Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 25 August 27 >

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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

U with acute (Cyrillic)[edit]

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

There is no such letter in any Cyrillic language. Sources are present but misinterpreted. See also WP:Stress marks in Russian words and its talk page — Mike Novikoff 03:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t nominate this one with an earlier batch because it “was also used in the Karachay-Balkar language.” According to Karachay-Balkar, “In some publications, especially during the Soviet period, the letter у́ or ў is used for the sound IPA: [w].”  —Michael Z. 03:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cross-checked the LOC romanization tables and they have a letter that appears to be u-comma for Karachay-Balkar (and for Karachay language).[1] As far as I can see, there is no precomposed Unicode letter for Cyrillic u-comma, but it can be entered using the combining comma above: у̓, У̓.  —Michael Z. 03:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to U with comma, since the letter as used in Karachay-Balkar seems to be such. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, remove usage in Slavic languages as the two have different diacritics. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More thoughts on moving the page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 10:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another deletion debate that got lost do to a botched relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 23:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • * Pppery *, I've seen this happen now over a dozen times now, I think it has to do with a glitch in XFDcloser, not with the relister. We're all hitting the same "Relist" button, sometimes the relisting goes as expected, some times the discussion is relisted to the wrong daily log page, some times, the discussion isn't reposted at all. I posted a note about it on the talk page for XFDcloser and it seems to be a known bug. I'm not sure when it will be addressed though. Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 27 August 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! 23:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black Panther Hotline[edit]

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

Four sources on page, none of which provide for notability, and I found nothing else. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, QuietHere. This could have been nommed for speedy deletion WP:A7 -- see {{Db-band}}. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 14:13, 2 September 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! 22:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbade Bironze[edit]

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

BLP with no acceptable sources cited and nothing is coming up about him in my own WP:BEFORE using multiple search engines. I used Ikinyarwanda Wikipedia for guidance as well but it's clear that that article is a WP:REFBOMB of sources that make no mention of Bironze. When an article has the title "Soulcalibur V – Trophy Guide" it's obviously not going to have anything about a Ugandan footballer. Fails WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:17, 26 August 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! 22:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angelos Perikleous[edit]

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

His name in Greek is Άγγελος Περικλέους and you'll see plenty of coverage about a released prisoner that disappeared, also from Limassol. They're clearly not the same person, though. The best coverage that I could find for the footballer was Lemesos in Sports and 24 Sports, both of which are not significant coverage and are copied mostly from a club press release, so also don't meet the WP:IS threshold. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:29, 26 August 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. No comments after two relistings so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 22:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manu Daftary[edit]

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

Little on the page which would appear to count towards notability. He manages money and investment, not clear that he is even notable within that group of people. I can't find anything else which would count towards BLP JMWt (talk) 10:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 10:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable money manager, no hits found for him (and only three total on the name).Not meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: It appears that there has been some spotty coverage on the subject from various newspapers, although much of it has more to do with the fund itself. A possible solution is to delete this article and merge relevant content to a new article about the fund. [[6]][[7]][[8]][[9]] User:Let'srun 12:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep also. The two Philly Inquirer articles found by User:Let'srun certainly qualify, as does, arguably, the 2004 USA Today piece [[10]]. Also see this CNN article: [11]. Fiachra10003 (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:23, 26 August 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Alliance LLC[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP, only one independent and significant coverage source, can't find other significant coverage. AlexandraAVX (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:22, 26 August 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. This AFD has now been open for nearly a month and it verges on being a trainwreck. I don't see a consensus here. I'm closing it as No consensus, no prejudice or waiting period for it to return to AFD for a fresh start, with a solid focus on sources and standards for notability instead of accusations against editors. Right now though, this discussion calls for closure. Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ved Prakash Upadhyay[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG.

Sources are either unreliable or they are making only a passing mention. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel, please don't forget the steps listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors. Thanks,

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: here are potential refs:
    • Bhatt, Kamlesh (24 April 2021). "Sanskrit Sahitya Alankar Samman to Dr. Ved Prakash Upadhyay and Dr. Jagdish Prasad Semwal". Google Translate. Dainik Jagran. Retrieved 4 August 2023.
    • "Dr. Ved Prakash Upadhyay will get President's Honor-2018". Google Translate. Khaskhabar.com. 20 August 2018. Retrieved 4 August 2023.
    • "Presidential Award to Dr. Ved Prakash Upadhyay". Google Translate. Aggarjan Patrika. 9 April 2019. Retrieved 4 August 2023.
    • "Sanskrit scholar Dr. Ved Prakash will reach Panchkula on June 24, has got more than 60 students done PhD". Punjab Kesari. 22 June 2022. Retrieved 4 August 2023.
    • Haque, M. Zeyaul. "A Hindu view of Islam". Google Translate. The Milli Gazette. Retrieved 4 August 2023.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another ref:
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: the Rashtrapati Award (formerly the President Award of India -- isn't that a big deal? Something like that in other countries would normally qualify someone for notability per WP:ANYBIO and WP:ACADEMIC.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Routine coverage about awards does not verify WP:GNG. Most of these sources make only passing mention. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rashtrapati Award is not enough for establishing GNG. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should read the subject-specific notability guidelines since this biography clearly meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:ACADEMIC. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 03:52, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamRimmer: Which source convinced you that the subject meets WP:ACADEMIC or WP:ANYBIO? BTW, the IP who notified you to this AfD has been blocked for socking.[12] Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 06:04, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Editorkamran, Could you please explain where you discovered information indicating my involvement in this matter? While patrolling the recently accepted drafts on AFC/SC, I came across this AfD. The link you provided in your previous comment is for a different AfD, to which I have not responded. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 06:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the edits of the IP and found that they notified you. But given your explanation, I have removed the tag I had added. Editorkamran (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He received Rashtrapati Award (formerly the President Award), which is a significant and national-level award given by the the President of India. He also received the "Sahitya Ratna Award", a significant award in literature. According to WP:NACADEMIC, The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. and per WP:ANYBIO, The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 07:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aman.kumar.goel, I was not requested to comment here; please do some investigation before making allegations. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 07:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:I think it's a sockpuppet of Aman.Kumar.Goel. I request @A. B.: to do a sockpuppet investigation. 202.134.10.138 (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes other people just independently disagree with you; no sock- or meat puppetry is involved.
I am no longer an administrator. You can request a sock puppet investigation yourself without my help at WP:SPI.
To avoid wasting your time and others, carefully read the part that says "Before opening an investigation, you need good reason to suspect sockpuppetry." The CheckUser people will only investigate if they have "probable cause" to do so. You can't just wave your arms and say "Editorkamran and Aman.kumar.goel agree with each other too much". Here are examples of investigations where the reporting parties did a good job of laying out the evidence: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MasaoOhba1949 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maheshworld.
The better prepared you are, the easier it will be for the checkers to determine whether or not there really is a problem; see this for some guidance: Wikipedia:Signs of sockpuppetry. As I said earlier, sometimes other people just independently disagree with you.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my own earlier comments and those of others. Notable.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single source provided by you has provided significant coverage to this person. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 03:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aman.kumar.goel, I believe you haven't properly read the notability guidelines. This article is compliant with the subject-specific notability guidelines (SNG), so it does not need to adhere to the general notability guidelines (GNG). According to WP:N; topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article. All of the provided information and claims are verified by reliable sources in this article. BTW significant coverage(WP:SIGCOV) is part of WP:GNG. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 05:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For example, all MLAs (legislators) are notable under WP:NPOL (SNG), even though they lack significant coverage (GNG). 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 05:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not a single source provided which has provided significant coverage to the subject. Writing a non-notable book and winning a notable award isn't enough. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

