less than ideal start, but they wittingly or unwittingly brought this upon themselves so here we are. Ideally draftify, but only with the creator's express agreement not to move it out of drafts past AfC again (and if needed, I'm happy to keep an eye on it and provide swift reviews, if there's time pressure on getting this published, as a student assignment or something). Otherwise, if they don't wish to play that particular ballgame, then delete. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we already have Revisionist Zionism and definitely don’t want a second, overlapping article, which additionally (so far) is all about Vladimir Jabotinsky, another well-covered subject. The creator needs to either edit the existing articles or else pick a completely new topic for an article start. Mccapra (talk) 07:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi, this draft was created in the framework of the academic course Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Middlebury College/Zionism and the Roads Not Taken 1880-1948 (Spring 2023), which I teach. The creator user:Dolphin372 worked on revising the article in his Sandbox, but if I understand correctly, it had been deleted by one of the editors and turned into a draft page. The student is new to Wikipedia and had no intention of doing anything against local norms. I would appreciate if you won't delete his work while we are still trying to figure out how did his Sandbox draft become an independent draft. Thanks. User:Brianda (Wiki Ed) User:Helaine (Wiki Ed) We would really appriciate your help. Dolly City (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the page history shows that the article creator moved it themselves, with a note saying “ready for mainspace”. I’ve no objection to this AfD being closed and the article moved to the creator’s sandbox. However any new article accepted into mainspace needs to be about material which we don’t already have covered in existing articles, or it will just get deleted again. I suggest some work goes into finding a potential topic that will be a real addition to the encyclopedia. Mccapra (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understand now what happened. I will review the existing draft and provide feedback to the student. In the meantime, I recreated his sandbox, but it has the following message: This template is being used in the wrong namespace. To nominate this user page for deletion, go to Miscellany for deletion. What should I do now? Thanks for all your help. Dolly City (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dolly City: hi I have copied the text of the draft to User:Dolphin372/sandbox and from there you can copy it again to the appropriate destination for this coursework. This deletion discussion will continue until it is closed by an admin but don’t worry about it. The student’s content is safe in their user space now for them to continue working on. Mccapra (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianda (Wiki Ed):@Helaine (Wiki Ed): plz see note above. Mccapra (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra I wrote to the instructor and student and stressed the point of reviewing their work to make sure duplicate text isn't added in, and adding more inline citations from reliable sources to support additions. As always feel free to ping me for any concern with our students. Thanks. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:49, 10 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 Move and merge. I will move as closer. Editors can handle what needs to be merged as a matter of editorial process. Star Mississippi 16:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kuma and Panda[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only these sources are found [50] [51]. GlatorNator (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Games, and Japan. DreamRimmer (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Merge what can be reliably salvaged into List of Tekken characters. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move back to Kuma (Tekken) where it originally was and then merge to List of Tekken characters. Neither character seems independently notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move and merge per Zxcvbnm. Fails WP:GNG but has some content to preserve. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:23, 11 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 03:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tiago Quintal[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the nom and GiantSnowman. Article does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 10 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 01:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Começar de Novo[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable, nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2012.

PROD removed with "deprod; notable cast; may be notable; take to AfD" DonaldD23 talk to me 01:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Brazil. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The corresponding article in the Portuguese Wikipedia at https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come%C3%A7ar_de_Novo_(telenovela) seems to have a lot of references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the pt.wiki article has 28 sources which show that the programme got extensive press coverage over its life. Mccapra (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep - for the same reasons already mentioned. Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - please check other language wiki's as part of BEFORE. matt91486 (talk) 13:07, 12 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. Star Mississippi 16:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel K. Brown[edit]

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

The only independent coverage I can find is being featured in an issue of Architectural Design but that by itself is unlikely to be sufficient to meet WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. SmartSE (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and New Zealand. SmartSE (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets criterion 5 of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Also, full professors are assumed notable in New Zealand. Schwede 66 19:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete apart from the Emerging Talents: Training Architects I dont see any SIGCOV and he certainly doesnt pass WP:NPROF#5 nor WP:ARCHITECT. --hroest 23:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We'll give it one more try for a wider audience. Possible areas of discussion could include whether WP:SCHOLAR criterion 5 "named chair" is met by the subject's "inaugural chair" position; also whether subject's architectural designs and art exhibits meet WP:CREATIVE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as within the New Zealand context he meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics) - NealeWellington (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF #5. Appears to hold an established chair. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 11 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 Cryptocurrency#Criticism as a viable ATD. While the history is under the redirect, I caution a merge without establishing consensus as there's no support for it at this discussion Star Mississippi 16:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R/Buttcoin[edit]

