Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 26	July 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. The consensus is a clear keep (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 19:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Funky Stuff (Kool & the Gang song)[edit]

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

Lacks any significant, independent sources to justify a stand-alone article and pass WP:NSONGS. Pertinent info can be merged into Wild and Peaceful (Kool & the Gang album), and the article can be redirected there (or simply deleted since Funky Stuff had been previously created as a redirect). Chart info is presented in Kool & the Gang discography#Singles. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is certainly notable in corresponding to Wikipedia:Notability (music) with said song's ranking on the US Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart along with the US Billboard Pop Singles chart. Hence song is well in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability (music) in being ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. What's more the song has been sampled by prominent artistes such as the Beastie Boys, Gangstarr, N.W.A, Dilated Peoples and Mobb Deep. Accordingly, Funky Stuff has of course been independently released as a single by Kool and the Gang, a quite notable musical artist who's sold over 70 million albums worldwide. (Scriber88 (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NSONGS, charting only suggests a song may be notable (significant and independent sourcing must exist outside of that) and Kool & the Gang being "a quite notable musical artist" doesn't make the song notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. Notwithstanding this and the below comment, the amount of coverage is still minimal and second hand; per WP:NSONGS, "a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Agreeing with the above comment. Mentioned in various books as one of the major hits of K&TG (see GB link in this page). It's even one of their signature songs from a given period (" 1983 – by which point Kool & the Gang were basically unrecognisable as the band who’d made Funky Stuff or Jungle Boogie") (https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/jul/24/kool-the-gang-robert-bell) ) or at all (https://eu.indystar.com/story/entertainment/music/2018/08/09/kool-gang-bring-half-century-funky-stuff-fair/945367002/). It's been sampled, covered, quoted. It's simply a famous and very notable song. (This being said, something should be made to redirect this to Funky Stuff and make the latter the main article about the song not a redirect to the album; but that's another story.)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NMUSIC for being featured in the US Billboard charts, sources have also been stated above to meet GNG — Karnataka ^talk 08:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on WP:NMUSIC grounds; I think we've just about got enough sources here to show WP:GNG, but it would be good to get them into the article: lots of what is cited there is lyrics databases and similar sources that don't necessarily confer notability. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep adding to the snow. ArcAngel (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think there is enough to satisfy GNG, and probably more that is not readily available given that the song is 50 years old and a charting single. Rlendog (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruscism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

ethnocentric, promotes hate, highly disputable, lacks neutrality, uses questionable sources DanStevens (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Politics, and Russia. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW keep. A quick glance at the sources shows pretty clear notability. Any questionable sources can be addressed as part of the normal editorial process. There are plenty of good sources here, and there doesn't otherwise seem to be a valid deletion reason. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Aristophile (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are breaking a lot rules. You must read the nomination process page instructions.--Aristophile (talk) 01:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which rules am I breaking specifically? I chose to follow the appropriate process for deletion, because I don't believe in vandalizing. DanStevens (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you've attempted to delete someone else's comment.--Aristophile (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See below. That was not intentional. I hit vandalism trying to see what that was and then I tried to undo it, but I couldn't figure out how. Pardon my ignorance. DanStevens (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out since that person didn't log in as a registered user and have made less than 500 edits, they would actually not be allowed to comment. In other words, they aren't and extended confirmed user. I didn't know that at the time, however, the deletion was inadvertent and I didn't have time to undo the mistake since I was leaving for work. WP:GS/RUSUKR DanStevens (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: The sources in the article show clear notability and this nomination seems to be a clear case ofWP:PPOV and WP:IDL . Kpg jhp jm 04:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in the more extreme sense of the word. Though a move to "Russian fascism" might be warranted wholly separate to this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Weather forecast suggests snow in July. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above and sources in article and BEFORE [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] // Timothy :: talk 06:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If it's not deleted, it will have to be significantly rewritten. Many of the reference do not even mention the subject of the article, and the article lacks a neutral point of view. Waters.Justin (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does have lots of NPOV issues, but there's enough good in it that it deserves to be kept around. HappyWith (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been subject to lots of disruption from people who don't like it, incl. what I personally suspect is organized disruption for political reasons, but it has plenty of notability and good sources.--Euor (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Kpgjhpjm, Timothy, and others. Sourcing is more than adequate to pass WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article “Russians,” for example, is ethnocentric, but this article is not: it’s about national, supremacist, and imperial politics and rhetoric in the Russian state; and that’s not a reason to delete. It is not promoting hate: in fact censoring articles about hateful ideologies would help them be normalized and flourish. The remaining reasons given, even if true, are not causes for deletion. The only other delete vote gives no reason to delete. As in the previous unsuccessful AFD, “keep arguments are non policy based.” Snow close this. —Michael Z. 17:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ashleighhhhh (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see you tried to can somebody's reply containing a valid point DanStevens. WP:RELISTINGISEVIL and your "argument" (if you can call it that) goes against WP:AQU & WP:BLOWITUP. Looks like the person trying to get this deleted is not neutral and trying to abuse Wikipedia's AfD to get information taken off the site. WP:CPP. Ashleighhhhh (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, if you genuinely felt the article had issues, your best bet would be to edit it with your own research, knowledge and findings, rather than immediately reaching for AfD. Ashleighhhhh (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not do that intentionally. I hit the vandalism link to see what it was, and then I tried to undo it, but I wasn't able to figure out how. Pardon my ignorance. DanStevens (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see, my apologies on that. Ashleighhhhh (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I wasn't claiming to be neutral. It's a very emotionally charged issue for me, but I was simply asserting that the article itself lacks neutrality. I wouldn't submit an article for the exact same reason. DanStevens (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FIXIT Ashleighhhhh (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite: if the article is "highly disputable", and if does "lack neutrality, use questionable sources", if "many of the reference do not even mention the subject of the article, and the article lacks a neutral point of view", it should be fixed. however, the term is popular and widely discussed, and there is criticism of the idea that should be added to the article; if "the theory of ruscism" gets debunked in future by academic circles, the term itself will be an important example of pejoratives widely used in rhetoric and propaganda, still worth an article, much like "red fascism" and "social fascism", "nashism", idk
Keep and do whatever is necessary to make it meet the Wiki standards. In my opinion, as a rule of thumb any article on contentious/controversial topic must be kept, provided the standards are met. The debate and controversy in and of themselves show that the topic is important for public discourse and burying it would be a disservice. LXNDR (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well-sourced and describes a documented political phenomenon. CJ-Moki (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no valid justification for deletion. A subject can be "ethnocentric", cause disputes and be about a "non-neutral" concept. These are not reasons for deletion. No, it does not promotes hate, and no, most sources are RS. My very best wishes (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move. The term was coined by OUN Banderites and is basically a mash of two words "Russian" and "Fascism", which is racism in itself. Hence it should be moved into OUN page as pure OUN invention and placed among with their various crimes.89.0.121.236 (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not allow for your least favorite ideology to be wiped from the site and condensed into an unrelated article. Seems like censorship to me and more than anything this guest IP suddenly popping up to comment on this specific topic seems suspicious. WP:CPP? Ashleighhhhh (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - note that there is an entry for Banderite - both terms are used by opponents of their respective ideology.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zsalya (talk • contribs)

Not exactly. Banderite: “Today, in Russian propaganda, the word is used to refer to all in Ukraine who back the idea of sovereignty from Russia; Ukrainian nationalist collaboration with Nazi Germany is also emphasized.^[1]” Anonymous, above, is trying to equate editors who created this article with the Ukrainian underground of the 1930s and 1940s, to ignore all of the reliable sources cited about the subject, to smear any academic discussion of extremism or fascism in the Russian Federation as racist, and to normalize Kremlin propaganda views and language in this discussion. —Michael Z. 15:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GS/RUSUKR, non-extended-confirmed users are not permitted to edit internal project discussions, including AFD’s, broadly related to the Russo-Ukrainian War (which the subject article is, judging by its content and categories). This comment and other examples should be deleted or struck. —Michael Z. 23:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that rule would also apply to the comment that I had inadvertently deleted earlier that I was criticized for deleting. According to the definition of extended confirmed users: "A registered editor becomes extendedconfirmed automatically when the account has existed for at least 30 days and has made at least 500 edits" Unless I am missing something.

However, according to the article you cited: "B. If a page (other than a "Talk:" page) mostly or entirely relates to the topic area, broadly construed, this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required."

However, even though I'm a registered user, I don't think I would qualify since I've only made around 60 edits. I'm still learning so tell me if I'm wrong somewhere. DanStevens (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I read a little bit deeper and you are right as to the original point so ignore my second point since the article does state: "However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions." DanStevens (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Claim about "OUN Banderites" is part of state-backed Ruscist propaganda of genocide of Ukrainians. 176.113.167.189 (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I would bring up here, in that while I'm not sure it is the appropriate place is that some of those who are arguing to keep are quick to criticize or otherwise disparage those that wish to delete. I realize it's a minority viewpoint on a highly contentious issue and let's avoid being rude even when using polite language. DanStevens (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Perhaps a warning to the nominator might be warranted. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Super Dromaeosaurus: I assumed good faith that this was a misunderstanding of policy resulting from recent inactivity. Their response is here. Oh well. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I restored your comment, I misunderstood the intent behind it in the heat of the moment, but continuing to point out this error is not helping. DanStevens (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. More than sufficient hits in Google Scholar to demonstrate that this is a notable topic even before considering the Google News and Books hits. The nomination does not detail any specific problems with the article so it is impossible to dig any further into that. There is no reason to believe that any problems with the article can not be dealt with by normal editing, even if the Talk page is a bit of a mess and could do with some more eyes on it. The nomination is clearly inappropriate. The nominator has made no attempt to explain or discuss the alleged problems with the article on the Talk page but has attempted to PROD the article and then to Speedy Delete it, blanking it at the same time. This is straining WP:AGF to the very limit. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm not sure how to prove my actions were in good faith other than the fact that I didn't attempt to vandalize the article. I felt it was worthy of speedy deletion in that I felt it met the criteria for G1 and G10, but I didn't try to redo that, I just simply put it up for proposed deletion on the basis of the reasons that I outlined were obvious to me, but apparently I'm in the minority viewpoint. I intend to abide by the consensus here if for no other reason than my own mental health at this point. I'm not an experienced editor and I'm not all that knowledgeable of all of the legalisms associated with Wikipedia. I've strived to treat everyone here with respect and I just simply ask for the same. DanStevens (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't have the time to outline every criticism I have, I will say that from what I've been able to gather it's largely an opinion piece citing other opinion pieces by those with a clear bias. I will admit I have a bias and that is one reason why I don't submit an article on this subject. DanStevens (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also I wanted to point that the Speedy deletion attempt occurred first and when that didn't work, I submitted the proposed deletion. I'm not sure if you just read the history wrong or what. I just used the Twinkle app to do both and I followed the instructions for each so Idk. DanStevens (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DanStevens, you responded to my assumption that you misunderstood policy on deletion by declaring it a "personal attack"–that is not how you treat everyone here with respect. When this AfD closes, please review the comments from other editors here and use them to learn how to approach an article deletion process and what articles qualify for the different deletion procedures. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I misunderstood your motivation for that comment, I apologize, but that was on my personal user space. DanStevens (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to bow out of this discussion. If the decision is made to keep the article, I will understand. That seems to be the consensus so far. DanStevens (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evelaynne Alcequiez[edit]

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

The subject earned at least three caps for the Dominican Republic women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Dominican Republic. JTtheOG (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Combs[edit]

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

Subject is an inspirational speaker and former charter school teacher who self-published a book about rising from homelessness. While inspirational, she does not seem to meet the WP:GNG. All sources in the article are dead (though archived), and there's little else available that I'm seeing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated information from a 2007 Today article, which is definitely the best source in the article, but I don't think this is sufficient coverage to meet the GNG. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Transitioning from homelessness to being a respected teacher is truly admirable but is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The articles from Today and 3TV are of the "human interest story" variety, not what I would consider to be researched information sources. My gut tells me that they did not do any investigating and took the story from her. The sources from Grand Canyon U are not independent (she was working there at the time). The book was indeed self-published and does not appear to have been picked up by libraries (a measure of how far the book has not reached). Today I can find only self-promotional sites online (her web site, linkedIn, etc.). Lamona (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The editing history suggests this could be a vanity page. 128.252.55.251 (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Star Mississippi 20:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kalavida (2021 film)[edit]

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

All sources relate to Sriimurali (who is not in this film) releasing the film's poster. No independent notability/reviews. DareshMohan (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 21:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haraa (film)[edit]

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

Unreleased film for one year. This page should not be deleted. It should be draftified until release. The lead actor Mic Mohan had several box office hits during the 1980s in Tamil Nadu and this film is his comeback. Per this, such decisions must be made thru AFDs. DareshMohan (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DRAFT until release. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also including the following articles for the same reason. I want to draftify these articles, not delete them.

Invitation for @Donaldd23: to cast their votes for the other 9 films. DareshMohan (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move all to draft: per WP:NFF Ravensfire (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as additional articles were added to this nomination after it was first posted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify all the articles, wp:toosoon/wp:nff Karnataka (talk) 20:30, 27 July 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 Sheet music#20th century and early 21st century. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Digital sheet music[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I requested deletion on this once, and it was merged to Sheet music. A few years after, it was recreated - and it's been tagged as an essay for 9 years with basically no improvement. Some sections are completely uncited opinion, some refer to "newcomers" in 2014, and some summarize other articles that are tangential. Redirecting it back to sheet music might be better than deletion, but it shouldn't stand as it is. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Technology, and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
restore redirect as the current text is wildly non-encyclopedic, promotional, and just outright untrue (computer notation software has nothing to do with this, for instance). If nothing else, WP:TNT is called for. Mangoe (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sheet_music#20th_century_and_early_21st_century, where it is briefly mentioned. Digital sheet music is easily verifiable as a real topic, with secondary sources available like [6]. With a relevant target available, deletion is unwarranted. I am not enough of an expert to determine if the topic is notable, but I would have no prejudice to re-creation of the article with a neutral summary based on reliable sources. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - there is some notable research being done specifically on digital scores and notation software, but this article does not really speak to that. I agree with others it reads as an essay and perhaps promotional. Sheet music is not so long that it couldn't be expanded later on with more descriptions of notation technology (as I believe is probably warranted). StereoFolic (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per all above. Pavlor (talk) 05:15, 31 July 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. NFOOTY has been deprecated: notability in this case must rest on GNG once ROUTINE coverage has been excluded. Several sources have been presented here that could constitute SIGCOV, but I find the challenges to these sources convincing; specifically, that most of them constitute routine coverage in local newspapers, while the remainder are not substantive. When such challenges have been put forward, further arguments in favor of keeping per the sources found with no further detail do not strengthen the case to keep. I would also remind everybody that a specific AfD is not the place to relitigate NFOOTY, or the place to debate the proportion of women's biographies on Wikipedia. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota Mills[edit]