::::::You have WP:COI with this, that's why you are just going on saying this exact line again and again because you don't have the ability now to prove it in detail. 43.245.120.228 (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/43.245.120.228, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence which you have not presented. Aman.kumar.goel has made 1000s of edits across a range of topics. Your edits have most been related to Ved Prakash Upadhyay and his book. While I disagree with him in this AfD, I trust him.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because once the major puffery & blatant promotionalism are removed there will be nothing left but a successful career as a professor, which is not in itself notable.UrielAcosta (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes 3rd criteria of NAUTHOR as author of Kalki Avatar and Muhammad which has " been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work".
Passes 2nd criteria of NACADEMIC as Rashtrapati Award is "a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.". ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That book is not notable either. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 05:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Book is not notable but that book has " been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work". ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Upadhyay's ideas and writings are clearly notable.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe my votes provide sufficient information, and regarding this AfD, I think this award isn't as significant as it needs to be in order to demonstrate the importance of this subject.Kind regards --Âvîrâm7(talk) 08:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aviram7 And what about crictism about his book? ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 18:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the tale of Cap'n Jack Sparrow - it does not appear that he meets NAUTHOR, NACADEMIC or GNG although perhaps this is a language barrier issue. Andre🚐 18:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It seems this article have the basic requirements of an article to be in Wikipedia unless there's a conflict of interest or writing an article as a propaganda for social media accounts. محمود (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of notability. It does not pass WP:NAUTHOR because "Kalki Avatar and Muhammad" is a non-notable book. Dympies (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:NACADEMIC as a long-tenured and influential professor who attained a notable national award, i.e. the Rashtrapati Award, for their services to academia. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - After looking into the claims of receiving the Rashtrapati award 2018, which was really the only justification for keep votes based in policy, it appears that he did not win the award at all. There exist two reports from questionable sources, both of which claim that he was announced as a recipient; however, no other reports on this exist.
    Instead, he was awarded a different "Presidential Award of Certificate of Honour and Maharishi Badarayan Vyas Samman" which is nowhere near being "highly prestigious". Every year, dozens of these are given out to people above 60, these are not reflective of notability by themself.
    Like I said, the policies being cited fail to actually show the notability of the subject. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Some awards available in English.

Sathiya ratna shiromani awards Times of India The Tribune diprpunjab.gov.in

President's Certificate of Honour - 2018 (as Prof. (Dr.) Ved Prakash Upadhyaya) sanskrit.nic.in ministry of education, India pib.gov.in DSP2092talk 06:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Given the content and praise in the keep assertions above, I was expecting to find at least one gold-standard newspaper profile of this person that would meet the criteria laid out at WP:GNG. But... I'm not. The best source I've seen from the analysis at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad is this work, but that's the only one. To WP:NPROF then. Supporters are pointing to a Rashtrapati Award, but per above it's a political award (not academic) and there's debate over whether they actually received it. Other awards named appear to be minor if compared to those listed at NPROF. I'm also not seeing anyone argue in favor of any of the other seven bullet points outlined there. We have an intentionally low bar for articles about academics, but as it stands I don't see how this qualifies. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

