Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 07	February 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miodrag Vasiljević[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Serbia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the player has played in professional leagues like Serbian SuperLiga and K League 2 but there is no coverage available. I will change my vote to "Keep" if reliable coverage is found. Charsaddian (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E&S Academy[edit]

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

A vocational school whose only source is an article in The New York Times about nursing shortages statewide in New Jersey that doesn't appear to mention the school, nor could any other in-depth coverage be found in a Google search that would establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Medicine, and New Jersey. Alansohn (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Remarkable lack of hits other than self-advertising. As un-notable as it gets. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mention at all in the one reference given. Rhadow (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. No reliable coverage was found. Charsaddian (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability cannot be established.--Bexaendos (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability. Almeida Fernando (talk) 09:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Many of the "facts" are not verifiable. For example, what board of nursing? The DOE does not accredit schools of this type. Even if these were fixed, there's scant evidence of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a number of issues with this, not least of which includes poor sourcing, lack of SIGCOV by reliable independent sources, WP:V, and GNG. Shawn Teller (talk) 03:34, 15 February 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. Despite the clear numerical majority that voted to keep this article, I was very close to closing this discussion with a consensus to delete. The primary issue is finding sources that establish the notability of the subject, per WP:GNG. There are clearly plenty of sources that establish the existence of MovieWeb, but very few (if any) that establish its notability. The only reason I didn't close with a consensus to delete is because there were a few borderline sources provided that covered the subject in a tenuous way, but there is plenty of room to argue that these sources don't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. My recommendation would be to give the proponents of this article a few months to dig up better sources, and then nominate it for deletion again after some time has passed. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MovieWeb[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. --Ferien (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Websites. --Ferien (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, it has third party mentions from strong sources such as the LA Times, it needs expanding but I don't believe it warrants deletion. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has mentions, and some sites quote its reviews, but I don't find anything substantial about it. It seems to be a useful source of movie reviews of a popular nature. Compare this to the information about Rotten Tomatoes - well, no comparison. Lamona (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Accesscrawl (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article had many more substantial citations before it was gutted in April 2018. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Darkwarriorblake. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 21:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a weak article in its current form, and needs a lot of work, but I agree that a sufficient number of verifiable secondary sources exists to lean strongly toward WP:WEBCRIT and to avoid deletion. Ppt91 (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful to cite those sources here so we can see what you are using for your evaluation. Lamona (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, but MovieWeb has been mentioned (or used) in several third party reliable sources. They must feel they are notable enough to repost interviews that MovieWeb has done — The Hollywood Reporter, IndieWire And here the The Hollywood Reporter uses them as a source for their reporting. Mike Allen 22:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Each of those is a short (often less than an entire sentence) quote from a MovieWeb interview. I think it's clear that people use MovieWeb to look up information about movies, but we still need significant, 3rd party sources for the WP article. Lamona (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article does need improvement but Afd is not cleanup. Longstanding notable film website - and there are secondary sources available - some of which I have added. Also - Movieweb has been a longstanding entry within Plunkett's Entertainment & Media Industry Almanac[1] ResonantDis_tortion 07:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You added Business Wire, but that is an outlet for press releases, and not an independent source. There is not one substantive, independent source for this web site. Lamona (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agreed Business Wire is a press release that does not establish WP:GNG - but I added more refs including a (admittedly short) review of the MovieWeb site from the Los Angeles Times. ResonantDis_tortion 17:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That short review is 6 sentences. And so far it's the longest info about MovieWeb in an independent source. Deseret news 404's, unfortunately. The Directory of Web Sites is 2 sentences. The LA Times has 3 sentences of which one is: "Though the site is packed with inane fluff, it does distinguish between high- and low-bandwidth pages." So in spite of folks above saying that this is an essential movie site, we still do not have an independent source that concurs. If the non-independent sources (the vast majority here) were removed there would be almost no sourced content in this article. I don't see how it can be kept under those circumstances. Lamona (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it manages to scrape by GNG with this coverage about them being sued.★Trekker (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC) These books 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 also have some coverage.★Trekker (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All but one of those books is a listing in a list of web sites, maybe 25 words at most. (Actually, one is mention that is not even a full sentence.) The one that is longer is a short article in PC magazine, which Google probably digitized from a bound volume. I don't think that being sued (and that article is less than a page) achieves notability. Again, I am surprised at the advocacy for this article without addressing the actual notability guidelines. Lamona (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having coverage in a reliable publication that you got sued indicates notability. And an article being digitized by Google has no bearing or relevancy to anything unless you're arguing that PC magazine is unreliable in the first place.★Trekker (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the references offered as "coverage" are one-liners. When asked to provide evidence of notability it is best to pick two or three that do the job, rather than including lots that don't add anything. The two paragraphs in this one4 are located in the "special advertising section" and are clearly not independent. BruceThomson (talk) 05:43, 16 February 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avinash Kaul[edit]

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

This BLP of a business executive is poorly sourced. Routine coverage for his appointment as a CEO of a news channel. Does not meet WP:GNG Thesixserra (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, News media, and India. Thesixserra (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Quick fail of WP:ANYBIO. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't pass WP:GNG --- Misterrrrr (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He certainly meets the basic notability criteria; he has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. This is demonstrated by the in-depth coverage of him in some of the sources cited.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 21:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Passing mentions and lists are not significant coverage about a person. His position as CEO does not automatically give him a pass. Bearian (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Electrical Engineering of the University of East Sarajevo[edit]

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

I don’t believe this faculty is independently notable, but the creator does not agree with a redirect to University of East Sarajevo so we need a consensus to resolve the matter. Mccapra (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mccapra (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent confirmation that the faculty is notable beyond the institution. Fails WP:SIRS Rhadow (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. 3 of the 4 sources are about a symposium and not directly about the faculty. Oppose redirect as it is an unlikely search term. LibStar (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no independent notability confirmation per editors posting above. Ppt91 (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Charsaddian (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. I would not oppose a redirect. Bearian (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - university departments do not inherit notability JMWt (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5; the only author of substantial content was a sock of a blocked user. No prejudice against recreation by a user in good standing if notability can be unambiguously demonstrated. ^Complex/_Rational 15:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslan Bogatyrev[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I had originally sent it to PROD without realizing there was an AfD discussion which resulted in deletion before. Notability is not evident and sources do not appear reliable under WP:SINGER specifically and WP:BIO more broadly. Article is also overcited to make an appearance of being well-sourced. There are no English-language sources to support notability and the article relies too heavily on non-English materials to make WP:RSUE easily verifiable. The award category is supported by two citations which lead to a music video and to a press release, suggesting further issues regarding its subject's notability. I propose deletion per above. Ppt91 (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ppt91 (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or a very Weak keep if there is a major rework on the sources. I have checked the article's references, some sources (e.g., [2] or [3]) contain absolutely no information mentioned in the sentences they should support. Moreover, these are some small-talks with Bogatyrev about "how to keep a conversation going" or "how to lose some weight before summer". ThegaBolt (talk) 18:19, 9 February 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!} 21:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Ingalls[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an autobiograpy with no reliable sources in the article. I've removed a lot of self-sourced, self-promotion but there's not much left. I could only find references for this musician/programmer that are connected with organizations he is a part of (employer, club, etc.) - no third-party sources with in-depth coverage to establish WP:BIO.

Previous AFD in 2011 weakly failed with only 3 comments, two of which are that his discography includes releases on notable labels. It appears that he is a sessions musician on most if not all of these recordings which does not support WP:MUSIC notability. Toddst1 (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIRS Rhadow (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Note that the musician notability rules were looser in 2011 than now. But even back then, editors should have detected that this article is an attempted personal promotion page created by the musician himself or a supporter. It violates WP:NOTRESUME and probably WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. And despite a long career as a trusty sideman and accompanist, he has no significant and reliable coverage in his own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT per WP:GNG, WP:NBAND, and [WP:NOTWEBHOST]]. In 2023, everyone knows we are a charity and not a free web host. User name of the creator should be banned permanently as advertising. Bearian (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted as a CSD G5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maby (App)[edit]

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

Not meeting notability, GNG. Sources given are all clickbait sties or non RS for news outlets. I'm not showing any coverage in RS either. Appears promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Vietnam, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mojahed Abdullah[edit]

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

Can't find anything to satisfy WP:SPORTBASIC, noting that the guideline explicitly states that such articles must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. My Arabic searches yielded no such coverage. Best source I can find is FilGoal and a YouTube video, neither of which can be considered as detailed enough coverage to warrant a biography article in an encyclopaedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I completely agree with this nomination. Charsaddian (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:03, 9 February 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. Although the "delete" !votes have some strong arguments, there obviously is at this moment no consensus to delete this article. Perhaps that some judicious editing can take care of the signaled content duplications. Randykitty (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States tornadoes in May 2008[edit]

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

This list duplicates three other pages, Tornado outbreak of May 1–2, 2008, List of tornadoes in the tornado outbreak sequence of May 7–15, 2008, and List of tornadoes in the tornado outbreak sequence of May 22–31, 2008. It has no actual content, just copies long lists of mainly minor tornadoes from these three pages. Efforts to rationalize this somewhat[4] were reverted. I don't see the point of this duplicative effort. Note that the three events are also at length described in Tornadoes of 2008#May, making this essentially a fifth page about the same events, but with the least information and the most WP:NOTDATABASE content issues. Fram (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just because it doesn't have any content now doesn't mean it won't be added later. As a matter of fact, are start putting in tables now. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, a list of two tornadoes which did no damage. Why do we need a list of trivia? Fram (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's compare it to a finished one, List of United States tornadoes in April 2009; yep, loads and loads of trivial, minor events and one major outbreak which already has its own article. So the month article adds nothing of value. Fram (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  ...you serious right now? A tornado is a tornado; whether its an EF5 tornado that destroys a city or an EFU tornado that remains over open country, IT GOES ON THE LIST. IT STILL COUNTS. There is nothing 'trivial' about a documented tornado. If that's the case, you might as well go back to every tornado list ever made and delete it.
  