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

Two-sentence stub about a subreddit that is not in any way notable. 162 etc. (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A joke stretched too thin to be an article. BD2412 T 03:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Websites. DreamRimmer (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No content, no notability. This wouldn't fit in any other article, much less stand on its own. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of content is not relevant. WP:PERMASTUB articles can meet the WP:GNG. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A permastub ultimately has finished information about a topic, even if there isn't much. "This is a subreddit which does X" doesn't prove notability or coverage, which a small time actor (for example) may have. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Albeit currently a short article, there has been sustained coverage for meeting the WP:GNG. Also, consider WP:ATD. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is currently not notable enough for Wikipedia article (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what Wikipedia policy or guideline would it not be notable enough? Also, please sign your message. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry my bad based on WP:NWEB 1keyhole (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Barely any relevancy or notability and I don't think there's any improvements to be made. Dawnbails (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far nobody has suggested a merge, which should be done if feasible according to policy. I think that if this article cannot be kept, this subreddit could be summarized in a single sentence at Cryptocurrency#Criticism. I really don't see a good reason for deletion. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:25, 10 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sam and Nia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this same article for deletion in 2018, and while it ended with "Keep", the votes then were not convincing and the article has not improved at all since that time. Doing a cursory review of the sources currently in the article, a lot of them are YouTube videos posted by the subject themselves which on their own are not reliable. Many of the other articles are about the cheating scandal with the husband or the miscarriage and subsequent birth announcement shortly after the miscarriage, which honestly seem like the subject is only notable for one (okay *two*) event(s). Other than the two "scandals", which had gotten slight coverage at the time, what makes this vlogging family stand out from the tons of others on YouTube with lots of subscribers, views (although their views have plummeted a lot since the creation of this article, FWIW), and articles about them here and there. The subject has not received further or sustained coverage in the media post-the incidents, which happened numerous years ago now. Andise1 (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Internet, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would like to point out that in the past year this Wikipedia page has had over 12,000 views, so it appears people are still looking it up and finding that page to be useful. Also, this point you made: "The subject has not received further or sustained coverage in the media post-the incidents," is not criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. It appears you have a personal motive for removing this article, especially since you are the same person who nominated to have it deleted the first time and that was shot down and here you are doing it again without any justification other than your own opinion that runs contrary to the rules of Wikipedia and the support of other Wikipedians.Matthew T Rader (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, if you remove all the YouTube video sources, which are not notable, then you are left with a small handful of articles discussing the cheating scandal and miscarriage. I am not seeing any articles that discuss the subject outside of those incidents, nor am I seeing coverage after those two incidents left the media cycle. I fail to see what makes the subject notable, as one or two events that receive some news coverage do not make a subject inherently notable. While not all coverage needs to be current, the fact that no coverage exists outside of the two incidents and no coverage has been released since 2015, it shows a lack of notability for this family in terms of them being YouTube vloggers, and very limited short-term notability for the scandals. Andise1 (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no sustained coverage. Alduin2000 (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that they currently have a mini series on PureFlix that Amazon Prime (https://www.primevideo.com/detail/Sam-and-Nia/0NIT9TIPGHFYE8R80SE8K0O9NG) has also picked up and is airing. Matthew T Rader (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That series needs reliable, independent coverage to be included in the article. Upon a Google search, I am seeing no such coverage of the series.

There is simply not enough coverage of this family out there to support an article. Should more coverage come available in the future, a new article can be created, but as it stands now, they are not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Andise1 (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the coverage in People and the like is fluff. He had an Ashley Madison account, she forgave him. They're pregnant but they had a miscarriage. I'm not seeing why any of this amounts to SIGCOV beyond normal celebrity gossip. Oaktree b (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is something in the New York Times, but I'm at my limit for free articles. I'm not hoping for much. Anyone can click on the link above and confirm what it says. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the New York Times article says about the family, it is largely about their few "viral" moments and touches on child labor in terms of YouTube kids. It does not establish any sort of notability for this family.