** see here in pages 2, 3 and 26. He got president's certificalte of honour award and also 5 lakh rupees with it. The article of the president's certificalte of honour says: "The awards of Certificate of Honour and Maharshi Badrayan Vyas Samman are Indian Presidential honours which are conferred on academics by the President of India once a year on the Indian Independence Day, celebrated on 15 August; in recognition of their substantial contribution in the various fields of languages including Arabic, Kannada, Sanskrit, Malayalam, Oriya, Pali, Persian, Prakrit and the Telugu language. The awards come under the umbrella of the language division of the Ministry of Education's Department of Higher Education. ... The Certificate of Honour-i is awarded to selected Indian scholars having an age of 60 years or above. It honour includes a certificate, a memento and one time cash of five hundred thousand Indian rupees. The Certificate of Honour-ii is awarded to selected scholars Overseas Indians and foreigners of non-Indian origin, who aged 60 years or above. The award constitutes a certificate, a memento and one time cash of five hundred thousand Indian rupees." And you can check the references in this deleted version of the article in Bharatpidea. See here in Daily Jang and here in Urdu Point by google translate, and here in English in The Nation (Pakistan) and here in Turkish in OdaTV, the book has been discussed there broadly.Also there is media coverage of being converted to muslim by reading this book.[1] 202.134.10.141 (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      • 202.134, what we need from you is not quotes or lengthy extended arguments about how to classify a different politically given award. Upadhyay isn't even mentioned in The Nation or OdaTV links. Can you link to three sources that are primarily about Upadhyay themselves and meet the criteria laid out at WP:GNG? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "قصص من الحياة: قصة اسلام ارون كومار من عبادّ الأبقار (Stories from life: the story of self-submission (convertion to Islam) of Arun Kumar, a cow worshiper)". ar:دنيا الوطن (AlWatan Voice) (in Arabic). 8 July 2014. Retrieved 29 July 2023.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Not only a well known figure who is often quoted in mainstream media with in-depth coverage, but also a notable scholar and receipient of the President Award national level Maharshi Badrayan Vyas Samman[15] by the President of India. This award is not owned by some random private organnizations or given to random people. IMO, it is a bad faith nomination from AKG as he has a history of doing it. Bringtar (talk) 08:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Warned you for personal attacks on your talk page. Nearly everyone here agrees that this person is not notable thus your empty claims about notability are senseless. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How irony that you are engaging in personal attacks yet lecturing me on it. Comment on the content and not on the contributor, this applies to you too. I do not see how your claim. Nearly everyone here agrees that this person is not notable fits here specially because the rationale matter, !vote count doesn't. Bringtar (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Falsely accusing another person of "personal attacks" is also personal attacks. You claims about notability are still senseless because you have failed to substantiate them. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 08:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I retracted my comments on you and apologies if it hurts you since it was not intended. I expect a mutual understanding. Thank you for what you do here. Bringtar (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Obviously notable" doesnt work when they fail to meet the criteria. President award was debunked just above, did you even go through the discussion? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CapnJackSp Thank you for bringing clarity but how do you concluded that the award he received has not noteworthy? Bringtar (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because its not prestigious. Its given out to dozens of people every year, and the pool is only for people older than 60. Even non notable people can win it. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Still fails to meet any notability criteria despite long discussion above. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which notability criteria? The person does meet WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG so which criteria you are referring? Bringtar (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They fail both, you are just citing guidelines without supporting them. Presidential award is an incorrect report from two obscure papers ; He won some random award that is handed out in dozens. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CapnJackSp I dig a bit more and he was awarded with the Maharshi Badrayan Vyas Samman[16] in recognition of his works which satisfies criteria #2 of WP:NACADEMIC. Bringtar (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a political award, which runs into issues at WP:NPROF#Specific criteria notes. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And its not very prestigious either. Certainly not of national note. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ed, can you please be more specific about what you meant by "political award"? I am not sure how you concluded it as a political award when it is only given to academics so I want to understand it? I think that even if it is a political award then also if it is a notable then it should satisfy GNG. @CapnJackSp, awards itself by nature considered as prestigious, specially an award which has its own Wikipedia article is certainly, notable. When a President of a democratic republic is giving it to specific people on a specific date i.e., indepdence day of the country then do you have any RS to establish the insignificance of it? Bringtar (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See below. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not pass Prof or GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    A Mahamahopadhyaya as well as an Acharya who has been named as Shastra Chudamani (well versed scholar) and also recived "Sahitya Ratna Padak" and "Maharshi Badrayan Vyas Samman", doesn't pass GNG!? Bringtar (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, as explained above. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment:
    • Mahamahopadhyaya: "is an honorific title given to prestigious scholars by the Government" - awarded by the Haryana state government (see article in Punjab Kesari[17]
    • Acharya: "In Indian religions and society, an acharya is a preceptor and expert instructor in matters such as religion, or any other subject." [18]
    Either satisfies WP:NACADEMIC criterion 5.
    These are in addition to the President's Maharshi Badrayan Vyas Samman Certificate of Honor which satisfies WP:NACADEMIC criterion 2 (see comment below)
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from a disinterested editor not otherwise engaged with this topic prior to this and its companion AfD:
See Maharshi Badrayan Vyas Samman. The Certificate of Honour is a Presidential award given annually to a few scholars for career achievement. Only a handful are awarded in Sanskrit annually. Some years it’s not awarded. Here is the lede from our article:
  • ”The awards of Certificate of Honour and Maharshi Badrayan Vyas Samman are Indian Presidential honours which are conferred on academics by the President of India once a year on the Indian Independence Day, celebrated on 15 August; in recognition of their substantial contribution in the various fields of languages including Arabic, Kannada, Sanskrit, Malayalam, Oriya, Pali, Persian, Prakrit and the Telugu language.”
Are there higher awards for Sanskrit scholars?
The assertion was made above that this is a political award: what is the reliable source to support that claim?
Our notability guideline for academics, criteria 2 states:
  • ”The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.”
By our rules, this person is notable regardless of any fierce animus a pool of editors may have toward him and his book.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 19:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ill answer all your queries. "Handful of people" is far from the truth. When he was being originally credited with the presidents award (Which he didnt win), I went ahead and looked into this.
Only a handful are awarded Not true. Over half a hundred awards are handed out every year, with about three dozen in Sanskrit each year.
"Some years its not awarded" Not true, our article is incomplete but the award is handed out annually.
"Are there higher awards for Sanskrit scholars?" Yes, the actual Notable, National awards known as the Jnanapith Award and Sahitya Akademi Award. These I remember off the top of my head, but quite sure there's more.
Therefore, by our rules, this person is non notable regardless of any fierce affinity a pool of editors may have toward him and his book. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the The Hindu, 23 awards were given across all languages in 2009 for example. The actual numbers are higher in subsequent years: 2019: 16, 2018: 15, 2017: 15
More than a "handful", less than "several dozen" in recent years.
I don't see awards for 2022; I seem to recall there was some dispute about missing awards but, honestly, I may be thinking of another award. There may have been awards and I couldn't find them.
The Sahitya Akademi Award award is for "writers of the most outstanding books of literary merit". It is not an award for scholarship.
The Jnanpith Award is "the highest Indian literary award presented annually by the Bharatiya Jnanpith to an author for their 'outstanding contribution towards literature'". It is not an award for scholarship
I am sure there are other actual awards for Sanskrit scholarship -- like China or the United States, India is a huge country. One or more might even be more prestigious. Nevertheless, this is a national award and it is awarded by the President of India, not some minion. That is sufficient for the purpose of notability.
Not much of a cohesive pool in favor of keeping this article - mostly miscellaneous editors wandering by like I did. Most of us are not especially fierce, either.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Punjab's Sahitya Ratna awards were delayed several years, not the national Maharshi Badrayan Vyas Samman Certificates of Honor - my mistake. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Summing up - Ved Prakash Upadhyay meets WP:NACADEMIC 3 different ways as discussed above:
  1. Presidential Certificate of Honour (Maharshi Badrayan Vyas Samman)- criterion 2
  2. Mahamahopadhyaya - criterion 5 (distinguished professor equivalent)
  3. Acharya - criterion 5 (distinguished professor equivalent)
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are drawing the conclusion on debunked info, Bardrayan reward doesnt clear #2, and those two titles dont clear #5.
Acharya clearing #5, lmao. Acharya literally means teacher, and if you think thats the standard for notability on wiki, I dont think a constructive discussion is possible. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing Acharya with teacher because An acharya is a highly learned person with a title affixed to the names of learned subject. Can you please share some RS to support your claims about the award in question? Do you think Maharshi Badrayan Vyas Samman is a non-notable award? If yes then why it is in Wikipedia? Bringtar (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think you know sanskrit. Acharya literally means teacher, and you are simply quoting Wikipedia. Remember, Wikipedia is not a RS.
FOr your edification, the title of "Acharya" in Sanskrit nowadays is a PG degree, again, not a sign of notability.
And criteria #2 is not for any random award that passes GNG, it is only for "highly prestigious" awards. And no, over half a hundred awards a year handed out like candies is not "highly prestigious". Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is certainly not a RS but what I quoted is supported by a RS. I am still waiting for at least one single RS to support your claim that this award is insignificant. A basic instinct can tell that a President of a country does not handed out random awards unless it is prestigious. Specially, the award itself has a Wikipedia entry which proves its notability. Random awards do not get an article on Wikipedia or does it?
This person is not only a lerned academic but also served as a Professor in a Govt. institute named, Panjab University. I have seen even less notable people on Wikipedia. If the strictiest rules of notability are applied then it still meets WP:GNG. Bringtar (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE, WP:ONUS. Thats all. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closer - Kindly weigh arguments on merit, a few of the ardent supporters of "Keep" keep using WP:IDHT to maintain that he is notable. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The person has been the subject of multiple independent reliable sources[19][20], has own several significant awards[21][[22], conferred several scholarly titles[23][24], served various high positions in Govt. education institutes[25][26]. If these are still not enough to establish notability then we have a systematic bias in applying the criteris. Bringtar (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, WP:IDHT. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 21:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's called an expert on scriptures in Gbooks, more than a few times. Seems ok to me. Oaktree b (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite vague handwaves, there is absolclearly no cation that subject meets WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Azuredivay (talk) 17:19, 1 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mustapha Gajibo[edit]

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

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete for now, pending an analysis of the sources. The article does not speak for itself and explain why the individual passes general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – A detailed check of the references shows that this short article has been reference-bombed with low-quality sources, several of which appear to be biographies of the subject that have all probably been reworked from the same input by the subject's flack. There do not appear to be any independent references.
Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 infomediang.com Appears to publish articles for Nigerian businesspeople, and so similar to press releases No Yes ? No
2 naturenews.africa Appears to be another outlet for publishing press release like material No Yes ? No
3 reuters.comn Interview with subject No Yes Yes No
4 youtube.com YouTube No Yes No Probably not
5 legit.ng An article about his buses, reads like advertising No No, passing mention ? No
6 refinedng.com Another article in a medium that appears to publish publicity material No Yes ? No
7 punchng.com A long interview with subject No Yes ? No
8 leadership.ng Appears to be another medium that publishes articles by PR people No Yes ? No
9 www.africanews.com Another article on the subject that appears to be by PR people No Yes ? No
10 www.technologyreview.com Another interview No Yes Yes No
11 refinedng.com Same as 6 No Yes ? No
12 ynaija.com Another article that appears to be by the subject's PR people No Yes ? No
13 newscentral.africa Another biography that appears to be by same flack No Yes ? No
14 dailytrust.com Interview with subject No Yes Yes No
Robert McClenon (talk) 06:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Robert McClenon's analysis above. I was taking my time going through sources little by little, and not preparing a chart. Thanks for doing all this work, Robert! JFHJr (㊟) 18:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per above analysis by Robert McClenon; poor sourcing. Ekdalian (talk) 13:02, 28 August 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! 22:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stavriana Antoniou[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least eight caps for the Cyprus women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. P.S. Her transliterated name is Σταυριάνα Αντωνίου. JTtheOG (talk) 19:36, 26 August 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! 22:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shania Vogt[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least seven caps for the Liechtenstein women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming this doesn't cover news from their site or any assosiated one? TheBritinator (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TheBritinator: Correct, the Liechtenstein Football Association, for example, would not be an independent source. JTtheOG (talk) 17:23, 28 August 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! 22:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Fasel[edit]

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

The subject has earned caps for the Liechtenstein women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:26, 26 August 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 Dance party. Liz Read! Talk! 22:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Live band dance[edit]