  @United States Man, TornadoLGS, Penitentes, Poodle23, Mjeims, Wxtrackercody, Halls4521, TornadoInformation12, Ionmars10, and CapeVerdeWave: Someone please reason with this moron who isn't part of the project and is being annoying. I have better things to do than argue all day. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Fram: Unfortunately, in tornado outbreak articles, we spare no expense and list every single tornado, from the weakest to the most destructive. As ChessEric said, articles listing tornadoes for a month or multi-month period include every single tornado documented for the month, and they also include the tornado tables for more significant outbreak days, which sometimes have articles of their own. ~~I personally do not care if you do not find any value in having month articles with many supposedly "insignificant" events listed, but~~ For history records and documentation that these Wikipedia articles are for, every single tornado has to be present, even if failed to be notable in and of its own. So, with that said, keep. Mjeims (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This guy possibly got angry because he got an edit reverted. XD

Seriously though, there are probably at least some people out there who want/need a combined list. Also, there are tornadoes that happened in between those time periods, and if someone wanted to find out about them, this article would need to exist. Poodle23 (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So my personal opinion is Keep. Poodle23 (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This isn’t violating any guidelines or policy, and has been used for basically every…single…month for tornadoes. To the nominator’s comment about it being a duplicate to five other sources…I don’t see any of those other articles mentioning anything about May 5 or May 6, which means it adds new information that should not be combined with any other event as combining it into a tornado outbreak article would effectively be adding inaccurate information to Wikipedia. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment struck as I think it was canvassed, since the AN/I determined the editor who alerted me via my talk page canvassed the vote. Just ignore my comment and my participation here. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is this notification not a violation of WP:CANVASS?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: I normally get pinged in weather-related discussions (many discussions to back that up), and my interactions with the nominator occurred generally before I started editing in weather-related articles. The person alerting me probably did not know my history with the nominator, especially since I do not wish to interact with them and don’t interact with them. The closing admin is free to exclude my !vote if they wish to, but I do have thousands of edits in weather-related articles over the past year & I am a member of WP:Weather. Either way, this will be my final message in this discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He was giving me valuable information and besides, the nominator is not even part of this project and is trying to impose his will on it. I'm tired of s*** like this. Leave him alone. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The entire conversation at Elijahandskip's talk page has a "poison the well" quality to it, including Elijahandskip pinging one of the participants here to their talk page to disparage the nominator. Pinging like-minded editors to an AfD with the expectation of them supporting you is canvassing. Going to a talk page of an editor and titling the section "Link to this stupid article deletion attempt" is canvassing. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So now I can't have an opinion on the matter? That's bogus. If that's the case, every editor on Wikipedia is guilty of this. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Definitely one of the sillier AfDs I've seen here in a long time. Nominator obviously has no understanding of the Wikiproject or standard practices within. Once the list is done it will be on par with the many other years that we've done. United States Man (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep - It seems like the other articles could be merged into this one better than this one being deleted.

DarmaniLink (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, every single editor who voted keep has been canvassed here, what a coincidence. Perhaps time to get a wider RfC to stop the practices if this insular Wikiproject and its foulmouthed members. Fram (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have to understand some of our frustration, and I wouldn't call this Wikiproject "insular". The fact that ChessEric pinged these editors (including myself) and we all responded with an agreeance to keep these articles should give you further reason to NOT call for a canvassing steamroll. There are many more editors that make part of this Wikiproject who would be in agreeance to the stipulations that have been in place for years. It is not an opinion only the ones that were pinged agree on. Its great that you are a veteran editor with many times more edits that all of us combined, but you can't just come here and decide that the way we are doing is wrong or unnecessary after it has been accepted for many years now, and will hopefully continue. Mjeims (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OH. MY. GOD. You're just pissed off that the ENTIRE project is against you because you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. We have been making tornado lists for OVER A DECADE with no trouble and now you come along and have a problem with it? How did you even come across this? Hitting the random articles link? I called you out on your B.S. claim and now you're throwing a hissy fit. Move on and go mess with some other project; we are improving the articles we have made and don't have time to be dealing with s*** like this. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Principle 6 in this recent Arbitration case with connection to this Wikiprojact appears relevant to your replies here. It states ''WikiProjects have no special status in developing consensus on matters of content, policy or procedures. Any Wikipedia editor may participate in developing a consensus on any matter that interests them."-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the current consensus known to pretty much all participants to the Wikiproject is that of maintaining monthly tornado articles with all reported tornadoes for the month. That consensus in kwown to most or all of us that edit these articles daily. As such, we, the editors, have created such consensus and followed it, without the need to be a rule set in stone within the project itself. So, no WP:CANVASS here, just people sticking to what we all have agreed upon already. Mjeims (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mjeims - did you read the link that Ponyo just provided? Here is the relevant text: WikiProjects have no special status in developing consensus on matters of content, policy or procedures. Any Wikipedia editor may participate in developing a consensus on any matter that interests them. Take a moment to take that on board - the Wikiproject has no special authority to determine notability standards, or to decide which articles are retained or get deleted.

This is one of the most blatant cases of improper canvassing I have seen recently. Notifications to Wikiprojects should be made by adding a relevant template to the discussion itself; I will add a template so that this discussion appears at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Weather#Article alerts; no further notification, including pinging hand-picked editors, or posting on their talk pages, is appropriate. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Hmm - doesn't look like there is a delsort category for 'Weather'. It's currently listed at 'Events', 'History' and 'United States of America'; it's not like this discussion wasn't advertised. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Got it. But then again, we are not using the Wikiproject "status" to create arbitrary consensus on a subject, and many other editors do come sometimes to question it in our discussions within articles, so we are permitting free will of intervention. We are not exerting authority of any kind, we are simply all on board with how articles are created and structure. Or if we are and we had not noticed, that is different. Mjeims (talk) 20:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are permitted to engage in discussions wherever you like; you are not permitted to ping one another to those discussions, so that a band of like-minded editors all show up to enforce a consensus that has been established within the Wikiproject. That kind of selective notification is the very essence of canvassing, and it has to stop. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)While that is true, it would seem that editors that are outside of their usual topic area would themselves refrain from imposing unpopular ideas on the majority of users who maintain a said area. That seems to be common decency. But then again, we don't always have that here, do we? United States Man (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that it's common decency for people disagreeing with members of a wikiproject to keep it to themselves and not 'tainting' your consensus? GabberFlasted (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Fram: What is your vendetta against this topic? You obviously aren't acting in good faith or to improve Wikipedia. Seems like you have ulterior motives.~~ United States Man (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Damn. ~~As an editor who wasn't pinged, I wonder what's going on.~~ Anyway, I feel like this might pass because there are some significant tornadoes in the list, but some uncertainty is going on, especially with the canvassing, so weak keep for now. Tails Wx 19:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This doesn't entirely duplicate the articles mentioned by the nominator, as there are tornadoes listed from the intervening periods (e.g. 3–6 May). It would make more sense to me to merge the other articles mentioned to the one being nominated. Number 5 7 20:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: while there are indeed additional tornadoes listed, the question is why do we need to list all 500+ tornadoes for this single month, considering that, for the period you state, we have no tornadoes for two days, and 6 tornadoes of the weakest category for the other two days, all of them causing no damage at all. I fail to see what is gained by this attempt to list each and every one of them, as tornadoes are commonplace in the US (more than a 1000 each year). Your suggestion to merge the articles the other way around is interesting though, that would also reduce the redundancy. Fram (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I didn't give enough weight to my second point in the comment above – I simply think it's preferable to have one article instead of three or four. Why delete this one, when we can delete the other three? Number 5 7 11:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In the interest of transparency given the ongoing canvassing discussion, I was pinged above to contribute in this discussion. That being said, as one of the principal editors of these lists, I would have engaged on this page regardless of any ping. These monthly tornado lists satisfy the criteria of WP:NOTESAL, since they are an aggregation of yearly tornado activity in the United States, which of course satisfies notability standards based on the death and destruction tornadoes cause annually in this country. As we work to expand these lists backward in time (as myself and others have been engaged in for years now), it is our expectation that these lists will have detailed leads detailing how monthly tornado activity stacked up against average. So, even outside of WP:NOTESAL, doing so would clear up the concerns raised by the nominator about WP:NOTADATABASE, since those leads would provide context to the tornadic activity listed. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 21:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wp:notdatabase Very Average Editor (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kind of to echo what others have said. I have reviewed the outbreak articles and think it would be best to delete the May 7-15 and 22-31 outbreak sequence articles. It doesn't make sense to have sequence articles when the list functions almost the same. Exceptions are notable outbreaks. The non-list contents of these sequence articles could be paraphrased in the lead of the list article. The May 1-2 outbreak article probably has enough content and notability to stand by itself. Supportstorm (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd personally keep the 22-31 outbreak sequence, as it contained an EF5. We should also keep the 7-15 article, as it contained an EF4 that killed 21 people. The 1-2 article is kinda notable, since it had 62 tornadoes that killed 6 people, as well as 3 EF3s. Not sure why you would want to get rid of an article that contained an EF5 section (may I remind you this is 2008, we have less articles the farther past we go, and this is pretty recent). Plus, the list doesn't really function the same. If someone wanted a detailed section about a tornado/outbreak, it would need to exist. I'm pretty sure almost nobody would want an entire one tornado on the list clogging up their screen with details, even if it was an EF5, and the sections we have in the articles right now look better anyway.