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

American former college soccer player who earned at least one cap with the Saint Kitts and Nevis women's national football team. Lots of mentions from her college career, but a lot of them come from university athletics department press releases. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I am not at all against draftifying due to her college accomplishments, if anything. JTtheOG (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Caribbean, and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources below which show notability. Giant Snowman 09:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Article now cites significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, from each period in her career as a player. Her high school soccer career is covered in this 2014 NJ.com newspaper feature article, "Dakota Mills of Hightstown is The Times of Trenton Girls Soccer Player of the Year for 2014". During her college soccer career, she was covered in newspaper articles such as this 2015 The Trentonian article, "Former Hightstown High star Dakota Mills makes immediate impact at St. Joe’s", and was featured as a Philadelphia Daily News "Athlete of the Week" on at least three occasions: July 2016, August 2016, and October 2016. Finally, as an international player, her strong performance despite Saint Kitts & Nevis's 11–0 loss to Canada is described in this 2020 article in SB Nation Was well worth fixing this article. Pinging GiantSnowman. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Per comment below, have removed the SB Nation post by Charles Olney, editor in chief of Backline Soccer, as a source from the article, but there is still enough focused coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage. Winning non notable awards doesn't make someone notable. Dougal18 (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we are clear, during her college career, as stated in the article (and as recognized in the original nomination for deletion), the actual awards that matter include: Offensive Player of the Year awards in the Atlantic 10 Conference and the Eastern College Athletic Conference (ECAC) (2016); she was also included in the 2016 and 2018 Atlantic 10 All-Championship Team as well as the Atlantic All-Conference First Team, and was selected as an ECAC All-Star (2016). Cielquiparle (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, routine local high school coverage doesn't count at all, and I don't give much weight to the local "Athletes of the week" either, that's 104 high school and college players with just 2-3 sentences of coverage every year. The final source above is also just a brief mention among a team that was half teenagers. Reywas92^Talk 13:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That NJ.com piece is an in-depth feature article focused only on her. There is nothing "routine" about that. "Athlete of the Week" in the Philadelphia Daily News wouldn't be enough on its own, I agree; but she was featured three times in the same year, and her Atlantic 10 Conference-level achievements are highlighted. This counts as recognition in a secondary source, and in any case, in aggregate including the other pieces, there is enough quality content to satisfy WP:GNG for this international football player who also had an impressive college soccer career. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I do not care in the least about local coverage of high schoolers, and WP:YOUNGATH "excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications". We can't consider every local recognition for youth as contributing to notability. Say I have systemic bias, but being an "international" player for country of 50k people isn't a basis for notability either, is that even considered professional? Reywas92^Talk 03:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed with Reywas92's assessment. High school sports coverage is almost always routine, and an un-bylined piece announcing her winning a local newspaper's "area player of the year" award is exactly the kind of coverage YOUNGATH is intended to exclude N. How many millions of teens receive this kind of news recognition? I think all the kids who won hefty scholarships got profiles in my local paper. We even got middle school honors student of the week pieces with the same coverage as the Philadelphia Daily News "Athletes of the Week" column (which is obviously not independent anyway as it's from nomination submissions) N. allforxi.com is a group blog hosted through SB Nation, so should be removed from the page as an unreliable source (this should be clear enough when clicking on the author brings you to his SB Nation user profile)N. JoelleJay (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Olney (who posted to SB Nation) is the editor in chief of Backline Soccer, but given that he's also a Professor of Political Science and his own editorial team does not appear to have published their editorial guidelines, I've removed his article as a source given that this is a BLP. Nevertheless, there is sufficient coverage per WP:GNG to justify keeping this article, between the 2014 NJ.com feature article focused on Mills, the article in The Trentonian which is focused on Mills, and the three "Athletes of the Week" pieces in Philadelphia Daily News, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an appropriate reason to delete. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The athletes of the week pieces are submitted nominations, not from the newspaper's own research into area athletes. They don't count towards anything. The 2014 piece also fails YOUNGATH as a local interview (NJ.com hosts several local newspapers, including the Times of Trenton, which is also not an independent source as the award-giver) in the aggregated high school sports section. My evaluation is in line with the hundreds of other amateur athletes that get deleted, and in particular with how we treat high school coverage; see, e.g., here (sources at AfD: ~980-word profile in regional media, ~920-word profile in same outlet, 550+-word interview with commentary in a second outlet, 1000-word interview with commentary in a third outlet, 400-word interview with commentary in a fourth outlet, 180-word award announcement in a fifth outlet, among others, spanning over a year). Here's another where ~470 words covering a regional newspaper's "HS soccer player of the year" recipient, plus various transactional articles with background on his pro career, was not enough for GNG. And another, where sourcing at the time included this piece with 300+ non-quote words of background on his high school records plus this 350-word interview+commentary on his middle school achievements. Here's one with an 850+-word interview/profile on the subject's HS career, supplemented with a 430+-word profile of his college records in national news. JoelleJay (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ATA, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not grounds for deletion, and this looks like classic bludgeoning per WP:BLUDGEON. You have made your case, now move on. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sheesh, a single response to your response to her is not bludgeoning, you're the one who's rebutted all three delete voters. This is not an Otherstuff argument, it's showing that there's clear precedent for excluding typical coverage of amateur young athletes. Reywas92^Talk 01:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, it seems each of those were before the 2022 NSPORT overhaul. Prior to that we considered accomplishments much more in notability, i.e. someone with moderate sigcov that didn't pass NSPORT then would be deleted, but would likely be kept now for passing WP:GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see a lot of concern about "routine high school sports coverage", but that isn't what this athlete's Notability rests on. This is a fully-capped national team footballer, who is discussed at length in this RS, and the statewide coverage here is not routine, either. Clear pass of GNG and NBASIC, and we need more articles about national team members in women's football, not fewer. Newimpartial (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two whole sentences is not "at length", and to be clear, the second link is for The Times (Trenton), a local paper that's host. There is no longer any guideline indicating that national team players are presumed notable, and I don't think that really applied for such small countries desparate for players either. Reywas92^Talk 01:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any Times (Trenton) link, and the three sentences in the former source are clearly SIGCOV. I recognize that there is no longer a formal presumption of Notability for international footballers - which I think is a mistake, and one of the effects of this mistake is precisely to disadvantage female footballers at AfD. Some editors may feel that expanding the global proportionality and the gender equity of wikipedia articles are not appropriate goals for an encyclopaedia, but I disagee with them, and this is precisely the instance where the attitudes of some editors at AfD contribute to outcomes that run counter to encyclopaedic coverage. Newimpartial (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow I'm so sorry I didn't count "It worked." as a sentence....no, that is absolutely not significant coverage. None of that is biographical coverage, it's a description of a single game's performance, the only one we know she was in. The other article is called "Dakota Mills of Hightstown is The Times of Trenton Girls Soccer Player of the Year for 2014", and the Times of Trenton is one of a few local papers in NJ owned by Advance Publications and hosted on NJ.com – that doesn't make it statewide coverage though. Reywas92^Talk 02:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The All for XI source is a group blog with content submitted by contributors, not journalists, and administered by "managers" and "authors" whose names just link to their SBNation user profile. It is not RS. The NJ.com source is local high school coverage and so fails YOUNGATH. NJ.com hosts The Times (Trenton); if it were published separately then why is there no announcement of her win coming from The Times? This is the first I've seen you in a sportsperson AfD, so perhaps you are not familiar with identifying routine coverage in this context, but this is exactly the kind of material regularly rejected at AfD. Additionally, accepting such coverage as contributory to GNG would license far, far more articles on white male athletes being created than it would any other demographic, to the extent that it would decrease proportional representation of those other demographics. This can be seen from the fact that Lugnuts, who created possibly the most articles on women athletes, was also likely the greatest contributor toward lowering the %women's bios precisely because he applied the same "played professionally" threshold to both genders. And that's only considering contemporary athletes; how many millions more men received this type of coverage in the hundreds more years men played competitive sports? JoelleJay (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what your issue with SBnation is; some of the best journalists covering women's football may be found publishing there. And I am well aware that coverage about the player, not the game (as is offered here) has been dismissed at AfD by editors who want to reduce Wikipedia's coverage of athletes. However, it is my view that this is a tortured reading of WP:ROUTINE and runs counter to WP:GNG - the standard these editors are supposed to be applying - which is supposed to be based on, "are these reliable sources we can use to write an article?" and not, "do they demonstrate that the article's subject is somehow more important than other similar subjects?"

And to be clear about the equity issue, my point is specifically that when editors maintain that fully capped international footballers should not be presumed notable, they are undermining equity on wikipedia by preventing the creation and retention of articles specifically of female footballers and especially of women playing for smaller nations (such as the subject of this article).This has nothing to do with Lugnuts or with "playing professionally" - the latter not being a threshold that I support in any way. If we could agree that all international footballers are presumed notable, that would contribute far more to the retention of BLP articles for women athletes than of men, since men's national team players are much more likely to have sufficient coverage that they will not arrive at AfD or will be SNOW kept. Newimpartial (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe is an AfD (from December 2011!) which shows that men's national team players who do not have sufficient coverage are not kept. Hundreds more have been deleted since WP:NSPORTS2022, and plenty others were deleted before it. Jogurney (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make my point clear, it wasn't "no male national team footballer has ever been deleted", it was "women's national team footballers would benefit more than men from a presumption of notability, because the RS on the topic are subject to systemic and other forms of bias". Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JoelleJay on that point. If a presumption of notability existed for national team footballers (contrary to community consensus through NSPORTS2022), it would result in far more men's national team footballer articles than women's national team footballer articles. As an example, 15% of the articles in Spain's men's and women's national team footballer categories are women (133, to 757 for men). So, this presumption wouldn't increase representation of women's footballers as a percentage of total footballer biographies. Jogurney (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re: If a presumption of notability existed for national team footballers ... t would result in far more men's national team footballer articles than women's national team footballer articles - the data you give doesn't support that statement, though. You cite the existing articles for national team footballers, which reflect the status quo where editors don't accept a presumption of notability on this basis.

discussion of Spanish footballer article data

Fortunately we have List of Spain international footballers and List of Spain women's international footballers, which offer reliable counts of men and women who have had 20 or more caps with each of the national teams. Based on these pages and the categories cited above, 151/151 men with 20 or more national team caps have articles, along with 58 out of 59 women with 20 or more caps. This means that, following the biases of the sources, we have 606 articles about national team men with fewer than 20 caps and only 79 articles about the equivalent. Assuming that the proportion of players with more than 20 caps is no lower for men than it is for women (and it is likely to be higher for men), that suggests that there are a minimum of 158 "missing" articles that could be created if a stronger presumption of notability were applied to national team footballers.

To summarize the findings of that data discussion, the case of Spain suggests that if a uniform presumption of notability were applied to national team footballers, the proportion of articles for women would increase from 15% to 28% of the relevant articles - and the proportion would be considerably higher among WP:BLPs. Newimpartial (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point here, but we don't have to guess since bdfutbol.com has full lists of Spain men's and women's footballers that have been capped here and here. The men's list reports 846 while the women's list reports 233 (no numbering, so I might have miscounted slightly). So, if every single one of these footballers had an article, the women's articles would be 22% (rather than 15%) of the total. However, the 15% probably doesn't reflect the possible GNG-compliant articles but rather the level of editor interest in creating all of these 1,079 articles. Jogurney (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To really test your theory it would help to know if any Spain men's or women's national team footballer biographies have ever been deleted or redirected (for failing GNG). I checked a batch of women with single caps, and I didn't see any redirects or deletions, but it was only a population of five. Does someone have a tool that would help us figure this out? Jogurney (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked five men with single caps to see if any were deleted or redirected; none were (although one hadn't been created yet). So, without more evidence, it doesn't seem that your theory that the lack of a presumption of notability impacts the ratio of men's and women's national team footballers is supported. Jogurney (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is my view that this is a tortured reading of WP:ROUTINE and runs counter to WP:GNG - the standard these editors are supposed to be applying - which is supposed to be based on, "are these reliable sources we can use to write an article?" and not, "do they demonstrate that the article's subject is somehow more important than other similar subjects?" Notability guidelines do not override the policy against routine coverage counting toward notability. Our prohibition against routine news is in fact a critical component of ensuring articles are not made on every high school gridiron coach or municipal employee or society leader who happens to live in a town with two newspapers. Recognizing what is routine in a particular field takes some time to figure out; I would recommend doing what I did before I started !voting and spending a few days reading the most recent 100+ athlete AfDs that generated 10kb+ discussions as well as browsing through all of the NSPORT talk archives.

"Playing internationally" is no better a threshold than "professional". How many years were men playing on the national teams of various sports before even amateur, domestic women's leagues existed? We had a very strong consensus that no sporting achievement presumes notability; it only offers a rebuttable prediction that GNG sourcing exists, provided that at least one piece of GNG-contributing coverage has been identified. That is not the case here. JoelleJay (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the italics for policy are referring to here: WP:ROUTINE is a part of the guideline WP:NEVENTS, and the reference to "routine coverage" ar WP:N is a precis of the event guideline. As far as I can tell, the guideline text warning against "routine coverage" was intended to ensure that we don't have an article on each game covered in two or more reasonably detailed news reports; it was not intended to say that nothing in a report of a game can contribute to the Notability of players or of teams - which is why I referred to the latter reading of ROUTINE as tortured.

As far as the rebuttable prediction of GNG sourcing is concerned, I am saying two things: (1) I think a stronger presumption for international footballers, rather than an easily rebuttable one, would produce more balanced and equitable Notability decisions and (2) the pincer movement by which presumptions are weakened or eliminated and at the same time sourcing requirements are ratcheted up seems designed to produce what I think I'll write an essay defining as "walled deserts" - areas where editors deliberately starve a domain (in this case, women's athletics) of coverage, based on some prior conviction that it isn't a "worthy" subject for an encyclopaedia. (Witness this IP, whose only activity on wiki has been the proposed deletion of 100 articles on female footballers.)

extended content on athletics coverage

It seems to me that group of editors have decided that a certain group of potential biographical subjects, namely athletes, are less deserving of inclusion in an encyclopaedia than the sources support. These editors have twisted ROUTINE - which is supposed to be an exclusion of announcements similar in kind to the exclusion of press release content and of stories of extremely local stories, and the scope of which is limited to "events" - into a bar used to exclude world-wide coverage of the roles individuals play in highly visible global events, which I'm sure was never intended by the writers of ROUTINE. The same group of editors also attempts to exclude respected outlets publishing the work of professional journalists as "blogs" - seemingly confusing SPS with a particular publishing technology - from being considered reliable sources, and also bizarrely denies that the achievement-based criteria in ANYBIO should apply to athletes even at the same time that they argue that the only sports-based presumptions of Notability (weak as these are underdtood to be) should be based on achievement-based criteria. Apparently these editors believe they are contributing to the encyclopaedia through this pincer movement of eliminating consistent criteria for inclusion while restricting the range of relevant sources and raising the required threshold of significance in each source, but all this does is weaken the encyclopaedia by making the coverage of female athletes and of athletes from smaller, less wealthy and non-anglophone countries more inconsistent, sporadic and poor - creating walled deserts, as it were.