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

Nuke this 100% original essay unreferenced since 2009. - Altenmann >talk 17:10, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree that this is an essay. It's an unreferenced start-class broad-concept article, but given that dance studies is an entire discipline, I imagine that it has received scholarly treatment at some point (I'll leave it to others to find, at which point I'll be more likely to !vote). This is a subtopic of Dance music, so at the very least it could be merged or redirected there (or to Concert or somewhere else relevant) rather than straight deleted, an outcome I'd oppose. Dance-related topics are woefully underdeveloped on Wikipedia (hello systemic bias), but if sources exist then that is a surmountable problem, and in a more developed future I could see this being a valid scope for an article. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, you may disagree, but the subject is thoroughly unreferenced and I failed to find any scholarly/journalistic treatment of the term. Hence it is original research/essay in my perception. And of course you cannot merge/redirect unreferenced content. - Altenmann >talk 05:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dance-related topics are woefully underdeveloped Yep, <sigh> {{WikiProject Dance}} is dead. - Altenmann >talk 00:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (or merge if anyone grabs a source) to Dance party, another broad concept article which currently includes an [also unsourced] paragraph about sound systems, DJs, and live bands that could be elaborated. Doesn't seem like we need separate articles at this point IMO. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Yikes, this is old wikipedia. I don't even know where to redirect. Oaktree b (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect to dance party seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 13:25, 29 August 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HeroCraft[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. Kadı Message 16:34, 26 August 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 Habitat for Humanity. This closure is not based on a strong consensus that has emerged. But I don't think additional relistings will help solidify or clarify the situation. Liz Read! Talk! 22:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HabiJax[edit]

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

Procedural renomination of an article that was erroneously listed at redirects for discussion, as the original nominator was proposing to redirect the existing article. As nominator I am neutral unless I comment otherwise below. Original rationale follows:

I'm trying to uphold the redirect. I want to redirect it per WP:BRANCH. The original article is too local in nature to qualify under WP:NONPROFIT and would not meet notability guidelines for organizations. It's quite promotional and includes quite a bit of name drops. Normally, I would AfD it, however given that there's a suitable target and we're expected to consider alternatives to deletion, I am suggesting re So, re-direct per WP:ATD-R with very selective merge as appropriate. I am starting the discussion as the article creator is objecting the redirect. (original nom by user Graywalls 14:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Florida. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have rewritten the article. While not a featured article, it has more than enough notability to prevent its deletion. Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 21:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying it should be eradicated entirely, but condensed down, merged and the page re-directed to the target. Per WP:DIRECTORY, things like various partners are undue, especially sourced to the article company's own website. Primary sources also do not count towards notability. Repeated coverage by the same journalist or same publisher also only counts as one for the purpose of evaluating notability. Graywalls (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect to Habitat for Humanity as I originally proposed, as WP:BRANCH clearly suggests As a general rule, the individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not considered notable enough to warrant a separate article – unless they are substantially discussed by reliable independent sources that extend beyond the chapter's local area. Graywalls (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Though substantial amount of contents have been added since the nomination, a lot of it is primary source such as Guidestar and the organization itself. Graywalls (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what Graywalls says, the primary organization is not used as a source. Guidestar is used to obtain the IRS Form 990 for the organization's statistics. Most everything else from Guidestar has multiple sources. As I previously stated, there is more than enough notability to prevent its deletion. Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 02:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mgreason:, where do you see substantial discussion about HabiJax beyond the chapter's local area that is by a party that is not involved with HabiJax? Graywalls (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are two sources outside the First Coast: The London Times and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. However, Graywalls says "WP:BRANCH clearly suggests, 'As a general rule, the individual chapters...are usually not considered notable enough.' It is not an absolute rule, and there is more than enough notability to prevent its deletion. Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 14:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The rebuttal you provided doesn't demonstrate relevance beyond the local area. Why would you provide a dead link in AfD discussion such that others have to go hunt for archive on their own? The Timesonline piece: https://web.archive.org/web/20090115112129/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5439388.ece does not really discuss HabiJax. The HUD source is a primary source PRESS RELEASE PR talk about their own office. Press releases never count towards notability. Even writing contents in article based on them is to be avoided. Graywalls (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did provide two sources beyond the local area. You reject the London Times article because you had trouble accessing it. When I added the url to my rebuttal, it was not a dead link. You say it "does not really discuss HabiJax", but the subject of the article is the HabiJax project. Regarding the archived link to the Habitat for Humanity website: that was not a press release from HabiJax. It came from the national organization which should be considered a secondary source. It seems like you're splitting hairs. I actually omitted another source: An HUD article. Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 15:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just added four more sources beyond the local area. Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 17:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be considered secondary? It's HUD taking about its previous employee being on board for Habitat for Humanity, very much like a father talking about his boy being in some sort of club being used as a source for the club. WP:USEPRIMARY Graywalls (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you use that logic, every author of every article might have some ulterior motive that disqualifies it from being a neutral source. Assume good faith.Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 10:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It's not stated here but I'm assuming the target page for this Redirect would be Habitat for Humanity? If you want a Merge or Redirect (or Keep), please spell it out. Right now, we need more than the two participants to weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • (!vote updated after following discussion and cleanup) Merge to Habitat for Humanity or Weak keep Here's a very long article with SIGCOV in Planning magazine, based in Chicago and published by American Planning Association. [27]. It discusses issues around the subject's constructions in some depth, but also discusses how those issues reflect on the parent org. At over 3300 words total I think this is pretty good evidence that the subject is, itself, notable. —siroχo 05:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you describe how it is written such that it is about Habitat of Humanity of Jacksonville rather than just Habitat of Humanity? For example, does it talk about Habitat of Humanity active that happens to be in Jacksonville, or does it talk about it in terms of HabiJax activity? I can't access the source. so sorry. Graywalls (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It regularly distinguishes the actions of the HabiJax organization and responses to it. Sometimes it will explain how the actions of the smaller organization relate to the larger one, noting how the larger org works, and distinguishing HabiJax from it.
    It discusses in depth construction at "Fairway Oaks" entirely in the context of HabiJax, no mention of the parent org. It discusses the city of Jacksonville's response to this and why the controversy is unusual, both locally and within the larger scope of the parent org and the country.
    I guess, you could think of this article as treating the subject as a case study. I would say, at the very least, Fairway Oaks meets WP:N based on this and the sources already in the article, and as such, a delete would not be ideal for the encyclopedia. I would reserve a complex "repurpose" outcome for cases where I don't see notability. I don't personally see a need to fragment the topic to cover only the one housing development, given that the coverage of such an article would focus on this articles subject anyways, and there is other coverage of the subject. As such, I lean toward keeping this article.
    —siroχo 22:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This was not intended as a delete in the first place. I re-directed, but Mgreason objected. I wasn't really sure how to process it, so I did a redirect for discussion but Ivanvector suggests that's not how to do it, so they opened it as an AfD. Intention has been to merge into Habitat for Humanity and do a section for HabiJax there. Graywalls (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So, the current HabiJax article is far from perfect, but the Habitat for Humanity article is a mess, nobody's fault, just slowly grew that way over several years. While I'm not fundamentally opposed to such a merge, I don't see how it would improve things in their current state. For example, it would take a fair bit of research to evaluate DUE weight to the Fairway Oaks topic within that broader topic, etc.
    If you're actively cleaning up that article (I saw you made a few improvements), thank you for that. Maybe it will soon reach a state where a merge would be a better outcome.
    I am in support of cleanup efforts. I am hesitate to prescribe a merge in this situation when it isn't strictly necessary because it could make the current state worse, and harder to clean up. —siroχo 23:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Siroxo:, the target has been almost completely cleaned up. Please check. Graywalls (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. It looks much better. I'm not opposed to a merge at this point. I think Fairway Oaks and maybe the Superbuild can be merged pretty safely without getting too UNDUE. Maybe some other verifiable information like a bit about the HabiJax CEO. Not sure on some of it.
    I specifically worry the "Tiny houses" section might be a bit UNDUE in either article, and possibly astroturfed. Generally, there's been some major astroturfing about tiny houses over the past several years, and in this article it's all from one local source and funded by one named "Tiny House Fund". —siroχo 04:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Would you mind reflecting your input to your !vote? Graywalls (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to ping. @Siroxo I heard if you just add the ping at the end of the comment, it won't go through. Is that so? Graywalls (talk) 07:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Help:Notifications says you need to ping and sign, so that might be why it doesn't work if you only add it without signing again in the same edit. I'm not 100% sure tho. —siroχo 07:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 16:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:CHAIN makes a quite compelling argument. Graywalls (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:CHAIN makes a quite compelling argument if the subject is not notable. As the guidelines state, In rare cases, an individual location will have (history) that makes it notable.
I've yet to be convinced this as an example of a rare case. Graywalls (talk) 00:01, 28 August 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! 22:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Wexler[edit]