About the canvassing... I have nothing to do with that. Poodle23 (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta remember the 22-31 articles contains additional information from the deadly Windsor, Colorado EF3, and the Parkersburg, Iowa EF5. That article links to the tornado list (which I will soon get to reformatting and getting into good shape). Normally the "paraphrasing" of the non-list contents is done in individual sections, and not in the lead of the actual list articles, as these are very notable tornadoes with more substancial individual sections. Mjeims (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like I didn't read the title of the articles posted in this AfD. They are list articles, so this only reinforces the idea of merging the contents of those pages into the monthly article as they are clearly redundant. The individual outbreak sequence articles are indeed fine as is. Supportstorm (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving the canvassing aside for ANI, this is a really tough call, and I wonder if AfD (especially an AfD tainted by canvassing) is the best place for it given there are a whole bunch of pages just like this one. Regardless, the relevant questions have to do with organization, notability, and other content issues. For example, this list is entirely based on information via NOAA and doesn't make a case for WP:LISTN. I suspect a lot of these would've been covered by some local/regional news. I don't know how many of those sources would be treating the month's tornadoes together as a group, but coverage probably does exist for year-based lists, which we can of course divide into months for the sake of organization. Then there's the question of how much of the independently notable topics should be duplicated here. If it shouldn't be duplicated, does the information that remains justify a stand-alone list or should it become an index for those three existing articles (i.e. a navigational aid). My hunch is this would be better hashed out outside AfD, but since this is already ongoing, I'm inclined to say weak keep on the basis that (a) at minimum this page could index/disambiguate between the three stand-alone articles we have for this period, and (b) that a chopped-up year-based list is likely to be notable, and this list can (and should!) be supplemented with reliable sources other than NOAA and other databases. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My knee-jerk reaction was to delete this as trivial content, but I'm seeing through the discussion that it is actually part of a well-organized project to document this weather phenomenon. Joyous! | Talk 16:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks like a well sourced timeline article. Moondragon21 | Talk 19:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to avoid disrupting the group of monthly lists. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything discussing the notability of the group (May 2008 tornadoes). There are almost zero secondary sources, and none that discuss the grouping as WP:NLIST specifies. While I do see the value of having this sort of information documented, I find the WP:NOTDATABASE argument compelling too. This content/database might be better suited to an external project, which could be linked to as needed. I'd also note that WP:CSC states that "if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." I do think it might be a better idea to have a wider RFC on this type of content. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Whatever shenanigans happened earlier aside, I don't believe the arguments in favor of deleting this list (and by extension the dozens of other monthly lists) align best with Wikipedia's goal. For what it's worth, this list is incomplete and not the best example of what it's intended to be. I would refer to more recent years to see them in a presentable state. Hundreds and hundreds of tornadoes every year technically meet WP:GNG and can be given articles (i.e. Manzanita tornado, 2006 Westchester County tornado). However, for the majority of these instances scattering this information across so many articles isn't helpful so the Severe Weather project has worked over the years to provide a more concise method of providing this information. The main yearly page "Tornadoes of [year]" is meant to provide a global summary with truncated information on the United States where the bulk of global tornadoes occur. In order to handle this, the US events are given rough notability thresholds beyond WP:GNG for inclusion on the main page. To remedy the exclusion of those events, the monthly lists were made. Secondary sources with contextual information on the time periods covered are easy to come by if/when effort is put forth to improve these articles to address concerns with WP:NLIST/WP:NOTDATABASE. These lists are a labor of love and take a lot of time and effort to compile. As an example, it took me 11 days to revamp the List of tornadoes in the tornado outbreak of May 4–6, 2007 which covers 132 tornadoes. In regards to the NOAA-heavy/exclusive reference concerns, these sources can easily be supplemented by media outlets, newspapers, and (in the case of older tornadic events) journal articles.

To sum things up, the list presented here is a classic case of WP:HALFLIFE of a niche subject. The materials are readily available to improve/expand upon but the amount of effort required has been a deterrent. Limited traffic and WP:Recentism bias contribute to this. The potential is there, it's just a matter of it happening. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Hundreds and hundreds of tornadoes every year technically meet WP:GNG" isn't true: the vast, vast majority fails WP:NOTNEWS, getting (local) coverage when they happened (well, most EF0 dpn't even get that) and nothing afterwards. To meet the GNG, one needs sustained coverage, not some news reports and a database. No reason seems to have been given why there is a need to list every single tornade, including the EF0 and EF1 ones. Without these, a yearly list would be easily achievable (with the monthly numbers of EF0 and EF1 added for good measure of course), and something like List of tornadoes in the tornado outbreak of May 4–6, 2007 would become manageable to write and read, not something that takes 11 days to complete. For regular storms, we wouldn't think about including the damage every gust of wind did to every house, forest, field, power line, ... but when it is caused by an outbreak of tornadoes, the storms project feels the need to include every single one. Why? What purpose does it serve to not just e.g. state "there were 70 EF0s and 41 EF1s", and only describe the 21 larger ones? You end up with just, what, less than 20% of the previous lists, helping readers to find the important ones, keeping things manageable. There is a reason that "exhaustive" and "exhausting" are so close to each other. Fram (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The example you give is a good one, in which an individual article is made to accomodate the list of tornadoes from a specific outbreak, and has been done for many others.~~However lets keep in mind that despite most tornadoes not being featured prominently in news, hence not applying for the not news policy~~ However, there are people that will like to have a database available for them with all the content there is, despite being trivial in most cases. Those people will not find it "exhausting" to go through it all, as individual links to more prominent outbreak lists are easy to find within their articles, and the monthly/multi-month lists. The people who want specific or significant outbreak information can find it easily, and those who want extensive information, will have it available. Once again, I remain on keeping these complete lists. Mjeims (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"most tornadoes not being featured prominently in news, hence not applying for the not news policy"? Above, it was said that most tornadoes are notable, which I rejected based on NOTNEWS. Your dismissal of NOTNEWS because they didn't prominently feature in the news makes no sense, all you do is make them less notable and this giving less reason to include them, not more. The links to the databases can of course remain in e.g. a tornadoes-by-year list, so people that do need or want the full database can still access it (nothing is lost by not having it on enwiki). But we are neither a news repeater nor a database duplicator. Fram (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I messed up writing that one. My bad. However, the way "non-significant or trivial" tornadoes are formatted in the databse pages can be a little confusing at first. I know because it took me a second to understand them when I opened one for the first time a few years ago. The way they are set in wikipedia in a linear, coherent way showcasing what each value represents and the little blurb of 'summary' is pretty handy to get all the information at once, so that would make it so that we are not "duplicating what is on the database". Mjeims (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting the same info in a slightly different format is duplicating the database. It doesn't explain why we would need to have all of these, which hardly made a blip when they happened in the first place but still need to be documented in this encyclopedia anyway. We are not the place where a group of hobbyists, be it train spotters, stamp collectors, storm aficionados, sport fans, ... can come together to post all minutiae of their interest. This is generally accepted for most topics. I could understand it if people wanted to include the occasional non-notable entry to complete the 80% or 90% notable ones, but here it is the reverse, with the non notable ones overwhelming the more severe and generally more impactful ones. What does adding these details about EF0s add to the lists? What essential info is added to the lists by adding these individually, instead of just a generic "there were 100 tornadoes, including 70 EF0s and 15 EF1s. Below is a list of the 15 EF2-5s"? Fram (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:TNT case, as a violation of WP:NOTDATABASE. I agree wholeheartedly with Fram here. Wikipedia is not in the business, if it was in business, of listing every entry of a particularly domain. Listing entries, for example "Tornado remained over open country, causing no damage" and "Tornado caused extensive tree damage" which is non-notable by any definition, is effectively duplicating a database on Wikipedia, something which WP can't and shouldn't support. We are not a database in any manner, shape or form. Effectively it is a copy and paste exercise. Copying from one database and making another database in here. It almost fan(ish) in nature and needs to go. If it still in that shape in six months, I plan to send it to WP:AFD again. Any article that states, "list of all" unless the underlying itself is notable, is problematic. scope_creep^Talk 15:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~There are over 2 million "list of" articles in the Article mainspace. Are you proposing to delete them all?~~ Inomyabcs (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added a lead to the page which puts May 2008 tornado activity in context, thus satisfying the concerns of WP:NOTADATABASE that other users have brought up. As mentioned by Cyclonebiskit, many of these lists are not complete, and older lists in particular (such as this one) are in worse shape versus modern versions with a better layout. Even still, adding leads to these lists is the gold standard, and in fact there have been recent discussions even before this AfD on doing so. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 20:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What Fram either doesn’t realize or isn’t willing to understand is that a proposal to just include certain tornadoes would be impossible to implement because of the complex nature of the EF scale. Say only EF2+ tornadoes were included, for example. Well, many EF2 tornadoes affect rural areas and may only significantly damage a couple structures. Then what if an EF1 goes through a town and damages dozens of structures on the same day. We’d have to include the EF2 and not the EF1. That wouldn’t work. There’s too much gray area to pick and choose which ones are included and/or left off. It’s ultimately an all or nothing situation. I think time could better be spent be all involved here actually working on something of consequence rather than trying to argue for a round-about mass deletion of 15 years of work. United States Man (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My compromise,solution isn´t perfect, so let´s stick with the much worse situation we have now? Feel free to add all tornadoes which caused at least ond death to my above proposal, will be a minimal change. Fram (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would this mean that a tornado like the Dayton, Ohio EF4 of 2019 would not be included because it did not kill anyone, even though it caused millions in damage and 166 injuries? Or that outside EF2+ tornadoes, those weak tornadoes that caused loss of life, like the 1978 Whippoorwill tornado, shall be included as well? It may sound like a dumb question, but a I feel it should be made just to be sure. Mjeims (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It’s getting into WP:BLUDGEON territory at this point, also, this is how the WikiProject has always done it. If we were to start deleting then, start on the current list or do a bundle nomination. 96.57.52.66 (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a productive way to effect change, and change may not be warranted anyhow. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:32, 12 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adhikar Sena[edit]