And re: How many years were men playing on the national teams of various sports... - What is the relevance of the fact that for one hundred years or so of the modern era, the field of athletics was dominated by men? The same could be said of science, or of the humanities, or of art or politics or business. What matters to me is that at the present time, football in particular is more equal by gender in terms of achievement at the highest level than is science, say, or business or many other fields. But the sources lag the reality on the ground, and so a source-based standard like GNG without a presumption based on an achievement-based standard like national-team caps - and anyone who doesn't understand national caps as achievement simple doesn't understand football - is a recipe to disadvantage women's athletic biographies against those of men.

Newimpartial (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Routine" is referenced numerous times outside of and pertaining to more than just NEVENTs, which itself is based on NOTNEWS policy: For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events). The "ROUTINE is for events" argument has been invalid for a long time at sportsperson AfDs, as evidenced by the NSPORT guideline referring multiple times to routine match coverage of athletes and the thousands of AfDs where that guidance is successfully invoked.

Accusing "editors" of trying to "deliberately starve a domain (in this case, women's athletics) of coverage, based on some prior conviction that it isn't a "worthy" subject for an encyclopaedia" is some bright-line aspersions casting. JoelleJay (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think it's important to note that every single PROD tag placed by the IP user that Newimpartial is referencing was reverted, both by me and other users like Arjayay and Renewal6. No one is advocating for that sort of reckless behavior. JTtheOG (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The PRODs I added were reckless, but I hope @JTtheOG reviews them because I applied the same rigor and standards they did in researching those subjects before PRODing and could not find SIGCOV by the standards of the other 50 AfDs that JTtheOG started since 17 July, including two that had passed previous AfDs if we reassess some of the suggested sources under the above lens of reliability. If the 50 article JT has raised should be reviewed, so should the ones I PRODed, for the same rationale. -63.224.250.203 (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly passes GNG with plenty of references.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Clearly significant Saint Kitts women's player. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Reywas92 and JoelleJay that the article fails WP:GNG. When you filter out sources that are primary coverage, routine, not in-depth or not independent, there isn't much left. The SBNation article has a few useful sentences about Mills' performance in three Olympic qualifying matches (probably a little more than "routine"), but I'm unsure of its status as a reliable source versus a host for All for XI's blogposts. The Times (Trenton)'s coverage is the kind of local high school athlete coverage that is insufficient to establish notability. I just don't see anything approaching multiple (or even single) instances of SIGCOV here. The editors trying to cobble together large amounts of low-quality (non-SIRS) coverage to claim a GNG pass are going against long-standing consensus at footballer AfDs. Jogurney (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion yet on notability, but I don't think SB Nation can just be discounted here like multiple users are saying. They seem to have a paid staff and I don't think just anyone can publish articles through them, plus they're cited here tens of thousands of times (and that's just citing the general website, there's plenty of other citations to sub-websites, e.g. 400+ for Outsports). I've also used them several times for football (gridiron) and they seem pretty reliable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is whether that blogpost is a self-published source; it's hosted by SBNation, but what editorial control do they exercise over it. I see that a Jeremiah Oshan oversees SBNation's soccer blogs, and he used to be a writer, columist and editor, so that's somewhat promising. However, even if the SBNation post is a reliable source, it's a few sentences of coverage in total. Jogurney (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the best articles on her are high school articles which fail WP:YOUNGATH, and while she was the local college athlete of the week a couple times, I don't think it's quite enough. Assuming the Trentonian article that's on her as a college player counts - and I'm not sure it does, but it's not impossible - I still don't think we have quite enough for WP:GNG. I didn't see SIGCOV in the SB Nation article, either. SportingFlyer T·C 21:04, 27 July 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 Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Wursteisen[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. If not deleted, may be a fit as a merge into the early life section of Galileo, or to Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, the latter of which is the article about the 1st source. Source 3 is an IP link. Gscholar reveals very little. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Science. UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to something like Cristiano Vurstisio or perhaps Identity of Cristiano Vurstisio instead, because that is what the topic that meets GNG is truly about. A merge as nom suggested may also be appropriate, but should be kept either way. some coverage [7][8]. —siro χ o 12:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Galileo or Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, does not seem independently notable beyond that historical connection and other sources are hard to find. - Indefensible (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would favor a move to Cristiano Vurstisio per Siroxo. That would require a modest rewrite to encompass other theories, which I am happy to do if pinged. No real objection to a merge to Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, although it seems to me that having more than a glancing mention of someone who himself is only glancingly mentioned in that work might be a bit undue. -- Visviva (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. The historical person is not notable apart from the possibility that he is to be identified with the "Christian Wursteisen" of the Dialogue (who could not have been Christian Wurstisen). Srnec (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Sailing at the 1928 Summer Olympics – 6 Metre. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Paul Rouanet[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NOLYMPICS, and a WP:BEFORE didn't produce much Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and France. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOLY and WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sailing at the 1928 Summer Olympics – 6 Metre - WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sailing at the 1928 Summer Olympics – 6 Metre. Fails WP:NOLYMPICS as he did not win a medal. Also fails WP:SPORTBASIC which requires "at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Cbl62 (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Labor history of the United States. The arguments to keep are very weak; the BLS is a reliable source, but it is a primary source, and statistics from it are insufficient to justify a standalone article. Arguments to delete based on NOTSTATS have not been rebutted. I do not doubt that the history of strikes in the US has received extensive coverage in reliable sources, but that is a different scope. There is a clear consensus against keeping this as a standalone page, but this discussion does not rule out related titles being split from the Labor history page. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of striking US workers by year, Bureau of Labor Statistics (1916 - present)[edit]

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

This is a graph, with numbers below it. No context is given to the numbers (why are certain years higher than others? How did the labor movement evolve over this time period?). Not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article was just started 19 hours ago - what's the rush? I suggest discussing with LoomCreek their plans for this article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just saw that LoomCreek is on wiki break for several weeks so they won't be able to participate here. If deleted, could someone draftify the article in case they intend to to do more with it?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think it meets the guidelines for inclusion on a few fronts.

First this information has been heavily documented by a reliable source, The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for the last hundred years. Because it's considered important historical information both for it's effect on the economy and politics. See for example the Strike wave of 1945–1946, and how it led to the passing of the Taft–Hartley Act.

Secondly, I assumed the title of the list gave enough information for what each number meant. With the first being the year, and the second being the total number of striking workers that year. If others agree that sub-headers should be added that can be done.

Lastly, this list has a valuable informational purpose, per WP:LISTPURP. It simply takes the information already available from the reliable source, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and has it all in one accessible page.

(also A.B is right, I am on a somewhat of semi-break but not fully. It's just to get me to step-back a bit more over these next few weeks. I will still see messages to me though.)--LoomCreek (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Our notability guidance for stand-alone lists says:

"Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list."

The history of strikes in the United States is certainly notable and this is useful information not readily available elsewhere in one place, even at the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (from what I can tell).

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, BLS' most comprehensive one visit page is 1947-present, while the other data is from their yearly strike reports.- LoomCreek (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with a keep (Update: with all the new added context I lean keep over merge now) ~~though the page needs a sentence or two to establish context.~~ But, might this be more valuable in a broader context, merged into an article like Labor history of the United States? —siro χ o 21:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Siroxo you make a great point about merging to that article. It's would add value to that article. Furthermore, more people would see the data LoomCreek has prepared. @LoomCreek, what do you think?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm fine with either as long as the information remains. After the suggestion, merging with the Labor history of the US seems like a really smart move. It would definitely add value and context to the article. So if that becomes the consensus I'm in full support of it. -- LoomCreek (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:NOTSTATS: tatistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context. The "list" is statistics. I have no idea how this has captured the imagination of so many keep !voters when it absolutely completely clearly fails WP:NOT as a stand-alone article. I have absolutely no problem if it's merged and discussed somewhere, though. SportingFlyer T·C 21:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The compilation also appears to be WP:OR - the statistics themselves aren't OR, but the compilation as a whole appears to be as they've never been discussed as a set by anyone, and the page only includes primary sources. Absolutely firm delete on this. SportingFlyer T·C 21:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per, WP:CALC "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible." and

WP:ORMEDIA "Source information does not need to be in text form—any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to provide source information. Routine interpretation of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources." (bolding added)

This is simply listing the accepted numbers of strikers each year according to the U.S. BLS, a highly reputable source, it doesn't even count as WP:Synthesis since each piece of data is discrete and not mixed in any shape way or form. - LoomCreek (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It still clearly fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NLIST as the figures have not been discussed as a group by reliable secondary sources. Furthermore, these are not technically calculations. The fact a keep !voter above has even specifically mentioned this information isn't available elsewhere in one place makes it clear that this doesn't qualify for the encyclopaedia as a stand-alone article. It may be able to be used elsewhere, though. SportingFlyer T·C 23:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a note, it doesn't fail WP:NOTSTATS anymore, as siroχo added the introduction you asked for. Sorry about that intial oversight.

The frequency of strikes per year is something discussed by reliable secondary sources, one of which already included was the U.S BLS compilations of their own data from their previous primary sources (see Wikipedia:Party and person). I've since added two other new secondary sources, which cover the extent of information. I think it would've still met policy otherwise but I've added that.

I'm very much in support of merging it into the Labor history of the United States to be clear. It seems to be the best solution. If that works for those involved, I can go ahead and do that. -- LoomCreek (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it still distinctly fails WP:NOTSTATS. You cannot save a notstats article by adding two sentences of unsourced text. SportingFlyer T·C 08:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's sourced to be clear. See the Strikes in the United States 1880-1936. Given that the rough consensus seems to be merging, we could do that. - LoomCreek (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added some context, feel free to improve upon it. —siro χ o 22:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding an actual sentence isn't demonstrating it passes NLIST, though. It's just a collection of primary sources. SportingFlyer T·C 23:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Labor history of the United States. This article fails WP:NLIST and the source is better suited for enhancing an existing article. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Labor history of the United States as there is no reason to have an article just to hold a single table/graph. The list of sources is a problem but there surely must be some way to deal with that Mangoe (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, delete as WP:OR per @SportingFlyer:'s analysis. Among other issues, it's far from clear that the numbers from different eras are directly comparable, as counting methodology could have changed. The point made by the graph is so obvious that one would think we could source it from some secondary analysis. At any rate, there's no reason for this to stand as a separate article even were it more acceptably sourced. Mangoe (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the caution but I can assure you the methodology is consistent for the time period this covers. See, Strikes in the United States 1880-1936 for an for in depth analysis of the early data collection methods.

To confirm this has been followed since, see BLS Handbook of Methods for Surveys and Studies : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics

From the second source, "No Federal agency collected national information on stoppages occurring during the 1906-13 period. In 1914, relying exclusively on printed sources, the Bureau of Labor Statistics attempted to compile a record of all strikes and lockouts during the year. In the following year, the Bureau inaugurated a method for the collection of strike and lockout material which has been followed, with modifications, since that time."

The jist of both sources descriptions of collection methods is that they've been consistent since 1915, with data becoming more detailed in 1926 with the creation of monthly reports.

-- LoomCreek (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The new article got nominated very quickly. Wikipedia:Five_pillars "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." This information is useful in understanding the subject manner, and what you would find in any publication about the subject. Category:Strikes in the United States has additional information which should be included here, making it useful as a navigational list as well. Dream Focus 01:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LoomCreek and others.--User:Namiba 13:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTSTATS; just copies raw data without context Dronebogus (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a large amount of context and explanation at this point. Including references to secondary sources. I don't think WP:NOTSTATS would apply to the article in its current state. —siro χ o 00:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per LoomCreek and others.--This is a very useful graphic that teachers can use in their lectures. The commentary is already covered in many separate articles. Rjensen (talk) 05:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL Dronebogus (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. The article has been speedy deleted by Jimfbleak as a G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) violation. (non-admin closure) Hey man im josh (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Quatrini[edit]

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

Flowery prose, sourced only to PR sites with puffy language. I find no sourcing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Florida. Oaktree b (talk) 18:31, 27 July 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!} 18:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capitol Hill's mystery soda machine[edit]

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

This article is niche and un-notable in any circumstance, with only 13 Sources, some of which being irrelevant to the article in question. This article is about a subject that has no relevance to those other than the residents of Capitol Hill. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 18:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be plenty of decent sourcing. The niche-ness is not a reason to delete, there are plenty of niche topics that receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, such as this one. --Cerebral726 (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable per WP:RS so our rules say "keep". I think the most obvious merge target, our Capitol Hill, Seattle article, is long enough already.

I wish my town had one of these.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (weak keep, more or less). When there are a whole bunch of local sources, we know that we have enough material to use to write an article, but we need to find evidence that it's of interest to a suitably broad audience. So that's what I looked for, and found Boing Boing, Vice, and Slate (via Atlas Obscura, but nonetheless published to Slate which IIRC curated some of AO's content for a while). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Several reliable sources have covered both its existence and disappearance, so it easily meets GNG. It has more than just hyperlocal appeal, given the coverage from non-local sources. Sounder Bruce 21:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I agree it's a niche article, that's a poor argument for deletion. Large swathes of Wikipedia are niche-but-notable, might as well nominate those too! - dasime (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article creator here. It's obviously niche, which is true for many Wikipedia articles, what matters is that it's sourced and meets GNG. Wikipedia doesn't decide what's relevant or not, the existence of sources does. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:57, 28 July 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. I am taking the nominator's removal of their own notice as a withdrawal. If this is not the case, please revert my close. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Josiah Quincy III[edit]

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

The statue fails WP:GNG, and there are no other sources I could find to expand this stub article. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 18:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice has been removed by nominator. Propose speedy keep/close. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:35, 27 July 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!} 18:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Bogner[edit]

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

I'm not seeing how this person is notable per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The sources given are merely quick mentions of him, and the one with the most information is a university newsletter talking about another article published about him. Google search comes up with fewer than 100 results, mainly entries in directories and social media, and those "get in touch with us and we will interview you" type of sites. ... discospinster _talk 16:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and United States of America. ... discospinster _talk 16:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable television executive. The "30 under 30" nomination isn't notable, rest is routine career information. Oaktree b (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a single GNG-passing source here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Charsaddian (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer M. Adams[edit]

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

Does not pass the GNG as a nominee to be the United States Ambassador to Cape Verde. Appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Let'srun (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Let'srun (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm fully aware that just because she's a diplomat doesn't mean she's automatically notable. However, being a United States ambassador in general carries more significance and thus is notable. And I respectfully disagree with the notion that it's too soon; other United States ambassadors, both current ones and and those from long ago, have had articles when they were nominees too and were continually updated through their tenures.

That being said, if the consensus isn't to keep it, can it at the very least be moved into a draft? That way, I can work on it and simply move it back to the mainspace once she's confirmed by the Senate. Losipov (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be open to that option. Let'srun (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely fails WP:GNG and we do not preference ambassadors from particular countries here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per suggestion made in above comments by Losipov. Agree with Let'srun and SportingFlyer that the subject presently falls short of passing WP:GNG/WP:NPOL. Sal2100 (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sal2100 (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Let'srun I didn't notice it before, but I've now seen you have nominated dozens of articles for deletion, including judicial nominees and beauty pageant contestants. Several editors have expressed their concerns about these moves, and now I see it too. In the case of judicial nominees, you've been saying that those articles are also "too soon". Remember, more sources can be added as time goes on and they will likely have more sources after they've been confirmed. It's the same thing with ambassadors.