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

This subject fails WP:GNG because he is not the actual topic of any apparent coverage. He speaks about child protection and he speaks about himself, but no unrelated reliable party has written in-depth about this subject to support an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 16:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is a large paragraph claiming he has been interviewed and featured in a total of 15 media outlets, but there are only a handful of citations, most of them do not even mention his name, one is a fake citation, and the few that do, are just op-eds he wrote. The NY Times source get's one sentence from him, which seems like a low bar for notability. Zenomonoz (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also looked through google news to see if I could find secondary sources covering him or his work, however they all seem to be his own op-eds. In Google Books, they are his own books. Zenomonoz (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zenomonoz: Is "Seconding" a !vote for delete? If so, please consider putting "Seconding deletion" in bold for easy reference by the closer. If you didn't intend to !vote, please disregard this note. JFHJr (㊟) 21:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was a vote for delete, fixed. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am not finding third-party sources carrying in-depth information about the guy. Google results show works by him, or him being briefly introduced as the source of statements on the area of his specialty but without going into depth about him. The Council that he is Executive Director of appears to have only one staff member, that being him. Nat Gertler (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a Jewish advocate that shares the same name, nothing found for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't find any in-depth coverage of the man himself (surprisingly), but I will say this, when reliable sources need a statement and/or quote in relation to child welfare issues, they turn to Wexler quite frequently. I found him being referenced in books, journals, magazines, newspapers; US Congress and state proceedings; as a subject matter expert. Between ProQuest and Newspapers.com, I found over a thousand news articles using him as a reference for a statement/quote on child welfare issues. He was in all the major newspapers, mid-size and local newspapers as well. And I also found dozens of op-eds/guest columns in newspapers (small sample):
This much is true: he is a noted child welfare advocate. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if GNG gets refactored or a separate WP:COMMENTATOR gets formulated, this article can get restored. But it doesn't seem to pass current guidelines, and we can't refactor or formulate them here. JFHJr (㊟) 00:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of those are op-eds by Wexler, which is the problem. Him writing his own articles for publications do not establish notability. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:38, 1 September 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 Purbayan Chatterjee. Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anthem Kolkata[edit]

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

A "project" to create an anthem for the city of Kolkata. Doesn't appear to be notable. PepperBeast (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sohom Datta: If it was not notable, then surely you meant "delete"?-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah shoot, I meant delete, updated the comment -- Sohom (talk) 10:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Habeeb Zain Arif[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. PepperBeast (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Matthews (politician)[edit]

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

Local politicians are not inherently notable per WP:NPOL. Article cites a single reference. MBE is the lowest class in the Order of the British Empire, and having been a POW doesn't swing the balance in this instance for me. Uhooep (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a member of the OBE would be enough for notability if the article were well-sourced, but it is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a person from having to pass WP:GNG just because the text has the words "Order of the British Empire" in it. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something better than this, but this as written and sourced is not enough by itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only one source at the moment and it's not even clear it was staff-written. Fails WP:GNG as it's written. Name is too generic for a comprehensive before search even when adding secondary terms, so may be hard to WP:HEY. SportingFlyer T·C 19:14, 26 August 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 Denis and Me. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Denis (YouTuber)[edit]

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

Looking per before, it hasn't receive a lot of coverage. thus, failing notability. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 15:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Entertainment, Internet, and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Denis and Me. While the show certainly passes the notability criteria for television shows, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just for being in television shows, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG as individuals — but the sourcing here is in no way adequate, as it's based entirely on primary sources (his own YouTube videos, Twitter tweets) that aren't support for notability at all, unreliable sources (Distractify, Tuko) that don't count as GNG builders, and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of the show. That's not what it takes to make him independently notable enough to have his own standalone biographical article separately from the show. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Although it is indeed that it is his show that is notable, he himself is a youtuber that pioneered Roblox videos from around 2015. It is not like the TV show that brought him fame at all, it is more that his fame in Youtube caused him to make 'Denis and Me'. Also, if this article should really be removed, other Roblox Youtubers such as Megan Letter should be removed too, since they are also only a Youtuber that rose to fame from Roblox, and even more, they don't even have a TV show.
    Another thing I want to point out is that this is probably only the early stage of this article. He has done much more than what this article tells others, and that the other things the Denis did (popularize many Roblox games such as 'Slide down 999,999,999 feet' type games and obby games that were popularized around many of 2016~2017, popularize the Business Cat (Catalog number 121389389 if interested on the product) as 'Sir-Meows-A-Lot' making the item very famous in the Roblox catalog, just to name a few examples) are still not shown in this article. Just because his importance is not shown yet in this article dosen't mean that this article should be deleted, and I think this article should just be far more improved to show the significance of Denis.
    Lastly, the main reason there are many links to Denis' own YouTube is because that is the only main source that we can check about his biography, as it is uncommon for other media (especially popular media) will never cover on those topics. I think it is natural that the main sources are primary sources. A question I have is why is Distractify considered unreliable? The media is a popular online publication and even competes with companies like BuzzFeed. I do get that Sportskeeda is not the most reliable source, and we will need an improvement on the sources of where that is covered. ShdogKING (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the purposes of establishing notability, a source has to be independent of the subject. If there's so little media coverage about him that you have to rely on his own self-published information about himself to support a Wikipedia article, then he can't have a Wikipedia article: people can lie about themselves, people can self-aggrandize, people can puff themselves up to sound more important and prominent than they actually are, and on and so forth, so notability doesn't vest in the things he says about himself, it vests in the extent to which his activities have or haven't garnered third party coverage in media to establish that people without a vested interest in his career have externally validated its significance. Notability, in other words, isn't "did stuff", it's "was considered significant enough that media covered the stuff he did as news" — and if a person can't demonstrate the latter, then he doesn't get a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do understand your opinion on why you want the article to be directed to Denis and Me. It is in fact a big problem when people lie about themselves and make themselves look more than they are, especially on the internet. However, I do not see the reason why the sources (such as his birth date, subscriber count, and about his old Roblox group The Pals) would be exaggerated and lied upon, because of two main reasons..
    1. Why would you lie about your own birth date? Even if he did, how can we prove that it is indeed the Youtuber's own birthday? It is only him that can tell his birthday, unless somthing unlikely such as his own passport will get leaked happens. Like, for example, no one ever has spoke out about whether Bayashi (in JA) or Nick DiGiovanni's birthday is the truth, and people like that have never been considered beeing removed or moved. I listed food content creators, but this is true for any Youtube content creator, really.
    2. People can simply not lie about something that many people, especially fans of Denis and people around him saw/see over on the internet. It is a prominent, unchangable fact that The Pals existed, and although there was no popular media that is known worldwide that spread about the drama, it is indeed that The Pals disbanded due to one of the members (Corl) saying something impolite to one of his audience. I also want to point out that although there isn't particular news channels/companies that cover about this topic, there are many Youtube videos about the topic, and has been a significant drama betweem audiences of many gaming channels, even outside of Roblox.
    Also, it isn't common for news websites to cover about drama in gaming channels, or facts about Youtube channels in general but there has been plenty of Wikipedia coverage of them. From what the things of the Wikipedia article states, the things that are stated are not yet big enough things to be covered in news, or it is covered by a news network that isn't worldwide but is a prominent news network.
    P.S. I notice that Tuko is unreliable on this topic. The Tuko citation needs to be removed. ShdogKING (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is about all I can find, [28], not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, the article was originally a draft. Brachy08 (Talk) 01:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I never really wanted to redirect the page to the article namespace, because I didn't think it was ready yet. Worthipedia (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about it. But you can always try again until it’s on the article namespace. (Wait a minute, how did you figure out namespaces?) Brachy08 (Talk) 03:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nomination. Idiosincrático (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as WP:ATD per Bearcat until more sources can be found. The one source posted earlier looks promising, but I'm having a hard time finding any more sources that could make him pass GNG per WP:THREE. PantheonRadiance (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Denis and Me per Bearcat and WP:ATD. --Lenticel (talk) 07:45, 30 August 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 Amazing World of Gumball (season 5)#The Copycats. ✗plicit 14:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle Star[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Previously deleted in an AfD, but immediately recreated. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Araceli Aipoh[edit]