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

Non-notable party, references are about the founder and founding only --- Misterrrrr (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Asia, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Misterrrrr (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I can't read Hindi, the English coverage seems to only mention the party, and contain no in-depth coverage of it. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 17:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with the nominator; it is overcited with sources that are difficult to verify, has no assumed notability per WP:ORG, and the article is also poorly structured and written; moreover, the article doesn't exist in Hindi, which is not an argument in and of itself but which suggests lack of notability on even domestic level. Ppt91 (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In my opinion, notability does not appear to exist in this case Almeida Fernando (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks in depth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:26, 12 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sachem's Head Yacht Club[edit]

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

Non-notable club that fails WP:GNG. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 16:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 16:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIRS Rhadow (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not meet WP:SIRS or WP:GNG guidelines. Charsaddian (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in accord with all of the above. I would also add 2 points: (1) there is insufficient sourcing much more generally, and (2) that certain articles just don't meet my lax own standards - in this case, private clubs must be proven notable by specific kinds of evidence. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We would need to see a lot more to show this private yacht club meets GNG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:16, 15 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PDQ (restaurant)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not meeting CORP. all refs used in the article are primary sources and all I see are PR reports and routine coverage of them opening a new location. No in-depth coverage for the firm. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any notable coverage of the restaurant. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 17:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. The only other source I could find is from 2014 [5]. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was deleted for lack of WP:N in 2017. Delete unless keepers find additional sources. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I totally understand and respect the decision of this article being deleted, when I created it I should have kinda expected this cause there wasn't as much information about this place as I thought. It does need a lot of editing. Candeadly (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nomination. Clearly fails WP:GNG Charsaddian (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The name is short, so it's somewhat hard to google. But there are many sources (as I wrote at the last deletion discussion) to make it pass GNG:

Snel, Alan (September 23, 2011). "Outback co-founder launches quick-service chicken concept". Nation's Restaurant News.
Janjigian, Robert (April 7, 2013). "New restaurant puts Outback co-founder back in the culinary spotlight". Palm Beach Daily News.
Leiser, Janet (July 19, 2013). "Betting on Bob". Business Observer. Florida.
Mills, Gary (November 5, 2013). "PDQ co-founder on restaurant's concept, new Jacksonville location". The Florida Times-Union.
Taylor, Jessica (January 9, 2014). "Restaurant Review: PDQ lives up to both definitions". The Florida Times-Union.
Murphy, Marlee (April 7, 2014). "PDQ: Not Your Typical Chicken Concept". QSR Magazine.
Kneiszel, Judy (July 2014). "Ones To Watch: PDQ". QSR Magazine.
"Future 50 - PDQ". Restaurant Business Magazine. 2014.
McMillan Beach, Traci (January 23, 2015). "Flashy fresh". Business Observer. Florida.
Klein, Danny (December 8, 2016). "The Evolution of the Next Emerging Chicken Chain". QSR Magazine.
Myers, Dan (December 16, 2016). "PDQ: A Chain To Watch In 2017". The Daily Meal.
Gordon, Mark (June 23, 2017). "Quality, Quickly". Business Observer. Florida.
Klein, Danny (June 29, 2021). "PDQ Finds its Secret Sauce During the Pandemic". QSR Magazine.

Some are more in depth than others but they all seems pretty usable. @TheManInTheBlackHat, LizardJr8, and Finnusertop: Do these sources help change your view? Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't bad at all. I will point out that one of the QSR articles may be a paid promotional article based on the News and information presented in this release has not been corroborated by WTWH Media LLC., but the others look fine. The sources seem reliable, but I would need to have a closer look through to make sure that no others are paid. I'll stay neutral for now, I'd like to see what others think. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 19:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice finds. These look pretty good. I was inclined to discount the QSR articles too, but the Business Observer and Times-Union look good. Updating with some of this info would put me in WP:HEY territory to change to a keep. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The volume of "coverage" doesn't matter - mostly it points to a functional PR department than notability. What is important is the content of each individual source. None, not a single one, meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Specifically, WP:ORGIND requires "Independent Content" and these sources don't have any. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also suspicious of a lack of independence of these sources, but I can't find rock solid evidence that any of these are paid (with the exception for the QSR article). TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 13:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First of all, this is a company made up of multiple individual restaurants. Reviews of individual restaurants do very little in establishing the notability of the company itself unless the reviews provide in-depth "Independent Content" on the company. Looking and GNG/NCORP, we require "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND so articles that rely entirely on information provided by the company and/or the CEO through quotes and interviews do not assist in establishing notability. The sources provided above are nothing more than regurgitated PR, not one contains and "Independent Content" - "in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:33, 13 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnes Obungoloch[edit]

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

A scientist that seems to be skirting the edges of notability, what with a little coverage of his efforts to construct an MRI in Uganda and being a faculty Dean. However, for a GNG pass the references are a rather sorry heap of raked-together passing mentions, primary sources and list entries, and I'm not seeing enough academic clout for a PROF pass. Happy to be proven wrong. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Uganda. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability as per WP:ACADEMIC nor otherwise. Article seems very promotional. Jeppiz (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 07:54, 15 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2018 CDC Tour series[edit]

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

Does not appear this was a notable tournament as I am unable to find coverage of this tournament. I have not proposed a merger as I'm not positive it would be DUE within 2018 PDC Pro Tour and that article has its own concerns with a lack of independent sourcing. Star Mississippi 16:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 16:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find enough in-depth coverage from independent, secondary, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jow Kanak[edit]

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

Seems unsourced and oddly put together, with bad references and weirdly placed Commons and Instagram links. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 16:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Skynxnex (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article is a mess that needs a good cleanup, it is a populated place found on the US Military's GeoNames server, plus, it has legal regonition from the government of Iran, meaning it passes WP:NPLACE. I'd be happy to clean it up if it isn't deleted. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 17:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND, since as per TheManInTheBlackHat it seems to real and have official recognition (I was curious if there were any more sources and Evaluation of water quality trends in the Maroon River Basin, Iran, from 1990 to 2010 by WQI and multivariate analyses. mentions it so it seems real). It definitely needs clean up. I'm a bit confused why the nominator reverted significant clean up--all that was remaining before that revert was to remove most of the photos to better meet what is expected for an article such as this. Skynxnex (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TMITBH - passes WP:NPLACE. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:GEOLAND. Yes it needs clean up, but if it has been confirmed to be a real place then the article should be kept and cleaned up rather than deleted. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep but needs a lot of cleanup. GeoNames is less reliable than GNIS, but the census entry and a visit to GMaps to ensure there is a town there is sufficient verification and meets our standards for notability. Mangoe (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pullman Flatiron Building[edit]