You didn't even consider that this article be made into a draft until I suggested it, but rather straight up deleted. Respectfully, I find it a bit inappropriate. And the article Draft:Ann M. Yastishock wasn't even considered problematic before and you moved it to a draftspace. I'm at a loss honestly. Losipov (talk) 18:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify until such time as she's confirmed. Star Mississippi 02:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shehab Mohamed[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about former footballer who made a few appearances in the Egyptian Premier League but which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. The only coverage I can find is routine transactional announcements like [9], match reports and statistics database entries. Consensus at the 2019 AfD was that the article failed the GNG, but it was kept due to the now-deprecated NFOOTBALL. Zero improvements have been made since 2019. Jogurney (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Egypt. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any WP:RS addressing him directly and in detail Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 29 July 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 Winnipeg–Churchill train. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Silcox station[edit]

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

There exists only three sources for this page: One is a database which is also essentially a dead link, and the other two aren't independent (since they are made by Via Rail, operator of the Station), and in any case, those two sources don't assert the notability of the station either. I can't find more sources; Google search results are either Wikipedia, WP forks, or does not pertain to the station. Silcox (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Silcox (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, operational railway station. Likely to be historical coverage inaccessible online. Garuda3 (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have to repeat last year's RfC just to get you to stop adding nonsensical votes like this? Train stations are not inherently notable just by existing, and this is a flag stop that is literally just a sign if you go and look it up. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an operational railway station. It's a mile marker in the middle of the bush. -- asilvering (talk) 04:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Silcox, Manitoba#Transportation which already replicates this information.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B. The thing is, I am also planning to send the Silcox, Manitoba article itself to AfD due to that article's lack of notability. I respect you !vote though. Silcox (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes -- I see why you want to delete Silcox. "There's no 'there' there" looking at satellite imagery.

Also, Via Rail indicates the Silcox "station" is a sign post. You'd have to wade or canoe to get to it. My guess is that it's used by tourists (canoeists) in the summer.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment We have tended to keep these articles, but I have to say that a listing of stops in the main article makes more sense. Mangoe (talk) 03:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silcox, Manitoba

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete per my comments above.~~

~~--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a non-notable flag stop in the middle of an unorganized census division with a population density of 0.0. -- asilvering (talk) 05:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Redirect to Winnipeg-Churchill train does make good sense, where the one to Silcox, Manitoba did not. -- asilvering (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Winnipeg–Churchill train. Mackensen (talk) 12:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silcox Creek Silcox (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Winnipeg–Churchill train. Given so little text, a redirect (with or without prejudice) makes total sense. Not sure how a delete could be justified over an ATD or why an ATD wasn't proposed upfront. gidonb (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Winnipeg–Churchill train per above.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Winnipeg–Churchill train as WP:ATD. I note the other "flag stop" articles for this line should also be evaluated and perhaps handled WP:BOLDLY to avoid navigational issues. Jumpytoo Talk 08:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I prodded a bunch of them. –dlthewave ☎ 04:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Winnipeg–Churchill train. Just realized I never made a bolded vote. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silcox Creek

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Winnipeg–Churchill train. No independent SIGCOV to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 19:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. This discussion could be relisted a final week but this option has been mention and has been the most frequent outcome with characters from this TV series and occurs with characters of other TV shows as well. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Sidle[edit]

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

This article was previously a Good Article, but it has since been delisted. Now I am nominating this for deletion as many of the sources used are primary and/or unreliable, other reliable sources seem to focus much on the character's departure. A quick Google search doesn't seem to give sources that prove the character's notability (per WP:FICT.) I am open to discussion, however, because the fact that fans of the character campaigned to keep Jorja Fox from leaving the show may be notable. Spinixster (chat!) 10:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 10:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It definitely hits the notability requirement as Jorja Fox's exit from the show in 2007 and return in 2009 was covered across reliable sources. There is also an LA Times article from 2015 that recaps "Immortality" along with how the Sidle-Grissom relationship grew. Conyo14 (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14 I understand your point, but aside from the relationship article, is there anything else that proves the character’s notability? Just because Jorja’s leave was covered among multiple sources doesn’t necessarily mean that the character she plays is notable enough to have a separate page. Perhaps some sources about the fan following or about the character herself. Spinixster (chat!) 07:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing though, those articles don't just play on Jorja's exit, they also focus on the character too. Enough for me to consider the article notable. Unfortunately, the sources in this article have dead links. So, depending on the outcome, I can find new links to place there. Conyo14 (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14 FYI, you can improve an article even if it's at AFD. Right now, the article has extensive sourcing issues. Spinixster (chat!) 01:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's called laziness sometimes. Perhaps this week I can get to it. Conyo14 (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to provide reception or analysis to meet WP:SIGCOV. Even after the improvements, there are only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs here that provide WP:PLOT details or database style information about the actress. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a Today article [10] which is independent, reliable, and provides quite significant coverage over her character. I entered the citation into the "Character development" and "Public reaction" sections. I understand this source alone won't save the article, but I still stand strong that the public reaction section is enough; or, at the very least merge this section into the main article. Conyo14 (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see enough SIGCOV to maintain a separate article. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting with a request that editors consider a Redirect which is frequently the outcome of AFDs involving fictional characters in all genres.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and slight merge to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters unless improved. The reception suggests glimmers of notability; sadly, the claim that "Sara Sidle has gained an extensive fan base throughout the years." is unreferenced. Second paragraph claims that "Grissom and Sidle's relationship has been the subject of intense debate in the press and on-line forums" but the reference is to a blog (http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/entertainment_tv/csi/index.html) that I cannot locate anyway - the link is to an index and the page is dead, and Internet Archive is not finding it for me either. The rest of the "Public reaction" is a bit better referenced, although most links are dead or primary (fan sites). The best I was able to access is this - a single paragraph in Hollywood Insider (a breaking news section in EW). I don't think that's enough to merit keeping this (but merging some info might be ok). If someone can find coverage of this in reliable sources, preferably academic, showing this has received enduring attention (at least as a case study for academics), a case could be made this character is notable due to that fan outcry, but currently, the referencing is too poor to make that case and said fan outcry does not appear to be very significant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 29 July 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!} 23:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Galliani[edit]

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

A player with no professional career and no real media coverage available, the little of which is basically due to him being the grandson of Adriano Galliani.

All I could find were trivial coverage, transfer reports (mostly involving youth football) and little more: [11] Angelo (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Angelo (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I found [12], [13], [14], [15], among many more sources . Young player with ongoing career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are literally just marginal interviews that are mostly about his relationship with his grandfather, plus transfer reports. And we all can agree notability is not inherited. His career is merely amateur, his current team being in the amateur Spanish fifth tier and he has never played a single professional game or even been part of a senior professional first team in any form. Angelo (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't merely are deinfilty not "mostly about his relationship with his grandfather" and are denfitlty not merely "transfer reports" and his career is definitely not "merely amateur", young player with ongoing career having played for Olympiacos B in the fully pro Super League Greece 2. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 09:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article adheres to the notability guidelines for sportspeople, as Galliani has played at fully professional leagues in multiple countries and multiple sources are available. --BoraVoro (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since NFOOTBALL was deprecated, we don't consider playing in a "fully pro" league as providing a presumption of notability. Instead, the article needs to satisfy WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; while The Athletic article contains some useful coverage of his career (and the inevitable links to his grandfather's career), I don't see anything else that is in-depth secondary coverage in reliable sources. The Sky Sport (Italy) piece is very short, and the Tutto Mercato piece is almost entirely a quotes from the subject. It appears that Galliani receives attention due to being a grandson of a famous football figure, but I just don't see that attention translating into WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG per above sources.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Lancaster, Lancashire. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster City Centre[edit]

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

This new article is an unnecessary split, or duplication, of the existing article Lancaster, Lancashire. If there was indeed an identifiable "Lancaster City Centre" separate from the city of Lancaster (the settlement, not the local authority), then it would not include Lancaster University or the Port of Lancaster. I see no purpose in this article, which will only lead to future problems when new content is added, or changes made, to this or the other or both. PamD 11:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add: I live in City of Lancaster, though not in Lancaster. PamD 11:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: change of mind from nominator - see below. PamD 14:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. PamD 11:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a standard GNG issue. I don't know the place but if there's something meaningful to say (with appropriate RS) it's not necessarily right to delete. See several other small UK cities at Category:Central business districts in the United Kingdom. Rcsprinter123 (dialogue) 11:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I've not found any reliable sources that speak to Lancaster having a defined city centre area with any sort of consistent definition. The tourist information website [16] states Firstly, Lancaster is a small city (with a big story to tell!) and can easily be explored on foot. The Bus Station is located in the city centre and Lancaster Railway station is just 5mins walk away which implies (contrary to this article) that the railway station is not in the centre centre. a different page on the same website makes it clear that the Millennium Bridge and Skerton Bridge are not considered to be in the city centre, and describes the Aldcliffe Triangle as being about 10 minutes walk from the city centre. This article includes the Port of Lancaster, which is about 4 miles as the crow flies from the approximate centre of the central business district and over 2½ miles from the edge of the contiguous urban area (as they appear on Google Maps). In September 2020 Lancashire County Council launched a "Lancaster City Centre Movement and Public Realm Strategy" [17] that defined the city centre has having broad and core areas for the purposes of that study. The first is a wider area than the Visit Lancaster website does (see page 12 of the PDF), incorporating the Castle, Cathedral, railway station and both bridges mentioned above, but nowhere near as wide as including the University let alone Port. It also defines a "core area", within the A6 gyratory, which is a smaller area than the tourist information uses, excluding the castle and cathedral. All this leads me to the conclusion that it's no different to most cities in having a "city centre" that is just a vaguely defined central(ish) area of the city relevant to whatever the current context is. The article contains some good prose though that should be merged to the Lancaster, Lancashire article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be OR as none of the sources talk about this "place". Oaktree b (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article containing this information "The city centre has existed since 79 AD in the Roman Period of Great Britain and it was around this time period when the castle was built and occupied by the Duchy of Lancaster and played a vital role in the War of the Roses against the armies of Yorkshire." ought to be speedily deleted. Sources don't reference the text. Esemgee (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge I can certainly see what @DragonofBatley was aiming for with this article, which was to replicate the likes of Liverpool city centre and Manchester city centre. The main issue is that Lancaster isn't that big a place, so it doesn't really need separate city centre and general articles. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree, it's unnescessary duplication in the main - and what isn't is questionable. You could throw a whole heap of Citeneeded tags in there, as others have pointed out - the referencing is very patchy. So the value add to the Lancaster article is pretty much zilch. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to just quickly say, when I created the article. I spent over a couple of hours heavily writing, sourcing and laying out the article using a carefully chosen amount of pictures. While I get the city is not as large as say Preston or Salford or Liverpool or Manchester. I still think just like my other article (which I hope won't be also nominated for deletion) that I made which was Lincoln City Centre. I feel the article does have a good amount of information and to quote a couple of above comments. ""The city centre has existed since 79 AD in the Roman Period of Great Britain and it was around this time period when the castle was built and occupied by the Duchy of Lancaster and played a vital role in the War of the Roses against the armies of Yorkshire." ought to be speedily deleted." and "Agree, it's unnescessary duplication in the main - and what isn't is questionable." Lancaster Castle has existed since 79AD and is the oldest landmark in the city. It is established online the castle was a key fort in the War of the Roses which I read through but of course I could not simply copy and paste the information without plagurising and then it be either deleted or tagged. The article is about the main city centre (not the district or the settlement) the main economic hub and given there are two universities, a castle, cathedral, priory, city hall and old buildings. It would like Lincoln warrant an article. If Lincoln can have it and its been up for months now. Why not Lancaster? Please enlighten me given I did not just whack up a copycat article but a formal article inline with other articles like Manchester City Centre, Lincoln City Centre and Leeds City Centre? DragonofBatley (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - your contributions, which seem very solid, should be added to the main article on the city. I often see new editors lack confidence that their work is good enough or right for big articles that other people have created, but you have to have that confidence and work to improve articles that need more added to them. Duplicate articles confuse users and mean twice as much work to update in future. Blythwood (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with Lancaster, Lancashire --Devoke water 13:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This discussion inspired me to make a start on improving Lancaster, Lancashire, bringing it more in line with the guidance in WP:UKTOWNS, and in the course of this I found the interesting duo of Listed buildings in Lancaster, Lancashire (central area) and Listed buildings in Lancaster, Lancashire (outer areas), which define: "the central part of the area, the boundaries of which are the railway on the west side, the Lancaster Canal on the south and east sides, and to the north, a line passing from west to east through the centre of Quay Meadow". I didn't recognise the name "Quay Meadow" but found Google maps identifies it as the park north of the priory, south of the riverside development. On that definition, Lancaster Royal Infirmary is not in the centre (south of the canal), nor the Custom House, Lancaster which is now the Maritime Museum (north of that midway line), nor Lancaster Cathedral (east of the canal). I can see that with some 330 listed buildings in the unparished area within City of Lancaster (but not to be confused with those in the Heysham unparished area), it was felt useful to create a split of some sort, but I don't think this can be used to justify the existence of the current Lancaster City Centre article. PamD 12:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, from the nominator: Merge to Lancaster, Lancashire in so far as there is content which is not already thoroughly covered in that long-established article. As far as I can see the only significant portion to which this applies is "Churches and other places of worship", though this needs to be treated with caution: the supposed Hindu temple appears to be based on an academic paper written from the University which discusses "The Hindu Temple and Modernity: Devotion, Governance and Aesthetics, 1800-1946", rather than anything to suggest the existence of such a temple in Lancaster. And why list St Paul's Church, Scotforth in an article on the city centre? There are some dubious statements: I don't think the priory is "located within the walls of Lancaster Castle". If the statements about being a regional hub in the lead can be sourced (the current reference doesn't support), then they apply to the whole city. The existing article on the city needs some work - there are sections such as "Music" which have a lot of unsourced content - but we can improve on it rather than splitting our resources into maintaining a near-parallel article for a hard-to-define area. I've just spotted that the whole 18th-century port operation, including being a major slave trading port, gets just three sentences under "Medieval"! As for Lincoln City Centre: I don't know the place, but looking at the article it's not obvious to me that its existence is justified, but I'll leave that to others to discuss. PamD 14:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another article called High Street, Lincoln exists and that might be worth merging into the city centre article? High Street isn't even the name of the city centre. Ill start a discussion later on to discuss the two articles and see what is best suited. The high street or Lincoln City Centre article. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DragonofBatley Looking at the street map of Lincoln, both High Street, Lincoln and Steep Hill seem to be valid articles on individual streets. They each focus tightly onto their one street, though the sourcing could be better. There are plenty of similar articles on specific interesting streets in UK towns and cities. There seems no reason to suggest merging either of them into anything else. PamD 19:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete as unnecessary duplication, we don't normally need articles on the settlement and the centre of a settlement unless large like Manchester. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the discussion above (my official reason). Also because PamD is a great editor who knows her stuff (my main reason). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment agreed, both PamD + Crouch, Swale know their stuff --Devoke water 16:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, just to be clear, editors are proposing a Merge with Lancaster, Lancashire?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Sorry to be unclear: yes, I for one (and I think everyone else) intended to say "Merge with Lancaster, Lancashire". Ah, I see I said so in my more detailed post of 3:26 pm, 23 July 2023, though not in my summary post at the top. But thanks for checking - just in case of any doubt. PamD 16:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khosi[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, WP:NJOURNALIST, or any other notability standard. No coverage outside the context of winning a reality TV show, a lot of promotional coverage but little in-depth. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and South Africa. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Khosi won big brother. And you know why that is a big deal? Because there is even a category on Wikipedia called “Category:Big Brother (franchise) winners” in which she is one for the few people to fall into. Amaekuma (talk) 08:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Journalism. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a case of WP:BIO1E. If coverage of other achievements is found, I would be happy to reconsider my !vote. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with SnoozyTurtle; this person is notable only in the context of this event, and BIO1E applies. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Floods in the United States (2000–present). Delete !voters primarily expressed concerns regarding notability, which are also resolved with a merge & redirect. Feel free to proceed per this. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Desert Southwest floods[edit]

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

Fairly WP:ROUTINE summer flooding events that are commonplace around the country each year. Although supposedly "historic", many similar "historic" flooding events that occur have no articles here. This appeared to have fairly minor impact and seemingly resulted in no casualties. It would seemingly fail WP:N as routine weather is not generally deemed article-worthy. United States Man (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless additional content is found that shows notability.