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

Non-notable author. Lacks significant coverage. PepperBeast (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulla Hassan Kamal[edit]

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

Despite playing a few professional games, I was unable to find any significant coverage to meet WP:GNG or even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. The best that I could find in Arabic sources was Stad Doha and QSL, both trivial mentions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:36, 26 August 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 13:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa George[edit]


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

Fails WP:BIO. Just being Miss Kansas isn't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Hannah Wagner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See also the AfD for former Miss Kansas Gayla Leigh Shoemake. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. Pageants and their winners are often contentious in terms of discerning notability - but the fact that most state pageant winners go on to have rather normal, non-notable lives does lend to the current practice of not having pages for individuals who are only known for their pageantry win (which can be seen in the tables for most any state's "Miss...." article. As an aside, what a... strange AfD section. I've never seen anything like it, and I'm genuinely baffled at what the motive and end goal is. A MINOTAUR (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems like an odd article discussion to be a sockmagnet. Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both: Agree with nom. These subjects each fail WP:GNG as it stands with a lack of secondary coverage. User:Let'srun 12:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks in-depth coverage that is not a result of the beauty pageant victory. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:19, 2 September 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 13:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Wasey Mominyar[edit]

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

Searches only seem to yield social media coverage and his two matches for Etisalat don't seem to meet the current WP:NCRIC standards. I can't find any evidence of WP:GNG from his very brief career. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo Sukhlian[edit]

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

BLP with no acceptable sources and no indication of notability. Does not look to even pass WP:SPORTBASIC #5, which is the minimum standard. An Indian source search yields only Wikipedia mirrors. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:15, 26 August 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 13:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mobin Rai[edit]

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

Poorly sourced stats stub that is barely an article at the moment. No evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG and my Indian source search was unsuccessful. The article also contains incorrect information as Soccerway, as well as other stats sites, states that he never played a game at the top level. The best coverage that I can find is Kathmandu Post, which mentions him twice, and Sikkim Express, a single passing mention. None of that is even close to significant and this BLP is not justified unless anyone can find anything better. I found stuff about him on Facebook and Blogspot but we can't use these sources as they are self-published. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:14, 26 August 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! 22:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KSL Capital Partners[edit]

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

WP:ADVERT / Deletion policy #4. WP:NCORP. Re-recreated after two AFDs and I believe it merits DELETE & SALT. The last two AFDs closed with solid delete. Sources are still horrendous. It still looks advert. Graywalls (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to no notability Elttaruuu (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A company that bought almost every major Colorado ski resort on its face alone is notable. The company has investments in major resorts across the country. There are 34 resorts that link to this article and that should indicate notability. My interest in doing the article was because of its involvement with the Blade helicopter service which has generated mountains of press in New York City because of its fights over helicopter service between the city and the Hamptons. The company is actually a major player in redeveloping the Hamptons. If you do not like the article that can be changed. Nominations for deletion are about the notability of the company and not about the article. I can assure you I am in no way associated with the company. I researched it because I was curious about its history. Americasroof (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2023 (
Comment I would think that according to WP:INHERITORG, owning lots of resort is NOT "on its face alone" notable. I've searched and I am finding a lots of acquisition/purchase announcements and a mountain of press releases, particularly on "hospitalitynet" Graywalls (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any nefarious paid editing should not determine whether we have article on these guys.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:57, 27 August 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 and redirect‎ to Estonian Shipping Company. Not going to prejudge a discussion at another venue and as it's mentioned it's a reasonable redirect. Spartaz Humbug! 03:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elmar Kivistik (ship)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG: just WP:ROUTINE coverage. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 18:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Estonian Shipping Company: Can't find any SIRS sources, redirecting is an ATD per gidonb. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 01:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not crazy about redirecting to Estonian Shipping Company – all that page tells the reader is that the Elmar Kivitisk is a ship formerly operated by that company. These sort of redirects are frequently created at AfD as an alternative to deletion, but too often end up at RfD. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 11:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why on earth would it end up on RfD? "no mention in the target article"? Nope, it's there. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but it's unhelpful to the reader looking for concrete information. It's misleading. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 16:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the point being made here by the nom, in that redirecting to the parent company with no additional detail is unhelpful and without purpose. I do not think someone searching for this ship will find helpful resource having being sent to Estonian Shipping Company. On balance, considering the redirect proposal, I would suggest simply deleting. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:13, 26 August 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 06:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as I do not see any value in a redirect to the company where the subject is not discussed in any meaningful way (a list entry, among others, does not constitute a mention). Furthermore, if I was treating this as a RFD for arguments sake, I would consider WP:R#DELETE point 10 of reasons to not have a RD, which states "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." - this could, at some future point, become an article but the proposed target discussed here I do not think offers value at this time and so without a credible claim to notability, I suggest deleting. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:09, 26 August 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. Clearly we shouldn't have the article. Only one keep vote wasn't a bare assertion that could have come directly from ATA but should we merge or delete?. Of the substantive arguments there seems to be no real claim of passing GNG and bare mentions into the target article would not need this to be retained. Spartaz Humbug! 03:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Morgan (engineer)[edit]

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

Lack of notability, subject is a UK traffic cone engineer of no real note aside from his purported (and dubiously sourced) claim to have invented the plastic traffic cone. The page is short and two entire sections are completely unsourced.In1tiate (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article already includes adequate references from reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would contest the reliability of the specific sources used in this article, frankly. Travel guides and publicity pces do not hard-hitting fact-based journalism make. Regardless, the issue at hand is that the subject is far from notable. Per WP:NSUSTAINED, notable subjects require notability beyond a single event - Mr. Morgan is notable only for claiming to have invented the plastic traffic cone in 1960. In1tiate (talk) 09:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article already has adequate sources to establish notability, and more are available:
Morgan is notable not only as the purported inventor of the traffic cone but as the world-record holder for largest collector, and has received coverage in RSs for both. Jfire (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the King of Cones per the refs cited.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to traffic cone. Alternatively just delete. I have looked at this carefully and made a copy edit to the page to correct the claims per the source. There is a lack of reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject, that address his notability. But despite that, there is clear evidence that he has made a plausible claim that he was the first to engineer traffic cones out of plastic, and that his company cornered the supply of these. There is also good evidence that he holds a record for the most number of cones. These are salient facts, but they are not notability for a biographical article. These are better placed in the traffic cone article, which can say that cones were made originally from rubber[29] or wood, and were often three sided rather than conical, but from 1961 they were engineered in plastic. The world record could also be mentioned there as it is as worthy as anything else in the "in popular culture" section. As this is all we can say about the subject, the enclopaedia can cover this, no information being lost, without need of a permastub biographical article about someone who didn't actually invent the cones, and just has a lot of them. The claim to have engineered cones from plastic is not very notable, and holding a world record for a collection is not notable (as should be clear: notability is permanent, but a world record is not. A world record becomes notable only when it is covered in reliable secondary sources for some reason. That is, the subject must meet WP:GNG, and in this case, the subject does not). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Yeah, please: this is obviously a very local interest fellow (yes, the UK counts as local for something like this), and his achievements do not cut the mustard. We have not as a rule found people notable for world record collections even when Guinness does verify the record, and being the first to mold a traffic cone out of plastic is a very minor accomplishment. We don't make articles for people simply out of human interest stories. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. Local "news of the weird" is routine NOTNEWS material. Multiple separate instances of such coverage does not make a topic encyclopedic. AFAICT the Dull Men calendar is trivial coverage as well.
JoelleJay (talk) 04:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Sirfurboy. Fundamentally, even if this is a GNG pass, all you can write with extant sources is what exists now (basically nothing) but I also agree this is NOTNEWS-type coverage or else simply not something that determines notability per our standards (Guinness Records.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:44, 30 August 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taran Adarsh[edit]