"And no YouTube couple has pushed the limits of the family genre more than Sam and Nia. “[singing]: We’re in this together.” The first time Sam and Nia Rader went viral was in 2014, when they installed a dashcam on their minivan, dubbed themselves the Good Looking Parents, and lip-synched a song from “Frozen.” The second time Sam and Nia went viral was when Sam extracted Nia’s pee from an unflushed toilet and then announced his wife’s surprise pregnancy to her. “What did you do? Did you get a dropper out of the toilet? No, you didn’t.” “I did.” — “No way.” At least that’s what they said happened. “Are you 100 percent serious?” “Well, yeah, I just did. That’s what I was doing when I was taking a dump.” [laughing] This is the part where I try to think of what’s not so bad about this trend. “Whoa, oh, man.” O.K., so these family vloggers show the messy, negative parts of parenting — “Ew, yuck.” — not just the idyllic, cutesy stuff. “Gross.” (Redacted) Andise1 (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redacted due to excessive quotation of a copyrighted source. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (barely): Sources such as Nightline ABC News, Inside Edition, Cosmopolitan, People, BuzzFeed, Time Mag, E! Entertainment Television, Vanity Fair, The Washington Post. A subject doesn't get this much attention from all these RS without being notable on some level.

All the Youtube promo needs to removed and ce article to focus on content that has IS RS. // Timothy :: talk 05:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are only notable for the two incidents, the cheating scandal and the miscarriage. Where is the sustained coverage? Where is the coverage about their YouTube channel? I am not seeing any of that doing a Google search. Andise1 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with the above comment as there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Washington Post, ABC news, Vanity Fair and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are only notable for the two incidents, the cheating scandal and the miscarriage. Where is the sustained coverage? Where is the coverage about their YouTube channel? I am not seeing any of that doing a Google search. Andise1 (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, ~~as the article has 51 sources.~~ Davidgoodheart (talk) 02:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of sources is irrelevant, the quality of the sources and what the sources are about is what is used to determine notability. Andise1 (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not, but being the 3rd most influential YouTubers of 2015 is very notable, as well as being number six of 7 of YouTube's most shocking scandals is quite infamous. Davidgoodheart (talk) 17:38, 14 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 01:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Freeze (software)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As far as I can tell, I don't think Deep Freeze is notable. Sources that relate to this program seem either completely hidden or nonexistent. The article has only relied on three main sources (two of which are just from the website of the company that made the program) for about a decade now. Article has had the same maintenance templates explaining this for 12 years [52] with little improvements made to the article; I think it's a safe bet at this point to assume that no improvements can be made given the little coverage on the program. Dawnbails (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dawnbails (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I can't find any secondary sources about this. Does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE. PopoDameron ⁠talk 01:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SanemAyhan07 (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is promotional and lacking sources to meet WP:GNG. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning merge to Reboot to restore software — through archive.org, I found around a dozen passing mentions in computer magazines and tech news sites, a few very short reviews, one independent usage manual,[53] and just one proper-length article, in the German tech press[54]. Seem to be mostly used by libraries and schools. Don't think we have enough for a standalone article, but it might merit a paragraph at the article I link. DFlhb (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of disagreeing simply because Reboot to restore software has its own issues. Don't entirely know how much it would be worth to merge this into an article that could very well end up being deleted for its own reasons. Dawnbails (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dosen't meet requirements of WP:GNG.1keyhole (talk) 16:42, 11 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.

^ https://www.indystar.com/story/news/local/hamilton-county/carmel/2023/04/12/carmel-mayor-indiana-primary-elections-2023/69990843007/

[1] ttps://readthereporter.com/rider-has-500k-cash-on-hand-for-carmel-mayoral-race/

[2] ttps://www.indystar.com/story/news/local/hamilton-county/carmel/2023/04/12/carmel-mayor-indiana-primary-elections-2023/69990843007/

[1]

[1]