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

Does not meet notablity requirements, is simply a building in Pullman Washington. Searched for nonlocal news or articles on the building and could not find any. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator - @Doncram has made significant improvements (despite their enthusiasm for the building needing to be reigned in now and again) and general consensus seems to support keeping the article. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is how I lean. Photo shows it is a good representative of a distinct architectural type, the flatiron building. This one is brick, built to last in 1905 (old by United States standards), and with interesting corbelling. It is not merely known locally, it is included in an online encylopedia's list of flatiron buildings. I rather assume there is a coffee table book of flatiron buildings published already. If none can be found during this AFD, I wanna pull a Cosmo Kramer and get one published before Christmas 2024 (flatiron-shaped of course), using great photos of many flatiron buildings which have been curated by a certain intrepid team, and a tad more research. Seriously, I do imagine there is already such a book, and if not then seriously I think there will be one or more published soon. (And seriously, contact me if you're interested in collaborating in a new book or its Youtube movie.) --Doncram (talk,contribs) 17:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This one in particular seems historic, seems to be covered adequately in local sources and to have attracted the attention of a local history society so documentation is available. It is also significant as a good example of work by architect William Swain, an accomplished architect and also mayor of Pullman. I don't see why the building has not yet been nominated and listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a locally significant site. Sometimes obviously meritorious buildings are not listed because the owner fears building/zoning restrictions. Many are listed when a building needs renovation that would be subsidized by Federal, state, local tax incentives if listed; the one in photo appears to be in good condition though so maybe there has not been financial incentive for listing. The architect appears to be individually notable; the article currently is a combo which could perhaps better be split into two articles, one on the architect (which can and should include a list of their works) and one on the building. There is no way the entire thing should be deleted. At worst, it could be revised into an explicit article about the architect, with a section on this building. That kind of reworking is not to be dictated at AFD but rather should be left to editors at the article(s).

Without looking into edit history at all yet, the article shows signs of embattlement of a good newbie/amateur editor (conscientious-seeming writing; a tag expressing suspicion of self-dealing; duplicated references rather than repeated uses of named ones; the fact of this AFD). I would hope we would help develop this article perhaps, rather than come down on the editor unnecessarily harshly. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP though; a simple "Keep" would be best. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 17:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues with the editor, from what I could gather based on the subjective language it was likely a class project or something of the sort. I also have no issues with this building, it is a cool little flatiron, however I don't believe the sources satisfy the general notability guidelines. Additionally, being on a Wikipedia list does not count as being notable. I could add myself or my house to a list of categories that my house belongs to, it would not then be appropriate to reference that as source that shows notability. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Pullman Walking Tour brochure, produced in 2014 as a class project, and including this building, could be related. Perhaps the article was started by Gruen or other professor or by one of the students. I wonder if other articles were started at the same time and perhaps have been deleted since then, but could/should be restored? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 18:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If they were deleted and of the quality of this article they at least went through the AfD process. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD subject article was created by User:Akdunn on 13 March 2012.‎ The Dumas Seed Company warehouse is apparently another one, created by User:Dvaux on 14 March 2012‎. I am glad it has survived. I seem unable to find others easily, am afraid a number have been lost, because surely a class would have more than 2 articles created. Phil Gruen, professor mentioned in walking tour brochure, is featured in this Washington State University magazine "for his work with Washington’s Classic Buildings for the Society of Architectural Historians Archipedia Project. Along with Tri-Cities faculty member Robert Franklin, Phil has produced and continues to supplement this significant archival and encyclopedic service to the State and University. They focus on both canonical Washington buildings (contemporary and historical) and vernacular landscapes and infrastructure." I might try to get in touch with Gruen. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 08:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am a tad irked by the deletion nomination, which comes across to me as false and then also perhaps malicious. It is harsh or malicious or something like that to call this "simply a building in Pullman Washington". It is obviously not. And the tagging and this AFD add to my perception of this. No offense to the deletion nominator and/or the negative tagger intended, but motive in tagging and in AFD nomination, and willingness to cast aspersions, or appearance thereof, sort of seems to matter. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 17:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does just seem like a building - I will say that the architect might be notable, but this is a page about one of his works, and not every building designed by a notable architect is itself notable. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd also lean towards Keep. It looks like a good, well-preserved, local, example of an recognised architectural type. Sure, the article needs work, and the prose can veer towards the unencyclopedic; "came barreling down the road" can definitely go. But the new author made good-faith attempts to properly cite the article to a range of RS, and I think they should be encouraged. I think the nominator's comment on the Talkpage is overly harsh. Though the article was written in 2012, so the newbie may not be around to be offended. When I started in 2007, my first efforts to spruce up a page on an obscure architect were very poorly written and with no understanding at all of sourcing and formatting. But some years on, he ended up TFA! And I've gone on to cover every one of his buildings. We all have to start somewhere. KJP1 (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of sources cited. The nominator is going to have to explain why these do not count toward WP:GNG. Garuda3 (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll conduct a source assessment on the articles talk page over the next couple of hours LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. I see that in fact it was given a COI tag in July 2022 by a different editor. The deletion nominator arrived apparently when the article was already tag-bombed with:

"This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. (October 2015)
"The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (October 2015)"
"This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (October 2015)"
"A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (July 2022)"

I see that the deletion nominator, before nominating, removed a large swath of text, which, offhand, I think was not necessary and was not helpful. As a general rule in AFDs, I think it is a mistake and/or unhelpful to reduce an article just before nominating; it is better to keep it whole and present criticism allowing others to make their judgments. The deletion nominator and perhaps others appear uncomfortable with primary sourcing that remains and that was included in previous versions. Some specific comments:

The statement "It was designed by William Swain, a popular Pullman architect at the time." (Edwin Garretson. “Re: History of the Pullman Flatiron Building.” Message to Allison Dunn. Whitman County Historical Society. 29 Feb. 2012. Email.) was changed by the deletion nominator to drop "popular" and put in "local" instead. I rather think the source is legitimate and reliable (I expect that it could be obtained and reviewed at the Whitman County Historical Society), and I rather think it states the person was "popular". Editing from afar diminishes the article in this case, decreasing its statement of importance.

"At that time, Swain was a well-known individual and natives of the area today have likely heard his name." is another statement that was deleted, but I rather think that is probably a true statement. Its reference was a 1901 source which could hardly have spoken to what natives of this area "today" think, but I expect the point could be supported by other means, e.g. pointing to numerous places named "Swain" perhaps or to numerous references in local media.

"The two-story flatiron was built as an office building in a triangular shape, to conform with the plot of land it occupied. Multiple businesses have occupied the building over its lifetime, including banks, insurance companies, and a dentist."(Esther Pond Smith, Whitman County Historical Society archives. Notations. 8 Mar. 2012) This passage with primary source, as edited, was left in. I think the primary source is fine. Notations recorded and verifiable in archives are fine. We are allowed to use, with care (like to avoid introducing inaccuracies), primary sources.

"By the time the Flatiron was built, downtown Pullman was already thriving. The Corner Drug Store, the Artesian Hotel, the Pullman Herald building, and multiple theaters were important locations within the downtown core, and all within a block of the Flatiron Building. Before the construction of the Flatiron, the lot it now occupies was used as a hitching place for farmers riding in on horses or with wagons.(Esther Pond Smith, Whitman County Historical Society archives. Notations. 8 Mar. 2012) After its construction, it became an icon for the corner between Main Street and Grand Avenue. A heavy flood on March 1, 1910 caused serious damage to many downtown buildings. The flood came up to the front door of the Flatiron Building, but the building as a whole was not drastically affected.(c1910. Photographs. Pullman Library: Palouse Heritage Collection. 28 Feb 2012.) Other floods occurred in downtown Pullman in 1948, 1972, and 1979, none being as damaging as the 1910 flood and none causing significant damage to the Flatiron Building.(Robert Luedeking. Pullman, Washington. Charleston: Arcadia Publishing. 2010.) Many of the flood photos from over the years show the Flatiron in the midst of the mess. Though some of the buildings in the downtown are gone or have changed, the Flatiron is still recognizable." This passage seems entirely fine to me, but was entirely deleted. Arcadia Publishing is known to be sort-of-like a vanity publisher for competent-but-local history buffs, but photos don't lie.