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

This Living person biography is least likely to pass Wikipedia guidelines for notability. First, because it does not site any Reliable, quality sources (only one cited in which there is no discussion on Subject Taran Adarsh , secondly I searched web also and do not found any Reliable or quality sources which talk about the Subject in depth , and for Wikipedia notability guidelines there should be multiple reliable sources talking about subject in Depth, which is absent in this case. This user have 4 Million followers on Twitter but having this will not pass Notability on its own without reliable secondary sources. WikiAnchor10 (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. WikiAnchor10 (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - one of the most notable trade analysts and reviewers in India, working for the popular web portal Bollywood Hungama. His reviews and critical commentary are cited on almost a thousand Wikipedia articles on Hindi films and actor biographies. Shahid • Talk2me 10:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment more sources added. Shahid • Talk2me 13:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What would really help is a source that has extensive coverage of Adarsh, not just a passing mention, quote from one of his reviews or an interview with him. A couple of strong sources would go a long way to showing notability. Ravensfire (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ravensfire: I think that a source like "Films: interview with Taran Adarsh" by Hindustan Times is exactly what we call extensive coverage. An article dedicated to his professional input is no mean thing. Neither are, in my opinion, a group of books which describe him as a well-known film critic (passing mention or not, the content does matter). Shahid • Talk2me 14:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if recent changes help establish notability. An individual can be all over TV and newspapers but if we don't have articles or books ABOUT them, then it doesn't matter.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This is a bit surprising given how many sources I found that mentioned his reviews, but all the sources in the article and that I could find are passing, hence failing GNG. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 00:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find lots of what they say and sources quoting them but I've failed to find anything much about them and nothing with any depth. They appear to have a career generating quotes for news-sources. They appear to fail WP:BIO/WP:NBASIC KylieTastic (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very prominent Indian film critic who is linked in a whopping 924 articles. I've lost count how many articles I've read or reviewed which cites his reviews. He is cited in books as a "well-known cinema industry critic". [30] I wouldn't expect him to have much bio information available on him like a lot of critics, the focus is on the films rather than them. He is also notable as a trade analyst, editor of a magazine, and is cited as such in numerous books, looking in google books. Makes no sense to delete this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A search of images shows that a great deal has been written about the subject. Taran Adarsh – The Indian film critic who has won everyone’s heart is an example. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A prominent trade analyst and reviewer of Bollywood films for many years. He has been cited in many articles and books.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments which focus on the availability of reliable, in-depth source material (or the lack thereof) about this subject would be much more helpful than those which focus on how well-known he is or what he has done, as that is not a notability factor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Above there's a delete !vote that begins I can find lots of what they say and sources quoting them. That's WP:CREATIVE#1. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There's a lack of good in-depth sources on this person, with an interview being the only one in the article. As noted, they are very widely cited in multiple high quality sources for their reviews and thoughts on the film industry. NCREATIVE#1 is very easily met for this person. This won't be the longest article, but absolutely merits staying on Wikipedia. Ravensfire (talk) 18:40, 29 August 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. Absent disagreement, I'm going with HighKing's source analysis and that this requires NCORP level sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 03:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sundance Air Venezuela[edit]

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

Lacks independent sources and coverage.

A Google search finds no coverage what so ever. Kaseng55 (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • El Carabobeno repeats information provided in a radio interview by the president of the company and has no other information, has no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND. Also insufficient in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH
  • Sumarium article discusses the exact same radio interview and this article fails NCORP criteria for the same reason as above
  • El Diario article - same radio interview, same failure. It is also only 2 sentences and the second sentence is devoted to a quote from the president.
  • Banca y Negocios article - same as above. Fails CORPDEPTH/ORGIND.
  • 800 Noticias same failures as above.
Notable that all of these articles report on the same interview, most received the information from the radio broadcaster, all are dated within a day of each other, all fail ORGIND/CORPDEPTH.
I am unable to locate any sources that meet our criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 13:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional analysis of the proposed source material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:18, 26 August 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! 05:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation about Donald Trump's Cabinet[edit]

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

Here we have the fossil of all those speculation articles. In this case, it's not so much WP:CRYSTAL that he would name a cabinet, but yeah, people made lots of guesses as to whom he would name, and some were right and some were wrong, and nobody really cared about the wrong guesses as soon as nominations appeared, and really, as far as those which were correct, nobody cared about the guesses either, after the fact. This is a prime example of the principle that sourcing is not notability. Yes, the cabinet choices themselves were notable, but we really have to have proof that, some years on now, there was significant interest in decent sources as to what the guesses themselves were. That is definitely not this article, which is no more than a catalogue of those guesses. This material simply isn't encyclopedic; indeed, it's essentially a collection of primary sources for the subject should someone care to research the quality of the guessing or some such thing. Mangoe (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wasn't notable then and certainly isn't so now. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable infodump whose only notable content duplicates the Cabinet of Donald Trump article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move and WP:CLEANUP instead - plenty for Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics to do! RepublicanParty-Lucia-Kwamkior9202 (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sockpuppet vote struck by — Trey Maturin™ 14:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The people who were actually in the cabinet is obviously important historical information that we need to retain for posterity, but a record of people who were briefly speculated about as maybe getting appointed to the cabinet, regardless of whether they actually did or not, is of no enduring importance at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cabinet of Donald Trump. To the extent that specific individuals were named in the press as possible appointees to various positions, that can be noted in running text in the article describing who actually filled those seats. BD2412 T 17:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly goes against WP:CRYSTALBALL. — Maile (talk) 21:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively to Cabinet of Donald Trump. As is, the article is far too large to merge. BD2412's wording is important -- the information should be included in running text in the article describing who actually filled those seats -- since the tables as they exist would provide massively WP:UNDUE weight to candidates over the actual officeholders. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think if people want to include people who were finalists and actually under consideration in the main Cabinet article as brief running text that's fine, but just because one person speculated a name doesn't mean we have to include that so I'm not going to agree with a wider merge of no-tables version. 2024 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection and the excessive speculation in similar pages should be deleted too. Reywas92Talk 16:12, 27 August 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 Mrs Globe only‎. Only Mrs Globe has been discussed in any way.

For the nominator. It's sources that win prizes not allegations or assessment of creator intentions. Please don't bulk nominate a BLP and a non-BLP. We tend approach them differently and it creates extra paperwork. Spartaz Humbug! 03:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Globe[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:NOT (clear promotion or advertising).

Third nomination because 1st time, the creator of the page argued the case and there was not much other interest in discussion so it was closed as no consensus, and 2nd time the nomination was my long rant so it was closed as procedural keep. At no point has there been a strong argument made for keeping this based on Wikipedia policy.