Noah^Talk 13:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, also WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeirdNAnnoyed (talk • contribs) 14:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Passes WP:N with over half the sources listed (5 out of 9) being reliable secondary sources. This also would imply WP:NOTNEWS is passes as well. WP:TOOSOON is very irrelevant since the article was created a month after the floods ended. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Weather of 2023. Flash floods aren't out of the ordinary in a desert as the absence of vegetation gives rise to soils with low infiltration capacities, and it's not uncommon for an arid or semi-arid area to receive most of its annual rainfall in a few days of rain. It's not very surprising either when a playa (a dry lake bed) fills with water and floods. With damage localised to mainly Amarillo and no reports of casualties or major damage (200 homes destroyed out of a population of 200,000) after a month, I don't see enough lasting significance for a standalone article. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would also support merging to Floods in the United States (2000–present) as brought up by the IP below. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per reasons stated by others above, I don't see major notability in this event. "200 people being evacuated" in a city of 200,000 and "several houses being destroyed" aren't notable and are fairly routine events. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 21:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Floods in the United States (2000-present): Not notable enough for a standalone article but seemingly notable enough for a blurb there. 72.68.134.26 (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Floods in the United States (2000-present). Sources don't seem to pass WP:NEVENT for now but there's enough coverage for a mention in the broader article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Qwaiiplayer, unless another better destination is needed. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Severe weather --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Prediction Center mesoscale discussion 329[edit]

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

This article is currently tagged as relying heavily on primary sources. It fails WP:N as a little-known but routine product issued by the Storm Prediction Center and is a WP:CONTENTFORK of content that can easily be condensed and included in 2023 Rolling Fork—Silver City tornado. United States Man (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too niche to be notable by any means.

Noah^Talk 13:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — I am opposed to condensing/merging (due to this meaning that like 1 or 2 sentences is merged only), but not opposed to a true merge into 2023 Rolling Fork—Silver City tornado. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicates material already provided by Wkipedia article mentioned above in less technical terms readily understood by the typical user of Wikipedia. The vast majority of text of this article is too technical and not useful enough to be used in Wikipedia. Paul H. (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Not notable, no reason to exist outside of the Rolling Fork article.

Penitentes (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge — Not notable for an article in any regard. Definitely just clutter. Wikiwillz (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Per nom, essentially is content fork of 2023 Rolling Fork—Silver City tornado and List of Storm Prediction Center meso—gamma mesoscale discussions and content can easily be merged into one of those. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 21:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2023 Rolling Fork—Silver City tornado: too technical for an article but good in the rolling fork article.72.68.134.26 (talk) 22:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – content fork with no tangible notability or impact. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Airsmith (HVAC)[edit]

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

Dubious notability. Both references failed verification. Google search on term failed to find anything usable as a reference. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete neologism with no footprint in searching: evey hit I saw was for a business with this name. Mangoe (talk) 03:15, 28 July 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 New Town Central Park. The arguments to keep are extremely weak; even if an IAR claim to notability is accepted, there needs to be enough sourceable content to justify a standalone article, and this holds true for a merger as well. Those arguing to delete convincingly demonstrate that such sourcing has yet to be found. As there is no specific opposition to redirecting, that seems to be a valid ATD, but there is clear consensus against the standalone page. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Charlie Chaplin, Shanghai[edit]

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Statue of Zhang Side, notability is not established with substantive sources. Existence of art outdoors is not automatic notability and no basis to remove a prod without addressing the unacceptable lack of sources and GNG failure. Features in a park can also be included in the park article without stand-alone articles. Reywas92^Talk 03:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and China. Reywas92^Talk 03:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with the proviso that I do not read the local languages, it seems unlikely that this is a notable statue. Very few references to it in English and it doesn't even appear to be the best know Chaplin statue in Shanghai. JMWt (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added some content that explains Chaplin's connection to Shanghai and China. It doesn't explain the statue, but it does give the reader a glimpse into why Shanhai would erect a statue of Chaplin. — Maile (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like the argument to delete is even stronger if the only sources don't even discuss the statue. And the citation 1 that is actually about statues appears to only mention a different one in Shanghai. Reywas92^Talk 13:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have to agree with Reywas' comment above - there appears to be ~~exactly one~~ not a single relevant citation here, the rest is nice background but does nothing for the notability of this specific topic. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Zero sources, the blog post about Chaplin statues doesn't include this one. Reywas92^Talk 01:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct on checking back; revised.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, that an English actor is so-honored in Shanghai is notable. The sources explain why Chaplin was remembered with a statue, so they seem directly relevant to the article. A morecites tag seems far more appropriate than a delete, and in either case the image should be used and captioned in other articles. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An aside to the Chaplin statue phenomenon - if some editor were so inspired, and sourced, re-naming this for a list article something like "Statues of Charlie Chaplain around the world". Commons has Media in the category "Statues of Charlie Chaplin", which is impressive in and of itself. And if you do a Google search, it's amazing all the statues of him around the world. He certainly managed to touch people possibly beyond that of any other public figure. — Maile (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That actually isn't a bad idea, and would be even more notable than this one statue. Historyday01 (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Randy, I've appreciated working with you before, but again, there are zero sources about the article's topic. A subjective opinion on the importance of an artwork because of its location, subject, or their relationship has no bearing on its notability or appropriateness of a stand-alone article – we do not keep articles that do not pass WP:GNG just because they exist (nor must images be somewhere because they exist).
To Maile, Charlie_Chaplin#Commemoration_and_tributes describes several ways he's been honored, including statues (mostly outside England!). Not sure if this gallery needs another one but perhaps that part of the FA can be expanded in general (there's a lot more of a "phenomenon" to his popularity than merely statues), but that can be done separately with no bearing on this page. Reywas92^Talk 01:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That might not be a bad idea. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else results, weak merge into New Town Central Park (where it is located). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:V#Notability, otherwise merge/redirect per Slgrandson above. FWIW I have Googled "查理卓别林" + "新虹桥中心花园酒店" and some variations thereof, with 0 results; not dispositive but not very encouraging. The problem with a redirect is that, as noted above, this is not the primary topic for the title, so such a redirect is likely to violate the principle of least astonishment. A disambiguation page could be considered if the Duolun Road statue was mentioned in that article, but that also feels a bit ridiculous. Fundamentally, absent any verifiable information from secondary sources relating to the New Town Central Park Chaplin statue itself, this just doesn't feel like encyclopedia material. -- Visviva (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a second time. There's still no clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Town Central Park where it is mentioned. No merge needed, there's nothing to merge. SportingFlyer T·C 13:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete] as no claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 03:13, 28 July 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 withdrawn‎. ✗plicit 13:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Bolchhi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Nevertheless, I am willing to withdraw the nomination if any enhancements are made to the article per the guidelines outlined in WP:HEY. RPSkokie (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and West Bengal. RPSkokie (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article appears to be about a podcast not an actor. The appropriate SNG would either be WP:NPODCAST or WP:WEB not NACTOR. The subject also looks like it might have coverage in non-English sources. If the podcast is not notable the article could be merged or redirected to Gaurav Chakrabarty as an WP:ATD. TipsyElephant (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: Inappropriate nomination, therefore, retracting it. If anyone wishes to propose it again, they are warmly encouraged to do so. RPSkokie (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex (footballer, born 2001)[edit]

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

Article about semi-pro footballer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG; the only online coverage consists of match reports and statistical database entries. PROD was contested without making any effort to address the article's WP:SPORTCRIT failure. Jogurney (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BrazilianDude70:, I trust you most with Brazilian footballers, any chance you can confirm if there's any valid coverage for this athlete?--Ortizesp (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ortizesp: No notable coverage, only a brief direct mention here due to his loan to Taquaritinga. Other than that, nothing substancial, thus delete. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wasn't going to contest the original PROD, because Alex Honório does fail GNG. It's an article I created a while ago relying on WP:FOOTY, and I did expect to find sources when searching, but was unable to. Shame, but delete. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is that this is out of Wikipedia's scope per NOTGUIDE. The dissents are unpersuasive in light of applicable policy: for "it's useful" see WP:ITSUSEFUL, and as regards the view "I imagine that competitive Mahjong rules would have received extensive coverage": we require specific sources, not imagined ones. Most people support a transwiki, so if somebody wants to do the work required for that, they can contact WP:REFUND and request userfication for that purpose. The same applies if somebody wants to use this as a basis for an article on competition mahjong or similar. Sandstein 08:13, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahjong Competition Rules[edit]

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

Someone at the help desk suggested that I come here and suggest transwiki. If that's not a good idea, then this article should be deleted.

This long article covers one set of rules for Mahjong, a specific kind of game. There are two reasons for deletion: (1) Wikipedia is not a game guide. It's good if an article discusses the basics of a game's rules, like Mahjong#Old Hong Kong mahjong rules, but a very long article giving lots of different scoring options and terminology, plus instructions ("If you can use a set to form both a high-score fan and a low-score fan, it is your right to choose the high-score fan.), is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. (2) The topic is already extensively covered in Mahjong#Rules, so there's no need to merge it there. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear and unambiguous violation of WP:NOTGUIDE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: that looks like a very useful page with a lot of work put into it. It shouldn't be deleted from the Wikimedia world but this isn't the place for it -- Wikibooks is a better place, so the trans wiki idea is a good one. I'm not sure how to do it.

123.51.107.94, thanks for flagging this -it needs a better home.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China, Games, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan and Judaism. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a page from Wikibooks on how to transwiki: b:Help:Importing.

Also, if someone does this, I suggest putting links on the appropriate Wikipedia mahjong pages to the Wikibooks article.

Finally, I wonder if we transwiki this article, is it possible to have redirect on Wikipedia that goes to another project?

This is deep content with many edits from a range of editors - it really should be kept somewhere.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought that if these are 'official rules', they must already be documented, and made available, by the body that created the rules. In which case, what purpose exactly is served by duplicating them? Links to 'official rules' should go to the original, not to potentially-inaccurate or out of date copies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've left notes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games and Talk:Mahjong asking for input.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect or transwiki to Wikibooks as suggested. As written, this fails NOTAGUIDE/HOWTO and has issues with GNG. If nobody transwikis this before closing, I recommend SOFTDELETE and redirecting it to article on Mahjong. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with transwiki to wikibooks. Even if the article title meets GNG (likely does, if someone cares to write it someday), this is not the correct article for the title. It's been more than 15 years since I touched wikibooks but i'm willing to do a WP:BOLD transwiki there if that's the consensus. —siro χ o 06:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support transwiki, oppose deletion. Even if it fails WP:NOTGUIDE I must say that this is a very comprehensive article and it would be extremely useful for people who want to study mahjong. Whatever the outcome is the contents in my opinion should not be deleted, but yes this needs a better home like what someone else said. S5A-0043^Talk 05:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems to me that people are going off on a rather pointless tangent here, with regard to 'transwiki' proposals. 'Transwiki' simply isn't a legitimate closing decision. It cannot be, since En.Wikipedia has no control over other projects. If anyone thinks content is appropriate for Wikibooks, they can (as long as they comply with the relevant licensing terms) copy it there at any time, regardless of whether the article is kept or deleted here. They don't need approval here to do so. The decision as to whether it belongs there is down to that project, not this one. The only decision we need to make here is whether the article belongs on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete here, if anyone wants to take it to another project they are welcome to do so. Fulmard (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, support transwiki. WP:NOTGUIDE states "Avoid lists of gameplay concepts and items unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context." Although the article currently has not too many citations, I imagine that competitive Mahjong rules would have received extensive coverage in, for example, Chinese-language media. I think that the article can be renamed to Competitive mahjong, for example, with the rules relegated to a section of the article, and other coverage of competition mahjong be included. I will try to find some mahjong coverage sources later. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 13:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Jennings[edit]

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

This article has been proposed for deletion before but that was contested. It was also redirected and then that too was undone. The article currently has the same issues that the redirecter had concerns with. Kometalgreat (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:15, 27 July 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. ✗plicit 13:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Skin[edit]

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

Non-notable musician with no sourcing found. Does not appear to have met any criteria for musical artists. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - it appears to be a musical artist who at the very least has been mentioned in the media in Uganda. Needs strengthening, and the discography section needs completely redoing as per WP:NOTDIR ..