I'll stop here. I think that the local-esque creation and editing of this article, with use of locally verifiable sources, is different and can rub some Wikipedia editors the wrong way, but this article is in fact fine to keep as is or with polishing. And without the tagbombing. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 18:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment conducted. Fine if it stays, but re: "Swain was a well-known individual and natives of the area today have likely heard his name" is not very encyclopedic, and probably true does not equal true. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For general reference:

WP:NBUILDING

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the GNG. To address the Nom a bit, reliable third party sourcing does not require (anywhere that I've seen) that they be non-local sources. Crazynas^t 22:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, however the coverage of the location all relates to an incident where a frontloader crashed into the building and the subsequent repairs. I guess I don't view that alone as "significant in-depth coverage" per WP:NBUILDING. But this is where editors can disagree! LegalSmeagolian (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Visited even deleted text questioned above. If users who developed article Pullman, Washington are active can be pinged for further discussion; But as uninvolved user my assessment is ' Merge / Transfer → Delete remaining content after discussion @ Talk:Pullman, Washington in due course.

Detail assessment : ReferWP:NLAND#No inherited notability ".. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events. .."; Refer WP:NBUILDING ".. Where their notability is unclear, they generally redirect to more general articles .." So first merging in Pullman, Washington is recommended. Second as per WP:NOT WP is not Travel guide or detail history of 'not so significant' places so some information seems okay for transferring to sister project www.wikivoyage.org. Some information might be kept or deleted that call can be taken @ Talk:Pullman, Washington in due course.

The present article can fulfill Objective of encyclopedic curiosity just for too local township–level audience hence it is good for local guide or city level or regional encyclopedia at the most; Article's Objective of fulfillment of encyclopedic curiosity of international audience seems too marginal. WP:GNG says ".. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, .."

Bookku (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing looks good enough. And, even though this is only an unofficial criteria, the topic is very encyclopedic. North8000 (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am happy that User:LegalSmeagolian has been helping with URLs and otherwise in refining the article. But now I am irked at the dang reconstructor people after the 1994 damage, who were ignorant or cheap or both about the high quality building materials used in 1905. As can be seen clearly in the 2010 photo, the flat-toned brick in the front 1/4 of the building does not match the rest of the building with its original tapestry brick (currently a redlink; there is Draft:Tapestry brick however). And while I am at it i may give a piece of my mind to the School of Design and Construction professor(s) who seem not to have noticed it -- at least the student-written article didn't reflect this basic observation to be made, and instead blithely stated "Swindal chose to restore the façade as accurately as possible, to maintain the original historic look the building, including including using intact bricks salvaged from the rubble" which is crapola.

And, User:Crazynas and anyone else, it is not "original research" to report straightforwardly what is visible in a photo. You have to know that tapestry brick looks different than flat boring brick, but this is not rocket science (wp:NOR does not apply, we are _allowed_ to introduce new info by going to a place, taking photos, using and interpreting them straight-forwardly in an article). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 20:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your enthusiasm about the brickwork and agree it looks worse, your phrasing was not a neutral point of view LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram I see you again have called out the people who did the reconstruction work. While I think the difference in brickwork is notable, doing so in such a way is not NPOV LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i got irked again, and said as much in my edit summaries that rewording would be needed. Please do rewrite. However the factual observation that the reconstruction did not use tapestry brick which would have matched needs to stay in IMHO; if there's disagreement about that let's cover it at article's talk page. I brought this situation up here in the AFD to highlight that primary-type materials are useable in the article, and to avoid seeming to hide another instance of such from those who might not be happy about them for purposes of evaluating the article at AFD level. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 21:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: I don't know why this is on the AfD and not the article talk page, but just to be To be clear this edit which you reverted back in is a borderline violation of WP:BLP. I would not have removed it if you if you had simply said the bricks didn't match it: was calling the the reconstructors ignorant or cheap which is negative and not supported that I objected to. I see that LegalSmeagolian has already fixed it but this is inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia and a pretty textbook drawing of conclusions (about the builders) not supported in the sources, not a 'straightforward interpretation' as you appear to double down on above. Crazynas^t 05:01, 10 February 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 15:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jathob Muslet[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet GNG after a WP:Before search. They've made a single appearance in a professional association football game, likely WP:TOOSOON. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think its too soon for this individual to have an article. He is not notable enough to have an article. Does not meet criteria for WP:NBASIC / WP:ANYBIO RealPharmer3 (talk)

RealPharmer3 (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBASIC and WP:NSPORT. Charsaddian (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 07:52, 15 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A. K. Qureshi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:NFILMMAKER. Apart from a dead link, the references are a churnalism obit. WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to this profile, [6] he was the founder of Bangladesh Film Development Corporation as well as acting in a more 100 films. Any one of them those as a statement would make him notable. Even if it was 100 odd film where he was playing bit-parts it would make him easily worth an article and obviously highly notable. I think an attempt by a Pakistani language speaker to find sources for these two facts would be worthwhile. scope_creep^Talk 13:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep and others, show me WP:HEY and I will withdraw this with huge pleasure. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was the reason I asked for a "Pakistani language speaker to find sources". Finding sources there would be quite difficult for me. The paper, "The Independent" was in good standing and had a established journalistic process, so while it is a profile, it is a valid WP:SECONDARY source, so it is good start. Covid got the paper and flooding for info. There is an need to do the do on an article update to satisfy the WP:HEYMANN standard and I'm sure somebody will appear and work on it, in short order. But he is notable. scope_creep^Talk 13:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the source doesn't claim he was the founder of the Bangladesh Film Development Corporation (BFDC). Before 1971, the only major studio in what is now Bangladesh was the government-funded East Pakistan Film Development Corporation. Practically everyone who worked in the local industry worked for them. When Bangladesh became independent, the company became the BFDC, and essentially everyone in the business at the time became "a founding member" of the renamed near-monopoly.--Worldbruce (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches, in English and Bengali, using Google, WP:TWL, and my own print collection on Bangladesh, found only one other source that is reliable, a passing mention in a film magazine that he was in the cast of Chittagong: The Last Stopover. The dearth of sources does not surprise me, because much of his work was on TV ("dramas"). Writing about TV is far far less developed in Bangladesh than in the West, where it would be safe to assume that any actor prolific enough to have performed 100 bit parts would have been written about at length somewhere. The previously referenced obituaries reference each other, and some (or all?) of the information in them originates with his family via Facebook, so I'm not persuaded that they collectively satisfy WP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:30, 13 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Süß[edit]

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

Footballer who never actually played at a pro level - his games for Dresden happened in 2007, a year before they were promoted to the newly established 3. Liga. He has a couple of namesakes, including two different economists and an amateur footballer four years younger than him, but the most substantial coverage of the actual subject I was able to find is this article [7], which is naturally insufficient. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Germany. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Behzad Ghorbani[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP may fail WP:ACADEMIC Excutient^Talk 12:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any evidence of passing WP:ACADEMIC. Google Scholar shows no citations for the paper announcing the Dugesia species. Jfire (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability as pee WP:ACADEMIC. Very meager citation count. Jeppiz (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ACADEMIC.
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Under general guidelines, there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. As a scholar, he research on planaria is important (I did some lab work on planaria at SUNY New Paltz as an undergraduate research assistant for my mentor Doug Baker). But that does not necessarily make him notable. In any case, there's not evidence he has won major awards or grants. Bearian (talk) 19:45, 14 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Wildash[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Angola, Cameroon, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. some routine coverage but nothing indepth. LibStar (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - on one hand he fails the diplomatic standard as related above; on the other hand, he's listed in the British Who's Who, but that is not significant coverage in multiple sources. So I'm of two minds on this one. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of British comedians#Stand-up comedians. If anybody wishes to expand this list, it is still available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of stand-up comedians from the United Kingdom[edit]

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

This article is literally just a list there's no prose and therefore its a duplication of the corresponding category British stand-up comedians. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 10:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 10:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Entertainment, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete better handled as a category. LibStar (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Should be expanded with further details to make it a more meaningful list. --Michig (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_British_comedians#Stand-up_comedians as a duplicate. Reywas92^Talk 15:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't spot that at all! Good find. However, I'd still say delete and keep as a category. When the only think linking these individuals is their profession (and its not even sourced), how could you write a meaningful list article without writing about every single performer (and duplicating their parent article) or singling out some performers for prose and not others. Is that not just WP:INDISCRIMINATE and literally the function of a category? >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 20:15, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nomination is fundamentally flawed, standalone lists are entirely acceptable on Wikipedia, so "it's literally just a list" is not an argument for deleting something. The argument that the list duplicates the category is contradicted by WP:NOTDUP (a guideline): It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template that all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided. No objection to a redirect, but it is a rather long list and splitting it out into a separate page isn't a bad idea. Hut 8.5 19:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of British comedians#Stand-up comedians as a duplicate of another list. Please note that, in contrast to the proposed target, List of stand-up comedians from the United Kingdom provides no context! gidonb (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the better-organized List of British comedians#Stand-up comedians Joyous! | Talk 16:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Springer[edit]