I am arguing that this was clearly created as promotion by Australianblackbelt, whose account has since been blocked because of WP:NOTHERE as this person attempted to make multiple pages for Mrs. Globe alone. When you look at the sources on the article, most are broken links, and many are not reliable sources, and some aren't even about the pageant at all (per the 1st nomination). Dubious, probable COI anecdotal claims about notability from the creator of the page (who has since been blocked for WP:NOTHERE) are not supported. I do not see a notable pageant, all I see is a pageant inappropriately using Wikipedia as a venue for promotion. Fixthetyp0 (talk) 02:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are both apparently just self-promotion, most notable thing about these 2 women is that they won this non-notable pageant and previously won a non-notable national title in the lead-up to this non-notable international pageant:

Alisa Krylova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Svetlana Kruk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Fixthetyp0 (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator seems to be editing for the sole purpose of getting these 3 articles deleted... Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Nowehere in this article is it clear that this is promotion, nor does an editor's conduct mean their articles are automatically reflective thereof. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I concur that any possible promotionalism in these articles is nowhere near the level that would get them speedy-deleted. Krylova's article is certainly very bad, but its the sort of bad that is pretty easy to fix and does not merit a TNT deletion. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If editors would please see the ANI, I would appreciate that. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_Fixthetyp0's_sockpuppet_allegations_over_Mrs._Globe) I was in no way targeting KatoKungLee. As stated in the ANI, I see this as a page created for promotional purposes (not self-promotional, as Canterbury Tail said, but still promotional) and I nominate Mrs. Globe for deletion because it is a non-notable pageant. I was not attempting to accuse KatoKungLee of anything but merely noticed that the other 2 articles are for women who have done nothing notable other than win this non-notable pageant. We could consider a deletion approach of leaving those 2 women's articles (if there is more to those women that makes them notable) while continuing with deletion of Mrs. Globe, if that is muddying the waters too much. Unfortunately some of this discussion has spilled over into the ANI but Canterbury Tail made some great points that I suggest people look at before deciding how to further approach this. Also, to be clear - I never recommended a "speedy" deletion. I recommended an AfD. So whether the promotionalism is worthy of speedy deletion is irrelevant as that is not the issue under discussion. The issue under discussion is whether Mrs. Globe is notable, or if it exists just as marketing for a pageant and that may be due to AustralianBlackBelt having some kind of conflict of interest leading to being a promoter or somehow connected with promoting for pageants - per what Canterbury Tail said in the ANI. Fixthetyp0 (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - @Fixthetyp0 "but merely noticed that the other 2 articles are for women who have done nothing notable other than win this non-notable pageant". That's not what you said though. You said I am also nominating the following related pages because they are both apparently just self-promotion. We can further prove this because you said the same thing - here in July. I'd also like to know on what basis are you deeming Svetlana Kruk not notable, because you she won four different pageants.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed the second AFD and will not be closing this go-round but I will relist it with a comment. If this was an issue of promotion, then CSD G11 would have been appropriate. The nominator doesn't discuss notability much but that is usually the focus in AFD discussions that I don't see being considered here. Do the sources in these three articles establish notability that justifies having a standalone article? Should the bios be redirected to the competition's article? I'd like to see less discussion about contributors, blocked or not blocked, and more on the whether or not GNG is evident.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. From a quick review, there's only one source with SIGCOV of the subject in the article: [36], not great because it's so dependent on a pageant contestant's voice. That is, the bulk of this source is neither secondary nor independent. From my quick review, none of the others provide SIGCOV, and many are similarly not independent.
I haven't done any further research for notability, so I won't !vote, but the Mrs. Globe article as it stands doesn't demonstrate GNG. —siroχo 03:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, there are several articles about Canadian contestants or the Canadian qualifiers, [37], [38]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This sounds like an argument for creating a Mrs. Canada Globe page, not an argument for keeping the Mrs. Globe page. Sometimes the national competition has reasons why it draws more notability than the international competition. That being said, in this case, I really do not think a couple of one-off small, local community articles profiling a contestant for competing in a pageant makes either the national or international pageant notable. Any Jane Smith can go to her local newspaper and say she's competing in a pageant and the local newspaper will likely generously give her one article on it to support her, especially the nice reporters of Canada when they want to focus on little community stories. One-off support articles from the contestant's local town happens in almost all pageants. Doesn't make the pageant notable. Take, for example, Mrs. Continental Worldwide. It would be laughable for anyone to consider that a notable pageant worthy of a Wikipedia page at this point (and accordingly, no such page exists), but if you look it up, yes there are local community newspapers who write a single one-off story about the Mrs. Continental Worldwide contestants, like many newspaper stories that go "so and so beauty queens #129743 of the thousands of beauty queens in the world won or is competing in so and so beauty pageant #297 of hundreds of random beauty pageants out there". Fixthetyp0 (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to withdraw my nomination of Svetlana Kruk because of new information that came to light where KatoKungLee says she won 3 pageants. Given that the 3 pageants she won are not notable (the Mrs. Universe she won isn't even the one with a wikipedia page, it seems to be a copycat pageant with the same name that for whatever reason didn't garner the same notability, and it's very confusing to have someone else have a wikipedia page for being the winner of Mrs. Universe 2013 when the list of winners on the Mrs. Universe page does not include Svetlana Kruk), I still personally do not believe Svetlana Kruk is notable. However, clearly I misspoke when saying "self-promotion" and didn't pay enough attention to who made that article. Now I would like to withdraw the nomination of Svetlana Kruk given that I feel personally attacked by KatoKungLee and his buddy DarkSide830 both arguing on this AfD and also threatening me with sanctions on the ANI together. I really did not ask to invite this in my life. I don't personally think Svetlana Kruk is notable but maybe this is a conversation for another time if someone wants to nominate her article directly, separately. Right now I want the focus to be on Mrs. Globe's non-notability. I hope the personal accusations can stop and we can focus on the notability of Mrs. Globe. Fixthetyp0 (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In case it's relevant (Like Canterbury Tail's comments about possibly promotional), the ANI is now archived here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#User_Fixthetyp0's_sockpuppet_allegations_over_Mrs._Globe Cheers, Fixthetyp0 (talk) 14:58, 31 August 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! 01:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clayne Robison[edit]

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

Lacks the independent sources to satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - sufficient sources have been added (though not yet cited in footnotes). Skyerise (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, while its a fairly close run-thing, I do not believe Robison passes WP:GNG. The Deseret News article is a pretty clear puff piece that largely takes the form of an interview in any case, and the academic sources cited are a bit hard to analyse but seem to only provide passing mentions of Robison. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be nice to see some assessment of changes made since the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per Devonian Wombat. I don't see enough to hang an article on here. Even if we accept the Deseret News article without qualifications, there don't seem to be any other sources that wouldn't require OR to extract the content, which means we're still short of WP:NBASIC. To the extent it might be a borderline case, it seems to me WP:BLP and the associated privacy considerations would weigh pretty strongly against inclusion. -- Visviva (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Premraj K K[edit]


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

No coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The current version is unsourced. There is a version which is a copyvio and has been revision deleted which included this, and this as sources. Neither appear to be independent reliable sources. There are claims of awards. "Indian Prime Icom award" looks to be this which has all the trappings of those awards one can buy for oneself. It's not at all clear what award "Nationl Excellence award" [sic] refers to. Whpq (talk) 01:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of notability. #prodraxis connect 01:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed, no sources. Format and overall bad writing as well Dotdashmeredith (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jasin Redjalari[edit]

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

Non notable wrestler, Found this under their English name but found nothing under their Macedonian name[39] or their Albanian name[40], Also worth noting the page has been created and heavily edited by Jasinrex who appears to be article subject, No evidence of any notability, Fails GNG –Davey2010Talk 00:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No coverage of any kind found, one German hit in Gnews for an unrelated person. Sources used here in the article are wikipedia, so nothing for reliability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for sure fails GNG Dotdashmeredith (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, Albania, and North Macedonia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Couldn't find much. I don't know how prestigious the Mediterranean freestyle wrestling championship is, but it doesn't seem super notable Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could only find sport records and stats. It's posisible that I used the wrong alphabet, however, wrestlers who represent smaller countries are often not notable. Redjalari among these by what I could find. Please tag me if you do better than me in searching for WP:SIGCOV. gidonb (talk) 02:09, 28 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_August_26&oldid=1173543618"