4theloveofallthings (talk) 4theloveofallthings (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG pretty clearly as the subject of opinion pieces and is frequently covered by Ugandan media. SportingFlyer T·C 16:39, 27 July 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. Star Mississippi 19:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jitendra Rai[edit]

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

Non-notable film person. I'm sure the role of "little boy's father" was good, but they are all trivial roles. Nothing found for this individual for ACTOR. Oaktree b (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Oaktree b (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NACTOR requires roles in notable works to be significant, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Fails WP:GNG. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serge B. Provost[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable academic with routine listings in various school-specific sources. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just added four more published reviews, two each of two of his books, to the article. Normally I would count five reviews for two books as being good enough for WP:AUTHOR. I am hesitant to do so here, because the reviews are in MathSciNet and zbMATH, which might be considered routine because they are reputed to review essentially everything in research-level pure mathematics. In fact, they only reviewed two of Provost's four books, with a third book merely indexed with a copy of the publisher blurb by each, and a fourth book not listed at all. I'm not sure whether that should be interpreted as evidence that these reviews should count as being more selective than we have traditionally counted them (because obviously they are selecting some books and not others) or as evidence that Provost's books are not making significant impact (because only half of them even got reviewed by the review-everything sources). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I don't think that the MathSciNet or zbMath reviews are the kind discussed under WP:NAUTHOR. I did add one more review contributing to NAUTHOR to the article but that's still 1 + 3 reviews on two books. This is marginal. I am brought over to weak delete, as the books are multiply-authored, and as it looks to me like the subject here is overshadowed by his more notable coauthor A. M. Mathai. Citations look weak for WP:NPROF C1 in a moderate citation field. Comment that while he appears to be a fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, this is what they call their base level of membership (so no WP:NPROF C3 apparent); associate of the Society of Actuaries also would fail to meet WP:NPROF C1 so far as I can see (if it could even be verified). I will watch this discussion in case more reviews or other evidence of notability are uncovered. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The considerable effort put toward saving this actually makes the "delete" opinions stronger, as despite that effort, no clear evidence of an NACTOR or GNG pass has been found. I would be willing to provide a user/draft-space copy with anyone who will undertake to wait to recreate this until clearer evidence of notability is available. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vidhya Vijayakumar[edit]

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

Appears non-notable, with only small parts in movies. I find no extensive sourcing (could be some in the native language). Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She has been consistently appearing in malayalam movies even if its small roles. Hope to see her in a titular role soon. Badurudeen Adka (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Badurudeen Adka, I assume that your comment indicates a vote to "Keep" the article. Since this discussion will go on for a week, it would help your case if you continued to look for reliable sources that could help establish her notability. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I will add reliable sources as soon as possible. The Nerdy Boy (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How is it possible that Filmography, Award and nominations section and All references of these two seperate article is same? I know that image on these two articles is different and I consider that these two person is different. Regarding Vidhya Vijayakumar article, I don't see her name here. Fade258 (talk) 12:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been edited and removed. Filmography has been added of Vidhya Vijayakumar. The Nerdy Boy (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded the article from the time of deletion nomination. Reliable sources have been added regarding the films. Reference links are also provided. The Nerdy Boy (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - She doesn't meet the criteria for WP:NACTOR due to lack of notable roles in her filmography and no in-depth coverage WP:SIGCOV. Mentioned webseries Rock Paper Scissors but no references to support notability. Can editor provide more reliable sources to prove notability? DSN18 (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Provided reliable sources regarding Rock Paper Scissors. Vidhya Vijayakumar was one of the protagonist of the web series which ran for two seasons. The Nerdy Boy (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Being an english wikipedia you need to give notable references written in english language and from reliable sources. Also the given references doesn't mention about her role in the series.~~ DSN18 (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General Comment on one point: Being an english wikipedia you need to give notable references written in english language and from reliable sources. is not completely correct. Reliable yes but not necessarily in English. The guideline makes that perfectly clear.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 03:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DSN18, Mushy Yank is correct here, there is no requirement that sources be in English or be available online either. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i agree @Liz and @Mushy Yank with your views and have striked out the comment. DSN18 (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 12:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 13:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Los Carayos[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No indication the band passes WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France. UtherSRG (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is significant coverage in:

Culshaw, Peter (2013-05-09). Clandestino: In Search of Manu Chao. Profile Books. ISBN 978-1-84765-640-7.
Dupont, Brice (2022-04-22). Manu Chao, l'intégrale: Toutes les chansons expliquées (in French). Librinova. ISBN 979-10-405-0631-7.

Jfire (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:39, 27 July 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!} 07:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last Will (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:GNG. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and only newspaper listings on Newspapers.com. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST. Per NEXIST, the sources have to be "suitable," and I don't think Horrorphilia is suitable enough. And even if it was, it's only ONE source (needs TWO OR MORE sources to pass NFO and NFSOURCES). The Film Creator (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, review at Cinemagazine [18] DonaldD23 talk to me 23:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And another, in Dutch. Production has received some coverage, here at least. So a reasonably decent page is possible on this film, which seems notable enough (Meaning Keep).-MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 00:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reviews cited above appear to be sufficient to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have three editors !voting keep and no other !votes other than the implied delete by the nom... I'd like some more input otherwise it'll be no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but why do you say that? There is a strong consensus that films with 2 reviews are generally accepted as notable. Accordingly the nominator was asking for 1 more review at least, when 2 were presented. So saying that without more input it would close as "no consensus" does not seem correct. The nominator's rationale might (and I don't think it would) justify a "no consensus" outcome if and only if no reviews had been presented. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 05:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Count Baltar[edit]

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

I could not find a single decent source on the guy, let alone enough to meet WP:GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battlestar Galactica (1978 TV series). He has plenty of mentions in book sources, but they all seem trivial and largely in relation to the Cylons, who are indeed quite notable (despite the really poor state of said article). I can't see significant coverage of Count Baltar. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or selectively merge to Battlestar Galactica (1978 TV series). Mostly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs at best, and not enough WP:SIGCOV directed towards the actual character. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or selectively merge to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. No need to retell the plot. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Kirby-Yung[edit]

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

Not meeting notability requirements for politicians; sourcing found is largely social media and routine descriptions (appearing at events, committee meetings). Oaktree b (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Canada. Oaktree b (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:37, 27 July 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 This Is My Truth Tell Me Yours. Star Mississippi 19:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody Loved You[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:NSONG, just as it didn't satisfy it in 2015. Restore Redirect to This Is My Truth Tell Me Yours. Muhandes (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as explained seems ok, there appears to be no critical notice of the song otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - this single stands out as one of only 2 ever released exclusively in Japan. The discography is also incomplete without it. Also, there is an article and a discog template entry for Further Away and Life Becoming A Landside EP and these have never been nominated for deletion. So, by the same logic - both Nobody Loved You and the Know Our B-Sides EP should both be kept. This track isn't some unofficial, non-authorized 12" whitelabel, it's an officially released single - but according to some Wikipedians, it doesn't count because it was only released in Japan. Should we remove the tracklistings of the Japanese album versions because they don't count too? Finally, Wikipedia specifically aims to not solely focus on the English speaking world as reiterated in .

Finally, as per Wikipedia:Notability (music), "Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria: The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.". This has been satisfied because it appears on reputable Japanese sites. Furthermore, "the recording has appeared on any country's music chart". This single has, so it has satisfied two conditions where only one is required for notability.

@Oaktree b: the Japan only single (as this is) - Further Away also has an article but has never been nominated for deletion? Apeholder (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Apeholder (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

That would help notability, if we have sourcing that talks about it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: We do, not only that but Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Recordings states: "That a single is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." It clearly is because we have every other one of their singles on here, but for some reason this one is different because it was released in Japan? Nobody has been able to explain this to me so far, I'm really interested to hear why it's different Apeholder (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Apeholder: This has nothing to do with Japan and everything to do with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Muhandes (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Muhandes: It's also nothing to do with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the examples given all take unrelated articles as justification for an article to stay up. The existence of Further Away shows this EXACT type of article exists already, not similar or totally unrelated as your example shows, but the EXACT same. The fact you offered this as a counter argument suggests you are either being very disingenuous or don't know the first thing about the subject matter. Also, have you noticed how I'm giving you extensive replies, and yours are pretty much one-liners with stuff that's not even relevant? So far you have said things that are clearly false and other things totally unrelated. Apeholder (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Does not appear to pass WP:NSONGS. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP if the other single is also the same thing as this single is, then why is that somehow accepted but this isn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.147.104 (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— 109.78.147.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Whether the singular !vote from the IP is included or not (as it's made few edits outside this discussion and page), there's still no consensus. Relisting for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to This Is My Truth Tell Me Yours. The first seven sources currently in the article are product and information listings. The eighth is a list of the band's best songs, but this song is not listed. The ninth is link to their Sony Music Japan biography. Plus, this single failed to chart at all. It does not merit a separate article. ✗plicit 13:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence Keeley[edit]

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

Sourcing is PR and routine business items. Also reads like a resume. Oaktree b (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding the sources for GNG. I find either routine business news (X took on/left Y position) and those all seem to be reprints of press releases. He did get a lengthy review of his book at "Pensions & Investments" but that does not seem to be a major publication. There was another book review in the National Review. I suppose we could consider NAUTH (book was published by Columbia Business School) but I still think it's thin. One book, two reviews. Lamona (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lamona fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wonder why this article has nominated for deletion. He has featured in an independent secondary reliable sources with a significant coverage. [[19]]CNBC, [[20]] Bloomberg, [[21]] Fordham University News, [[22]] Business Insider and [[23]] Wall Street Journal are enough to establish notability. Again the position held as former BlackRock Executive and books he published can highly quantify him to have notability. Monoclinicva (talk) 14:5, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The articles you list have short quotes of him. (Although I can't see the WSJ article so maybe that has more.) We need at least two independent substantial articles ABOUT him - which means not interviews. I only find one book by him, so if you have found more please post a link. Lamona (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has pass general notability of living person. Considering NAUTH This article has pass GNG

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're equally split between keep and delete. Relisting for more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 12:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A resume entry of someone who has written a few op-eds. No secondary coverage, non-notable WP:BLP. SportingFlyer T·C 13:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A lot of independence sources. His publication as an author can qualify this article.
102.91.5.57 (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St. John's Sr. Sec. School, Meerut[edit]

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

Unreferenced for 14 years. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus that sources found indicate the subject is notable. (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Eyfells[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Insufficient WP:RS and WP:IS sources with WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Iceland. UtherSRG (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. @UtherSRG:, here is alot of significant coverage on him in the Icelandic newspaper database Tímarit.is, such as these [24][25][26][27]. More can be found here. Any chance that you might reconsider this nomination? Alvaldi (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
His death was also reported in the major news publications in Iceland[28][29][30] Alvaldi (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are also significant english sources on him on Newspapers.com, including this from the Orlando Sentinel Part I/Part II. Alvaldi (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the 1993 Venice Biennale puts him into notable territory.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found above. Actualcpscm (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 13:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expressive Processing[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Unsourced other than the book itself. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Education, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to find a few significant independent reviews/commentaries: [31], [32]. That should be enough to cover WP:NBOOK. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Reside, Doug (2010). "A review of Noah Wardrip-Fruin's Expressive Processing: Digital Fictions, Computer Games, and Software Studies". Digital Humanities Quarterly. Vol. 4, no. 2. Archived from the original on 2023-07-31. Retrieved 2023-07-31.
  The review notes: "Although Noah Wardrip-Fruin’s Expressive Processing: Digital Fictions, Computer Games, and Software Studies is probably best known at present for the author’s attempt to provoke a radically open form of peer review by submitting portions of his manuscript to the blog Grand Text Auto in advance of the final submission to MIT Press, the most potentially transformative legacy of the book is in its compelling call for universal software literacy."
2. Monroy, Carlos (December 2011). "Expressive Processing: Digital Fictions, Computer Games, and Software Studies. Noah Wardrip-Fruin". Literary & Linguistic Computing. 26 (4): 481–483. doi:10.1093/llc/fqr035. EBSCOhost 66887564.
  The review notes: "The central thesis of this book is key for advancing twenty-first century digital literacy, and thus relevant to the digital humanities community. This thesis can be derived from one of the definitions Wardrip-Fruin gives of expressive processing: ‘. . . the possibility of creating new simulated machines, of defining new computational behaviors, as the great authoring opportunity that digital media offers' (p. 7). Wardrip-Fruin systematically explains this main thesis throughout the book by leading readers on a historical journey that evokes personal memories for the author (as it did for me), making the reading more enjoyable. ... In the same way, I believe that the groundbreaking approach this book offers will help humanists and computer scientists alike discover the potential of computational processes and digital media for the advancement of digital humanities. An invitation to embark in this fascinating journey is what Wardrip-Fruin accomplishes with Expressive Processing."
3. Koskimaa, Raine (May 2011). "Reading Processes: Groundwork for Software Studies". Game Studies. Vol. 11, no. 2. ISSN 1604-7982. Archived from the original on 2023-07-31. Retrieved 2023-07-31.
  The review notes: "As such, this book is the perfect volume to begin the new publication series in the software studies. Rather than building the theory for software studies, it works as a model of how to do software studies. The wide variety of materials discussed, however, may be the Achilles’ Heel of the book. As we are all influenced by endless array of information technologies and their software processes, Expressive Processing is, in a way, including everybody in its audience. Still, restricting the target group by modestly limiting the topics covered might have made this book even better."
4. Chen, A. (April 2010). "Wardrip-Fruin, Noah. Expressive processing: digital fictions, computer games, and software studies". Choice. Vol. 47, no. 8. p. 1517. Archived from the original on 2023-07-31. Retrieved 2023-07-31 – via Gale.
  The review notes: "Through insightful examinations of media ranging from simulations to computer games, the author presents an intriguing and cogent argument. The book is by no means exhaustive in its coverage, but it does set the stage for further discussion and exploration. Although most references are defined, some familiarity with the various computer games examined in this work would be beneficial to the reader."
5. Nolan, Mark (2009-10-04). "Book Review: "Expressive Processing" for the Masses?". The Arts Fuse. Archived from the original on 2023-07-31. Retrieved 2023-07-31.
  The review notes: "But Expressive Processing is aimed at those who already have secure understanding of the processes of software — the general public is still left out of the debate. Still, Expressive Processing stands as a welcome addition to the limited academic discussion about video games, because it delves deeper into complex issues that previously have only been lightly considered."
6. Barlas, Irtaza (2010-03-16). "Expressive processing : digital fictions, computer games, and software studies". ACM Computing Reviews. Archived from the original on 2023-07-31. Retrieved 2023-07-31.
  The review notes: "The book includes technical details on everything that can be included in the context of digital media. It is written in an easy-to-read style, with charming side notes that don’t interrupt reading. I highly recommend this book to digital media--games, movies, and fiction--creators, AI students, and engineers."
7. Brown Jr., James J. (Summer 2011). "Open Process Software". Criticism. 53 (3). Wayne State University Press: 481–487. doi:10.1353/crt.2011.0019. ProQuest 912513115. Archived from the original on 2023-07-31. Retrieved 2023-07-31.
  The review notes: "Noah Wardrip-Fruin’s Expressive Processing provides some of those tools. Wardrip-Fruin’s notion of “expressive processing” evokes two ideas at once. ... Expressive Processing also works through some of the key questions posed by those of us interested in a bigger tent for computer programming. While scholars of new media will no doubt find Wardrip-Fruin’s discussion useful, one goal of the text is to reach beyond the relatively small conversations of software studies (an emerging strand of new media scholarship) and digital fictions."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Expressive Processing: Digital Fictions, Computer Games, and Software Studies to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard and WeirdNAnnoyed.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:06, 31 July 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. Some participants pointed out that the notability situation changed significantly during the discussion, with the nominator !voting to keep late in the discussion. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Lo (businessman)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to be largely a hoax supported by advertorial sources and paid editors. Forbes magazine has an article about the subject's attempts to be recognised as a billionaire]. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Hong Kong, and Canada. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: hmm, would the subject's attempts to be recognised as a billionaire make him notable? He is definitely note a billionaire, but if his hoax amounts to some notability, I could see this as getting kept. However, even so, it is just one event, and by WP:BLP1E this article should be deleted.

On a side note, there are some sources that note this person (as a billionaire): Reuters Yahoo Tinance Financial Times BBC–Sport I wonder if these (potential hoax attempts?) would make him still notable? My WP experience doesn't lead me to a clear decision. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, this one is interesting. Yahoo is just a newsfeed from a PR content farm (Yahoo is completely useless these days), and the BBC Sports peice is quoting other reports that are discredited in the Forbes piece (the net worth estimate by "Forbes Middle East", which is apparently just a "independently run licensed edition" which fails to disclose paid content). I did have high hopes for Reuters and the Financial Times, though. Those are the real deal. I sent out e-mails last night to see if they'll revise in light of the Forbes material. Financial Times responded very quickly and professionally - they're looking at it. No response from Reuters yet.