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

no notability Flashenposter (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NCREATIVE, having created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, namely "Santa Baby", although it appears his body of songwriting work may also meet the criteria. The article has citations to Billboard, New York Times, and Los Angeles Times that constitute evidence for meeting this criterion. Jfire (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:COMPOSER based on Santa Baby and as a mentor to Fred Ebb. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (speedy even) - The nomination is a problem in its own right, with no policy-based reasons given for the supposed lack of notability, and there is little indication that the nominator did a WP:BEFORE search or even read the article as it stands now. At any rate, the article could be cleaned up a bit (reliant on blogs in several places) but Mr. Springer easily meets the requirements for reliable coverage, not just for "Santa Baby" but for a long career in film and TV scores. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is clearly a notable person if we see the references in the article. Charsaddian (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources already in the article such as Billboard, The NYT, LA Times and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the composer of multiple classic film scores and songs, including the famous Santa Baby, which was written for Eartha Kitt and covered by many famous singers. The article needs clean-up and additional sources, but the normal editing processes can take care of that, not AfD. There are sufficient sources to meet the WP:SIGCOV standard. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Event management software[edit]

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

A 2008 creation which appears to have been a spam magnet its whole life yet remains free of any references. Before searches reveals the true extent of the problem as there are thousands of returns but nothing that I could see that conveys notability. Weirdly, I suspect that this may simply be not notable and fail WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Management. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced 15 yr old stub article, with no links. Delete this weird thing. All links I find are PR releases. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nomination. Charsaddian (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Man'yōshū poets. Randykitty (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ishikawa no Iratsume[edit]

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

I am not familiar with the topic, but this does not seem notable enough for an article Medarduss (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic is clearly notable. This/These woman/women authored at least ten of the poems in the most famous Japanese poetry anthology. The current stub could use some work (ironically, the main factor that kept me from finishing it personally was very likely disruptive hounding to which I was subjected because I didn't approve of auto-voting "keep" in AFDs within topic areas with which the auto-voters were unfamiliar), but the source already cited is of unquestionable reliability contains reasonably in-depth coverage. Add to this the dozens/hundreds of pages of commentary that have almost certainly been devoted to each of the ten poems over the last 800 years or so, as (per, IIRC, the late Prof. Keene's unsurpassed Seeds in the Heart) is true of all Man'yōshū poems, and I would be very surprised if anyone would support the assertion that this topic is not notable. (FTR, these poems do not have titles, so the logical solution is to discuss them in articles named for the poets, even if we don't have enough historical information for a true biographical article. If anyone feels my interpretation runs afoul of WP:NOTINHERITED, then my talk page may be a better place to hash that out than a bunch of random AFDs. But you might also want to ask ... I forget his name, but 8 or 9 years ago I attempted to AFD an article on a non-entity briefly referred to in the bible, and was argued down by someone saying that every word of the Christian bible has been combed over by countless scholars, and therefore even the minorest of biblical characters are presumed notable.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Man'yōshū poets from which the content seems to have been copied. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Man'yōshū poets as above, which covers the matter sufficiently for now. The obvious problem with having this as an article is that it is not an article at all, but a set index or disambiguation page for a whole lot of female poets with the same name. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UA Day[edit]

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

No indication of any notability found. Even what looked to be an independent source turns out to be written by the original promotor of this day[8]. Fram (talk) 08:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Technology. Fram (talk) 08:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; possibly WP:TOOSOON. I cannot find a single independent source that discusses this event. Fails to meet WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. Schazjmd (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Internet. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Schazjmd that this is possibly TOOSOON. Not finding much press coverage at this point. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:31, 12 February 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!} 03:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Force[edit]

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

No notable wrestler. No reliable sources covering his career HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I couldn't find any reliable sources via Google. Also fails GNG. --Loewstisch (talk) 09:46, 9 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Hoogerbeets[edit]

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

Not meeting WP:NACADEMIC. In the news currently for his prediction related to the recent earthquake in Syria-Turkey. WP:BLP1E applies. Hitro talk 06:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Netherlands. Hitro talk 06:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established, this is close to the only event that would make him worthy of an article. Silikonz💬 14:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one might have legs. NPR [9], Snopes [10] and a French TF1 article [11] about how he was wrong. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
or why you can't "predict" earthquakes. I suppose he was "right", but the methodology was wrong. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So this is a classic "stopped clock is right twice a day" situation. The Snopes article from 2017 is the only thing so far that I've seen from before 2023 and it seems to just be repeating a few of his predictions and then actual scientists say that it's bs. I'm not quite convinced that that's really significant coverage but I want to see what others think. ~Styyx^Talk? 17:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's in 2018 Alaska coverage also [12] [13]. I'm undecided. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see huge news coverage, in many languages. There is definitively more room for expansion. This person will probably also received further notability in the future, as he will be remembered for this. It this article is deleted, it will most likely be recreated in some years. Super Ψ Dro 21:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soooo crystalling again? ~Styyx^Talk? 21:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soooo that does not invalidate the first half of my comment. Super Ψ Dro 21:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quack scientist gets lucky. Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WWGB (talk • contribs)
Delete. Widely debunked quack who pops up every few years because he makes massive numbers of predictions and inevitably a few can be interpreted as having panned out. No real significant coverage; if this is significant coverage, then every viral tweet that gets a couple articles written up about it deserves an article. Jokullmusic 01:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gets lucky. Not notable. --DragonFederal (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only notable for that tweet Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NACADEMIC. His research has been broadly construed and demonstrated by independent reliable sources like The Jerusalem Post and News18 India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Which criterion in WP:ACADEMIC do you think he satisfies? I cannot find any ... WWGB (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first line of that guideline "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.". 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 14:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 15:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC and only claim to fame is a pure guess that turned out to BD right, not based on any research. Jeppiz (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per User:Oaktree_b We need to focus on if the subject it notable, not make judgements about why the subject is notable. He is notable for what I consider to be stupid reasons, and I think the sort of nonsense he is up to is problematic, but we're not here to make a list of people we like, but people who are notable and he has been significantly noted, for different predictions in different years by media in different countries, which makes a WP:GNG pass. CT55555(talk) 05:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – While coverage from a few years back means that this isn't a BLP1E case, the sources are all around the same: he makes a prediction which is repeated by the source, then an actual academic tells why it's bs, end of article. I wasn't convinced that that was significant coverage about Hoogerbeets himself, and I don't think it really is. I think what was meant above with NACADEMIC is that he passes criteria 1, but to pass that the "citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books", which The Jerusalem Post and News18 India (and other newspapers) are not. I don't see how useful a merge/redirect option would be. ~Styyx^Talk? 07:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It also says that "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates.". 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 14:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what way you are trying to go. This guy doesn't publish academic work or scholarly publications. It's just tweets. ~Styyx^Talk? 16:41, 14 February 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!} 03:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate General of Russia, Chennai[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Lacking significant coverage. Article contain routine coverage of what a consulate does (Eg issue visa). Previous AfD 9 years ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consulate-General of Japan in Chennai. LibStar (talk) 05:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, India, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The page has sufficiently been improved now and has several encyclopedic info beyond the routine functions of a consulate and passes WP:GNG. Rasnaboy (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree, the sections have been significantly expanded, the number of references to news agencies has quadripled. IMHO, the improved version passes the GNG.ThegaBolt (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Soviet consulate in Madras had many cultural functions, published a fortnightly newspaper in Tamil (Soviet Nadu), hosted cultural events of importance in the city for decades. --Soman (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Huntingdonshire County Cricket Club List A players. Joyous! | Talk 05:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Potter (cricketer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No books, little to no online sources, only managed to come up with this source... other than that, there's no other references. Tails Wx 04:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Tails Wx 04:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Huntingdonshire County Cricket Club List A players as an WP:ATD. This is in line with the general and long-standing consensus with this sort of article. With a handful of Minor Counties appearances for Hunts and a link to Nassington Cricket Club, there will almost certainly be some sort of offline media coverage in the regional press, but that will be difficult to find. Unless something comes up quickly we're better off redirecting to preserve the article history and attribution. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

e2a - this (linkedin) is almost certainly him fwiw. There are some passing mentions in regional press such as this and this, but if someone really wanted to they might be able to build a biography based on the business career (this, for example although we'd need more about him for sure). Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Huntingdonshire County Cricket Club List A players as a valid WP:ATD. If more coverage turns up in future e.g. about his food career, then an article could be created at that time. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Huntingdonshire County Cricket Club List A players A suitable WP:ATD as others have said. Doesn't look like there's enough for a GNG pass, but obviously a suitable redirect exists. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:48, 8 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 05:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Morse[edit]

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

No reliable sources, no sources suggesting WP:N even after looking through various sources. Only brief one-sentence remarks or references at best. Reads as promotional and one of the users who created the article might have been a gallery that hosted the artist. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Illinois. AllyD (talk) 07:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DaffodilOcean (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, that her paintings are exhibited in some of the best-known buildings in Chicago goes to notability. The sources also seem enough. Seems a fixture in the Chicago art scene, no small accomplishment. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Confused as to which of the sources you think satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Just because someone's art is placed in a high traffic location does not, alone, make them notable, unless others are talking about it. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of any kind of sourcing. JStor has nada, Gscholar has links to articles about oxygen research in cells, Gnewspapers talks about a dragon fairy getting wings in a school play. No critical attention for this artist. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and the photos of her artwork are likely copyvios. Tagged as such. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did all the usual searches and found noting at all to establish notability. CT55555(talk) 00:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My understanding of WP:NARTIST is that it requires multiple works in public places such as museums, galleries, trains stations, and public squares. Have some artwork in a private building is not sufficient, because lots of artists have works that are in private collections. Also, unless someone can find multiple good sources with in depth coverage, this is likely to be deleted based on generic WP:GNG issues. Chicago is a major art center - I follow a friend who posts all his Windy City gallery outings on Facebook. However, having art shown in a major art scene is not automatic notability. Ping me if you find and add it per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 14 February 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Brara Mukhopadhyay[edit]

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

I am taking this to AFD as BLPPROD is removed, and I am not sure if I can PROD this again. She failed WP:ACADEMIC, she is just an editor of a journal, but she is not the chief editor or the head editor of the journal. I didn't think she satisfied other requirements for notability. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, and India. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. On GS "Rita Brara" has an h-index of only 7. Much more is expected for this popular field. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Yes, WP:Too soon. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DaffodilOcean (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She is the lead editor of the journal: Contributions to Indian Sociology. I have also added reviews of her 2006 book. I am not yet sure about notability. DaffodilOcean (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the Journal she is the Editor, the designation of the head of the editorial team is Editor. And The title might vary with institutions and journals. For more information, see this live link: https://journals.sagepub.com/editorial-board/CIS Bikramsharma (talk) 09:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not quite at notability for scholars. I find no additional sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My !vote is informed by WP:NACADEMIC criterion 8 "the person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area". She is the editor of the Contributions to Indian Sociology which has been in operation since since 1957 and in regular operations since 1967. It has a normal/average impact factor (just below 1.0) I think she meets the criterion. CT55555(talk) 17:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She also has a book with multiple published reviews. That wouldn't be enough for WP:AUTHOR by itself, but it adds to the WP:PROF#C8 case already discussed above and saves the article from WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes third line of WP:AUTHOR. She is the author of Shifting Landscapes: The Making and Remaking of Village Commons in India which has been primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. I can find reviews from National Institute of Advanced Studies, SAGE Journals and JSTOR and periodical article from Seminar Magazine. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 13:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes WP:AUTHOR --- Misterrrrr (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reviews establish that WP:NAUTHOR is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:24, 11 February 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 Live Earth concert, London. Joyous! | Talk 03:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SOS Allstars[edit]

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

Somewhat interesting case that I haven't run into yet. This ensemble technically passes WP:BAND as it contains two or more independently notable musicians. However, this group existed for the sole purpose of playing one song at one concert. For all intents and purposes, the band lasted for exactly 4 minutes and 14 seconds. I don't think that makes it worthy of its own article. Mbdfar (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Live Earth concert, London per nom. Jfire (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the concert, it only existed inside the concert with no notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Live Earth concert, London, not independently notable imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:04, 10 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okeke Nelson Malachy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:PERP. 16 years after his execution there is no lasting significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Nigeria, and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; see WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Also, I don't see how this is anything other than a run of the mill drug dealer case. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:CRIMINAL, or alternatively redirect to Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi#Arrest where they are briefly mentioned. There is no lasting/historic significance to the crime, therefore it does not merit a standalone article.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:19, 14 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Butt[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, all secondary sources I found seem like either routine news updates or low-quality promotional of the VC firm and not about him specifically. It is possible there is a needle in that haystack but I doubt it. (Note for Google News searchers: There is at least one other person with the same name in the news, so you will need to narrow the search.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete strong support; it should have honestly been removed through CSD under A7 Ppt91 (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promo, unsourced, and looks like it was lifted from a company profile. No sources found for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Probably eligible for G11.-KH-1 (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- shocked it stayed on article space for this Long without no source. I tried clearing my doubt to search about him and I saw this [14][15][16], he looks like a prospects but not there yet . A soft delete looks ideal.Epcc12345 (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT. Completely unsourced WP:BLP. Almsot certainly WP:SPAM. Everyone knows in 2023 that not a free web host. We have to deter private individuals from abusing and using our charitable status, or the IRS could revoke our 501 (c) (3) status. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 14 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 02:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chijioke Stephen Obioha[edit]

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

Fails WP:PERP. There is a spike of coverage around the time of his execution in November 2016 but not much else. LibStar (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunate and tragic but not sufficient for its own article Ppt91 (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Nigeria, and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a failure of WP:CRIME and WP:BIO1E, as there is no coverage outside the period of his execution. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability, there's already a mention of him on Capital punishment in Singapore wiki article. Almeida Fernando (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to satisfy WP:PERP criteria. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable subject known only for a single event. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 04:41, 14 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Kilhoffer[edit]

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

PROD was rejected, just gonna put what I wrote for that here:

"WP:DIRECTORY. Appears to only reach for notability for his Grammys (though he is among a long list of collaborators on all four of those projects) but the article severely lacks in prose and the subject severely lacks for SIGCOV (I saw interviews, including the Pitchfork one already here, but nothing else)."

User:Bri, who contested the PROD, says the Grammys should be worth a pass based on WP:NCREATIVE #4 ("has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work."), but as I said I wouldn't consider it a major role because he is "among a long list of collaborators on all four of those projects". QuietHere (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. QuietHere (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Rap albums have a lot of production credits. There is no threshold of number of Grammy winners when we start to ignore them. It's not up to me to decide "too many" and start deleting biographies of Grammy winners. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be more willing to go along with this if it weren't the only qualification this person has. Lemme put it this way: All three of the Kanye albums Kilhoffer has won Grammys for also include credits for Mike Dean. Looking at his article, I wouldn't begin to question his notability. He's worked on numerous major releases over the years in various capacities and has received independent coverage for his work for several major publications. The same can be said for several other artists involved in those projects, but it can't be said for Anthony Kilhoffer. Unless there's coverage that I didn't see in which case I'd ask you to link that here and prove me wrong, but until then this falls directly under WP:DIRECTORY. For a page that is just a discography and a list of awards, users should go to his AllMusic page instead. QuietHere (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are two main items in this discussion that require address.

1. There is a potential bias/unfamiliarity issue that I’m seeing pop up in numerous conversations regarding notability of collaborators on hip hop projects. The nature of hip hop production is different from pop or rock genre writing that naturally includes a broader scope of collaboration. It does not dilute the contributions or significance of writer & producer contribution to hip hop songs or albums merely because there are more people on these albums than other genres. It toes a very dangerous line to assume that there is a difference in significance of contribution merely because it is a different genre of music (and in this case, a genre predominantly composed of black american artists carrying forward a unique cultural tradition).

2. Anthon Kilhoffer is a significant contributor to the projects he’s worked on. There has been significant additional press on him (including interviews) in the years since this article was created. I will update the page, and no - it should not be deleted. Mistamystery (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mistamystery: Are you saying the article should be kept, then? Sorry to be pedantic but it has to be clear to the closer of this debate. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is possibly seen through his rap albums and music achievements. I would not claim the subject is clearly not notable, so I lean towards keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozzcircuit (talk • contribs) 11:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That he was part of not just one, but four Grammy-winning albums suggests notability to me, even if he was part of a large-ish group. Joyous! | Talk 02:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth, I still believe this article to be a blatant WP:DIRECTORY fail, and none of the responses have been about that. I stand by all the points I made above, both in my opening and in response to Bri, and have not seen a proper dispute of them. I'm surprised this got a relist, though perhaps Liz sees the same lack of proper counterarguments that I do. QuietHere (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Left a notice regarding this AfD at WikiProject Musicians. I suspect this is heading toward a no consensus close at the moment and I'd be more annoyed by that than a keep I disagree with, so hopefully more folks see this through that and we actually get somewhere worth all our time. QuietHere (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Bri and WP:NCREATIVE. JSFarman (talk) 19:37, 20 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Applegath[edit]

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

Just another architect doing his job, fails WP:SIGCOV. For UPE history. J.Dracthyr (talk) 01:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lots of coverage over a wooden building his firm "designed", not much about him as a person. Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete strongly support deletion; not notable Ppt91 (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are lacking and not notable

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing really notable. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Canada. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability. Almeida Fernando (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There is evidence that he was chair of several province-wide organizations, but not significant coverage, although ping me if you find enough. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 14 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Branko Jovanović (footballer)[edit]

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

Non-notable local soccerr player, routine mentions in match reports, fails WP:SIGCOV. J.Dracthyr (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. Not-notable sportsperson. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:16, 14 February 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.