I think clearly the original article is non-notable and should have been deleted at the previous AFD, which was manipulated by now-blocked paid socks. To your point, though, is there notability in the hoax that (apparently) fooled a lot of solid news agencies and, frankly, Wikipedia? Probably needs more coverage to be a notable hoax. Sam Kuru (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update before weekend: Financial Times did pull their article, for now at least. Sam Kuru (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, after thought. You're left with a non-notable biography of someone who's working hard to apparently fabricate press releases. Embarrassing Forbes, the Financial Times and Reuters is interesting, but I'm not convinced it all that notable. If the article is retained, I'd recommend extended-confirmed protection, given the level of socking and paid manipulation here. Sam Kuru (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC) Update: Struck vote, the volume of secondary sources popping up in the last few days is pretty strong. I would absolutely ignore any source prior to the Forbes material. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject may be an aspiring businessman but so are millions of other people. This is not a valid reason for having an article on anyone. The page can always be recreated if the subject gains actual notability in the long run. Keivan.f^Talk 16:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't often comment, but I have been following this story. Mr. Lo undoubtedly wants this page removed, but I believe there is a strong argument for keep or, at the very least, we should wait to see how much further coverage emerges. Three arguments: 1] there is significant coverage of Mr. Lo in top-tier titles, certainly getting us over the traditional Notability Criteria, even if a proportion of that was secured on a fraudulent basis; 2] given the amount of historic false and exaggerated coverage, I think it's important that the Wikipedia page exists to round up the 'truth' and remedy the significant fradulent material that still exists on Google, i.e., Reuters; and 3] there has already been a round of follow-up coverage in a number of titles following the Forbes report, including The New York Post, Vanity Fair, Formula 1 News, and Benzinga. I expect that more might follow. This is a unique case, but I see the argument for keep here. 84.19.48.250 (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Olsen, Robert; Kang, John; Lee, Zinnia (2023-07-26). "Desperately Faking Riches: Inside A Hong Kong Businessman's Outlandish Efforts To Get On The Forbes Billionaire List". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2023-07-26. Retrieved 2023-07-30.
  The article notes: "Lo, Regina and Francis’ only child, was born in Vancouver but spent his first nine years in Hong Kong before returning to Canada, where he later attended Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. He went back to Hong Kong in 1999 and began working with his mom at R.E. Lee International, rising to managing director in 2003 and eventually becoming CEO."
  The article notes: "But the pitching was persistent, and as time went on, a slew of media outlets including the BBC, CNBC, the Daily Express, the Daily Mirror, the Financial Times, the Independent, Nikkei Asia, Reuters and the South China Morning Post ran stories calling Lo a billionaire, showcasing his views on everything from champagne to crypto. Many of these stories cited Forbes as a source, and one of Lo’s publicists sent emails claiming he was on the Forbes Billionaires list. An article had even run on the website of Forbes Middle East, one of our independently run licensed editions, that called him a billionaire; upon investigation, that “article” turned out to be a paid “advertorial” from Lo’s team, and it has since been taken down. He has never been on the Forbes list, and it’s past time to set the record straight."
2. Batey, Eva (2023-07-29). "Insurance Broker Accused Of Scheme To Join Forbes Billionaires List: Media coverage paints Hong Kong businessman Calvin Lo as a super car-owning hotel owner, but that might not be true". Vanity Fair. Archived from the original on 2023-07-30. Retrieved 2023-07-30.
3. "Falso bilionário mentiu 'desesperadamente' para tentar entrar para a lista de bilionários da Forbes" [Fake Billionaire Lied 'Desperately' to Try to Make Forbes Billionaires List]. O Estado de S. Paulo (in Portuguese). 2023-07-28. Archived from the original on 2023-07-30. Retrieved 2023-07-30.
4. "Forbes acusa 'falso bilionário' de fingir fortuna para entrar em ranking" [Forbes accuses 'fake billionaire' of faking wealth to get into ranking] (in Portuguese). Universo Online. 2023-07-28. Archived from the original on 2023-07-30. Retrieved 2023-07-30.
5. "Mansões, champanhe, hotel e Fórmula 1: como falso bilionário mentiu por anos para tentar entrar em lista da Forbes" [Mansions, champagne, hotels and Formula 1: how a fake billionaire lied for years to try to make the Forbes list]. O Globo (in Portuguese). 2023-07-28. Archived from the original on 2023-07-30. Retrieved 2023-07-30.
6. "張玉珊認愛廖碧兒前度盧啟賢為男友被指誇大身家學歷呼冤" [Shirley Cheung admits to loving Bernice Liu's former boyfriend Calvin Lo. Appeals for her boyfriend who is accused of exaggerating his wealth and education]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2023-07-30. Archived from the original on 2023-07-30. Retrieved 2023-07-30.
7. Tung, Yan-kei 董欣琪 (2023-07-29). "張玉珊大方認愛盧啟賢　力撐男方：佢做高端財富管理" [Shirley Cheung generously admits her love to Calvin Lo. Supporting the man: He is doing high-end wealth management] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2023-07-30. Retrieved 2023-07-30.
8. Tung, Yan-kei 董欣琪 (2023-07-28). "廖碧兒前男友盧啟賢與圈中人私交甚篤　曾與關之琳齊為汪詩詩慶生撰" [Bernice Liu's ex-boyfriend Calvin Lo has a close personal relationship with people in the industry. He and Rosamund Kwan wrote for Cissy Wang's birthday] (in Chinese). HK01. Archived from the original on 2023-07-30. Retrieved 2023-07-30.
9. "福布斯：盧啟賢誇大身家學歷" [Forbes: Calvin Lo exaggerated his wealth and education]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2023-07-29. Archived from the original on 2023-07-30. Retrieved 2023-07-30.
10. 晚上反擊：報道誹謗、無義務公開財務（第二版） "【廖碧兒前男友】神秘富豪盧啟賢遭《福布斯》質疑誇大身家　晚上反擊：報道誹謗、無義務公開財務（第二版）" [[Bernice Liu's Ex-Boyfriend] Mysterious rich man Calvin Lo was questioned by "Forbes" for exaggerating his net worth. Counterattack at night: report is slander, no obligation to disclose financial information (second edition)]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2023-07-28. Archived from 晚上反擊：報道誹謗、無義務公開財務（第二版） the original on 2023-07-30. Retrieved 2023-07-30.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Calvin Lo to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I think the nature of his notability, and sources, have changed significantly over the last few days. Previously the article was based on unreliable sources of questionable accuracy about a billionaire. Now it is looking much more like his notability is the man who, it is alleged, attempted to con the world about being a billionaire. This may, just, be adequate to keep the article. I am not withdrawing the nomination though. See what everyone thinks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: we should wait a few weeks to see whether he has any notability beyond this. The real thing we should be investigating is how this article was created. If he paid lawyers and journalists to fake his credentials, it is quite likely he was willing to create an article for himself and we should determine how. Yes, the FT printed his name, but someone had to create the article. 04:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC) DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A good compromise may be to delete the article and move the content to the forbes billionaires article, or to retitle the article Forbes Billionarie Hoax. It is an interesting hoax, if the man himself is not notable. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Appears to be a case of WI1E where the subject has recently been covered due to allegations that he's faked or inflated his wealth. Most of the sources cited above are based on the Forbes article, whilst others are simply derivatives of self-initiated interviews. He may have notability in Hong Kong or China (for non-English sources), but globally, unless he gets covered for another event, it may not be enough to sustain retaining this article. --Donaldherald (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ^Complex/_Rational 12:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Chadwick[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and England. Shellwood (talk) 10:28, 27 July 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. The "keep" !votes argue for notability under PROF or AUTHOR, whereas the "delete" !votes are mainly based on the subject's wishes. Everybody seems to agree that notability if not slam dunk. However, looking at the article's history, I see no evidence that scammers have been active here, only long-time editors in good standing. I suggest that people keep this article on their watchlists (I will do so myself), so that any would be scammer does not get any chance. I will also place this article on ECP. Meanwhile, if the subject provides us with evidence of errors/omissions that would potentially change the outcome of this AfD, I have no prejudice against another nomination as soon as that situation occurs. Randykitty (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carole W. Troxler[edit]

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

I am a volunteer at WP:VRT. The subject of this article contacted VRT about a paid-editing scammer who offered to improve it for a fee. She said the article is full of errors and omissions, and she would prefer the article be deleted rather than paying the scammer. After examining the sources, I am not convinced she meets WP:NPROF criteria for inclusion. Several sources are merely announcements (from local papers, not national or even regional scope), many sources are not even about her, and three sources were written by her. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, and Georgia (U.S. state). Hey man im josh (talk) 02:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A peculiar way to go about an AfD. Was any indication given on what these "errors and omissions" are? Because the article has really basic (and verifiable) facts about her education and scholarship. I can see nothing that would be factually incorrect and any "omissions" would be due to not having reliable source coverage of whatever is thought to be missing. Though I am at a bit of a loss on what that might be. Furthermore, considering the sources covering her frequently talk about her authorial publications and scholarship, I believe WP:NAUTHOR would apply more or, perhaps, Criteria #1 of WP:NACADEMIC. Either way, here's sources I've found about her and her work after a cursory glance around.

Elon professor's book continues Regulator Movement debate - Times-News
Sallie Stockard: Adversities Met by an Educated Woman of the New South - The Journal of Southern History
Farming Dissenters: The Regulator Movement in Piedmont North Carolina - The Journal of Southern History
Farming Dissenters: The Regulator Movement in Piedmont North Carolina - South Carolina Historical Magazine
Review: Farming Dissenters: The Regulator Movement in Piedmont North Carolina by Carole Watterson Troxler - The North Carolina Historical Review
Shuttle & Plow: A history of Alamance County, North Carolina - North Carolina Libraries
Book captures Alamance's colorful past - News & Record
Historical group offers program on Regulator Movement in Piedmont - The Chatham Record
Historian to speak at anniversary of ‘Crossing of Dan’ - The Gazette-Virginian

Probably more out there for those who want to do a deeper dive than I did. I basically just snagged some of the first page stuff from ProQuest, Newspapers.com, and a Google News Search. Silver seren^C 03:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, and continue to expand and improve along the lines presented by User:Silver seren's excellent research. If there are errors and omissions, the subject is welcome to point them out, along with sources for the correct information. BD2412 T 04:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bearing in mind Professor Troxler's concerns, and the fact that this is a biography of a living person, I think that if kept, we should place the article under ECP.—S Marshall T/C 09:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I added more book reviews, enough I think for WP:AUTHOR. Weak because of the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE concerns, but I think there's still enough to get past that. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Given that we don't appear to have the sourcing-based notability that could support a robust biography, I would be inclined to prioritize the article subject's interest in privacy over the rather minimal benefit of this article to the encyclopedia. In today's Wikipedia culture, I think we all know exactly the kind of reception the article subject would receive if she attempted to raise any concerns about accuracy on the talk page (assuming anyone even noticed). -- Visviva (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our WP:BLPKINDNESS policy includes, "Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern." There are also several avenues available, including but not limited to the oversight process for serious problems, for a subject of an article who may have concerns about the content of an article. In my own experience, editors responding to edit requests have been polite and helpful. Educating a BLP subject about the various options available to seek assistance from volunteer editors may also be helpful for undermining the sales pitch from paid-editing scammers. Beccaynr (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. What @Beccaynr said. Many editors such as the late User:DGG do go out of their way to help subjects and others who may have a conflict of interest, and this is an important message to get across. Otherwise we are just allowing scammers to sabotage and win. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would help if we knew what the errors and omissions mentioned in the nomination were. Is the article outdated? Does it fail to include publications that ought to be included? The first source is a press release from Elon University that says, A native of LaGrange, Georgia, Troxler holds a doctorate in history from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I would expect this kind of source to be accurate for basic biographical details. Our article currently says born in LaGrange, Georgia; I suppose "native of" and "born in" might not be interchangeable, if a person was actually born in a hospital the next town over or something like that. XOR'easter (talk) 18:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the scammer has some sort of information the subject of the article would not want known to the public, otherwise, why bother? No fixed opinion about the notability, ECP seems to be a good idea after this discussion wraps up. Oaktree b (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment much as I sympathise with her, if she's suffered aggressive behaviour from a bunch of scammers intent on telling her that the WP article about her could be a liability, I don't think we can just delete it. She does appear to be notable as an author. If she is in communication with anyone, I think we should remove any information she feels is inaccurate provided it's either unimportant to the article, unsupported by sources, or contradicted by other sources. Extended protection is then probably a good idea. At the moment I'm at a loss to see what the problem with the article could be, but I cannot see all sources as some are not available in areas with GDPR. Elemimele (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She's possibly notable, but NPROF always had odd notability guidelines to me, and has specifically requested for the article to be removed. Since she's not "slam dunk" notable, I have no problem with granting the request. SportingFlyer T·C 13:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on these points:
- This has been a problematic article subject to error and fraud. That fraudster may even try to add errors just to up the pressure on Dr. Troxler.
- We have a special duty of care for the subjects of BLPs. WP:BLP is a policy. Our notability guidelines are just that - guidelines.
- Consensus so far seems to be "weak keep", not "keep". Ultimately, "weak keep" = "keep" nevertheless, it indicates this is a borderline case.
- The subject has asked we delete this article
- The subject didn't create the article.

In this borderline BLP cases, the combined weight of these arguments compel deletion in spite of possible notability.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Without the subject's specific feedback about what was wrong, it's impossible to know whether the issues have now been resolved. (The article has changed since the initial complaint, for the better.) Cielquiparle (talk) 15:56, 27 July 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. ^Complex/_Rational 12:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Land Is Inhospitable and So Are We[edit]

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

The Land Is Inhospitable and So Are We

Unreleased album that does not satisfy any of the musical notability criteria (because it has not been released yet). A check of the references shows that they are advance announcements, or interviews with the artist. None of them are independent secondary coverage.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	variety.com	Advance announcement of album	No	Yes	Yes	No
2	vulture.com	Another advance announcement of album	No	Yes	Yes	No
3	rollingstone.comn	Interview with the artist	No	Yes	Yes	No
4	pitchfork.com	Another interview	No	Yes	Yes	No

There was also a draft, so that draftification is not a valid option. The draft has been blanked. Moving the article into draft space until the album is released is the most reasonable option. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Albums are not only significant when they have been released. The album has a definite release date, track listing, cover art, and more coverage than the sources listed on the article. There is significant and widespread coverage of this release already in music media. The four sources present on the article are not exhaustive, and it meets the first criterion, "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." Interviews with the artist are non-trivial. Also, what do you mean they're not independent sources? They were published by music media independent of the artist, meaning they are also secondary coverage as well. This is a misguided nomination for an upcoming recording by a significant artist (who has had multiple charting and widely reviewed albums). Ss112 08:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources in the article already make it meet the GNG. Blatant misrepresentations of sources. There's a difference between having some direct quotes and being a full-blown interview. Albums do not needs to be released to be notable either. Sergecross73 msg me 10:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Why does it exist? The album is about to be released, this week the lead single will be released. There are already enough sources that prove the notability of the album. Mitski is a world-renowned Japanese singer, so... ?Silencedoc¿ 13:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For the same reasons as the other voters above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Policy Comment - This nomination illustrates an incorrect reading of the future album and crystal ball guidelines. A future album is real and not a prediction if reliable sources have confirmed a release date and other key info. For famous musicians, which is the case for Mitski here, this can happen months in advance. This album article may have been created a little too soon for some editors' tastes, but the album is real and so are the reliable sources reporting on it. And finally, this nomination not only misrepresents sources (noted by my colleagues above), but it fetishizes the draftify process. Moving a functioning article to draftspace, then moving it back with just a few minor alterations several weeks later, is pure procedure worship that accomplishes nothing but confusion for WP readers. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the nom operates on the premise of a deep misunderstanding of FUTUREALBUM. Certainly there are problems with editors making promotional-leaning future albums, but this is not one of those times, and feels like a severe over-correction in the opposite direction. Sergecross73 msg me 14:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no reason to nominate an album for deletion that has already proven to be notable and is undoubtedly going to be relevant upon release in a couple weeks. The album has already been thoroughly covered in news sources and publications which, as a result, justifies an article. Lk95 (talk) 15:53, 27 July 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!} 06:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Hammermann[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least six caps for the Liechtenstein women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Europe. JTtheOG (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Page has no viable third party source thus no evidence of notability. The only source provided no longer exists. TheBritinator (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK to delete. Found actual passing mentions only in what actually is routine match coverage at lie:zeit. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:10, 30 July 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!} 06:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill's pets[edit]

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

Winston Churchill's pets are notable ?

Over to you, folks... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Animal, and United Kingdom. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was able to find an academic book covering Churchill's animals (Churchill's Menagerie: Winston Churchill and the Animal Kingdom), as well as a couple of popular history books which may or may not be reliable ([33][34], as well as the Selbert one cited in the article). I did not thoroughly search news articles, but a perfunctory look seems like there might be some more coverage there. Churchill's animals are covered at Winston Churchill#Artist, historian, and writer, so a merge or redirect there should also be considered. Curbon7 (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG; sources in the article plus those listed above. This is so much better than giving each notable/marginally notable pet its own individual Wikipedia article (as many heads-of-state pets have). As a group they are definitely notable and it's great to read about them all in one place. As a history article, your best bet for WP:BEFORE is library books. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His pets don't have stand-alone notability. There's of course going to be at least some coverage of things like this for such a significant historical figure, but almost always this should be contained within the main article. Pointing towards pages like Pets of Vladimir Putin isn't a legitimate argument in favour of keeping this article. Willbb234 11:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per Willbb234. This is essentially a case of Churchill's notability spilling onto his pets, who have no notability of their own and therefore should not be covered apart from him. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does oddly appear there's enough coverage of Churchill's pets to warrant a stand-alone or SPLIT article about them. Article could use some cleanup, and exasperation is not a deletion rationale. If there's nothing there after cleanup, and it can be fit into the regular article, then an upmerge is fine. SportingFlyer T·C 16:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I DO hope you're not referring to your Honourable Nominator as exasperated. For the record, I was more curious than anything. And I note that Andrew Davidson is a force of nature. I remain intrigued, however, more than convinced... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was just noting it's a strange AfD rationale that doesn't demonstrate any sort of care or BEFORE search. I can see the article has been greatly improved since you've nominated too, though! SportingFlyer T·C 23:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was more the concept (although the parlous state of the content led to the question) - is Stalin's Moustache notable? Rommel's collection of herbaceous borders? Saddam's stamp album? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're forgetting about Wikipedia's rules though: are there reliable secondary sources covering them? SportingFlyer T·C 08:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One never forgets Wikipedia's rules, dear @SportingFlyer. The tatty little scrap of a stub that existed has been wrangled into a rather gorgeous, illustrated wonder of an article. I don't think WP:BEFORE could honestly be expected to serve here - there has been some thoughtful, even brilliant research brought to bear on the transformation we have witnessed. Le sigh, in fact. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article in its current form is not great. However, there are sufficient sources extant to write a decent article: for example, Nelson, one of Churchill's pets, is notable enough to merit his own article. If kept, when I get back to the UK, I'll rewrite the page from top to bottom. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is easily enough to meet WP:GNG, thanks to the expansion efforts of Cielquiparle and Andrew Davidson. Winston Churchill's article is already long, and splitting this out makes more sense than merging. Edwardx (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Edwardx. OMG check it now. #ChurchillsBlackSwans Cielquiparle (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Point made and well taken - although I think you are all quite, quite mad. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. It’s an interesting topic that might be interesting for many, deleting it would be pretty bad since it has substantial notability and the user put a lot of work into this article V.B.Speranza (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, Wikipedia has coverage on odd subjects (I still don't understand why we have an article on the George H. W. Bush broccoli comments), but that is generally as a result of there being sustained and continuous coverage which is one of the cornerstones of WP:GNG. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Although the nominator is withdrawn, we probably still ought to let this run the full seven days since at least two other users !voted to delete. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The short answer to the nom's question is clearly "Yes, they are." In regards to SilverTiger12's point, yes their notability us purely derivative, but for highly notable, well-covered individuals like Churchill the various aspects of their life and work can be split into separate articles for the convenience of editors and readers, even when the separate parts aren't truly independently notable, as long as they can be properly sourced, as this article can. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael S. Berman[edit]

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

Non-notable lobbyist. The article relies only on primary sources and has been tagged for this since 2008. Reason is there are no reliable secondary sources covering the guy. Central and Adams (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Central and Adams (talk) 06:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable lobbyist - neither of the two sources in the article passes GNG. There's another political Michael Berman who got an obit in the LA Times, but I don't think they're the same guy. SportingFlyer T·C 13:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Minnesota and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Hill is a reliable independent secondary source. Kablammo (talk) 07:36, 28 July 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!} 05:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diāna Suvitra[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON as far as I can tell. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. There are several versions of this article, which mentions the subject in the title but barely talks about her in the article itself. It's a republication from the national football federation, either way. Otherwise, there are just passing mentions like this. Please lmk if I'm missing any significant coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Latvia. JTtheOG (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:TOOSOON. Article is also out of date; she transferred to Greek club Trianton Ialysos (of G.A.E. Ialysos) in January 2023. Could find only WP:ROUTINE coverage of the transfer and match reports in Greek media. (1, 2) Five UWCL appearances across two clubs but no SIGCOV. -63.224.250.203 (talk) 18:21, 30 July 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!} 02:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KS Mewa Gniew[edit]

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

AfC guidance was that this article likely wouldn't survive an AfD and yet it was placed in mainspace all the same by its author. That's a shame, because I concur with the AfC comments - the club has heritage, but it plays in the seventh league with a ground capacity of 300. The coverage is mostly database entries, there is no national coverage from RS at all. With a mildly heavy heart, fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Poland. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following the advice about how to improve the page I added more information with references to news articles. Are you suggesting I specifically need to reference national rather than local or regional newspaper articles? Thanks. Wikociewie (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National would be helpful, regional too. Or books, magazines. The databases aren't good enough to prove notability (while they can be used to source statements in the article, of course). Passing WP:GNG is the main issue IMHO... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, I think I've managed to meet GNG. I've added references including two national newspapers, four local + regional newspapers, and a magazine. When I initially drafted the entry on Mewa Gniew I looked up equivalent sized teams on Wikipedia and judged the content based on them - now I believe it's been improved beyond many comparable entries. If you have any more comments/suggestions please let me know and I'll try to continue improving the article! Wikociewie (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Draftify~~ It's close to demonstrating notability IMO - there's at least one newspaper article in there which arguably passes GNG (it's short though but discusses ground development) and it just needs a couple more to get over the line - anything which clearly shows the club receives a level of newspaper coverage. We have articles on similarly sized English clubs which clearly get GNG coverage, so its small size shouldn't be a disqualifier, and considering it was just in draft space moving it back there is an easy option. SportingFlyer T·C 21:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should also note that if no more coverage exists, then it's not quite eligible per WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 21:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think the additional sources get it over the line. SportingFlyer T·C 13:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the added newspaper references I think it demonstrates notability and should be kept. Keithec (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Klasa A. Club itself doesn't appear to meet GNG, could be a brief part of the Klasa A article, which seems to have a bit more coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A Polish club that is over 60 years old will have some coverage, however this is a very small club. The essence for an article is there within some of the sources however they could be improved. It's also possible there are historic sources for the club which haven't been picked up on. Nevertheless a couple of the article sources have some merit, but it's not the best. The above comment to merge the article... Well, why would you merge an article to the league page? Certainly when a football club could change to a different league at any given season. Merging there is completely out of the question for this article. If anything, a part merge and redirect to Gniew would be the smart choice. The town article has no sports section on it and the football club could easily be added to that. Govvy (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - @GiantSnowman:, @SportingFlyer:, Many new sources added to article. Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per what, exactly? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly passes GNG with new references.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Addressing the original concerns the article now has references to national, local and regional publications rather than just relying on databases. As previous people have commented the humble size of the club's stadium should not be grounds to delete. If there was a consensus to merge the article then I'd be happy to do so into the entry for Gniew (the other suggested merge is into an article purely containing the same database references this article was originally flagged up for). Anyway I think the article now passes GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikociewie (talk • contribs) 06:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The added sources have shown more notability. There's also reason to suspect more is out there due to this club existing pre-internet.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:34, 29 July 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!} 02:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QUEST Honors Fellows Program[edit]

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

BEFORE shows no non-primary sources providing significant coverage. Appears to be an ad. AviationFreak💬 02:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Education. AviationFreak💬 02:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails the GNG, article is promo as it stands. User:Let'srun 20:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Trevelyan (pianist)[edit]

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

He has won three second prizes at international piano competitions, which meets criterion 8 of WP:MUSICBIO, but his notability otherwise seems dubious. I have done a Google search to see if this subject has received sustained coverage from reliable secondary sources, but all I could find were a few articles from small, local outlets. Six citations in this article are from the subject's website; one is from Amazon. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Excluding the references from his own website, I think the rest of them add up to notability. Local is okay for musicians. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of the two citations from local news sources, the subject is only the main focus in one. The other is a passing mention in an article about home schooling. Combined they do not establish notability according to WP:NSUSTAINED. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. マリオマリオ (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has won several awards and meets WP:MUSICBIO. Naomijeans (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: His awards seem to satisfy #9 at WP:MUSICBIO. ARandomName123 (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gelsi Caballero[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. The subject earned at least one appearance for the Nicaragua women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Nicaragua. JTtheOG (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above per nominator. Jogurney (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' as above. Giant Snowman 09:48, 29 July 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 Characters in the Metroid series#Metroids. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Metroid (fictional species)[edit]

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

Article is barely more than a stub, and hasn't seen improvement for the purposes of notability or SIGCOV since 2018. Trying to find sources to indicate it's important on its own has proven a bit fruitless which is, by and far, not helped by them sharing the series name. Ultimately I feel this would be better merged into the character list for now, the sources just aren't there. Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creator keep Passes WP:GNG, Metroids have SIGCOV in Aliens in Popular Culture p. 183-184, Good Game, and Destructoid, among others. While slim, it shows an AfD is not merited. Per WP:NOTMERGE, "Merging should be avoided if: The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short." ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Aliens book seen here in a preview seems to be discussing the Metroid universe as a whole, not the individual species in that significant a detail. Good Game is a series recap with a tongue in cheek comment at the end, and the Destructoid article is 90% a quotation of official sources with very little reaction at all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that page 184 is excluded from the preview; I assume it has the most discussion of the Metroid species with only a bit on pages 183 and 185. This is a common issue with book sources; per WP:OFFLINE. However, AfDs should not be biased against books. The book provably has an independent reaction from a secondary sourced author, specifically stating that Metroids demonstrate the cosmic balance should not be meddled with.

A tongue-in-cheek comment from a reliably sourced article does not render it totally null and void. It's clear that it is a factual description of the Metroids' history from a reliable secondary source unlinked to Nintendo.

In terms of further sources, I discovered a physics paper written about the realworld feasibility of Metroid Prime's abilities ingame. I assume there's even more stuff out there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. The Metroids seem like a notable topic, even if their article is stubby right now. The article needs some serious work, but I feel it's got the potential for further expansion. Pokelego999 (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or draftify otherwise. There is enough for its own page. マリオマリオ (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Aliens in Popular Culture p. 183-185 discusses the game series and Samus. The species is mentioned, but is not a subject of any real discussion or analysis. The "physics paper" is "written, refereed and edited by undergraduate students". "I assume there's even more stuff out there." = WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES Charcoal feather (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Is there a particular reason why the information here cannot be mentioned in summary style in the main series article? The article right now feels like something from a fan wikia rather than a proper Wikipedia article. Independent notability is not established here at all. It is only mentioned when the press is running an article about the wider Metroid series. OceanHok (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with OceanHok here that the article at present doesn't demonstrate why it can't be effectively summarized in a parent article. The sources given don't really seem to focus on the Metroid enough to meet SIGCOV. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge at the parent article. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because no one has specified a target article to Merge to. There is Metroid, Metroid (video game) and probably other articles related to this series. I'm happy to Merge once you identify the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll be changing my vote to Merge given what's been said by other commenters. I agree that you could probably fit this whole thing into the Characters of Metroid article. Still, I wouldn't be opposed to this article coming back should sources end up turning up in the future. Pokelego999 (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: If it is to be merged, Characters in the Metroid series#Metroids would undoubtedly be the best option here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Characters in the Metroid series#Metroids. Without any other context, I would say coverage meets the threshold of WP:GNG and the presumption of notability is met...but many of the other editors make a good point that the actual volume of the coverage itself can easily be summarized in either the main series article as well as the characters' page. A standalone page would be redundant. Haleth (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A page on the Baby Metroid (Metroid) character specifically has merits, reusing the special information from this Metroid (fictional species) page as background along with the extensive writing there has been on the mother-child relationship between Samus Aran and the Baby Metroid in the series, which served as the basis for Metroid: Other M. マリオマリオ (talk) 18:07, 27 July 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 Nicaragua women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kyra Montes[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. Former college soccer player who made at least one appearance for the Nicaragua women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found this and this. JTtheOG (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Nicaragua, California, and Louisiana. JTtheOG (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' as above. Giant Snowman 09:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, found additional sources here, here, that seem to confer notability.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Does not have sufficient coverage. The sources above are routine local announcements about her high school achievements and decidedly fail YOUNGATH, GNG, and SUSTAINED. JoelleJay (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted‎. as WP:G11, unambiguous promotion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gurvin Singh Dyal[edit]

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

Non-notable businessperson, flowery language in sources and nothing found in RS. Largely PROMO Oaktree b (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This his been moved to draft, you can close this deletion discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note:This article is speedy deleted as G11 by Justlettersandnumbers as a result of my nomination it for quick deletion. So it is a case of Quick close. Here goes deletion log. Okoslavia (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing Jackalope[edit]

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

Non-notable casino, nothing found in RS, other than the place being for sale. Oaktree b (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nevada. Oaktree b (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- it's mentioned in a lot of regional crime novels but only passing mentions in RS, mostly having to do with the fact that it was torn down to make way for some other building.Central and Adams (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- "it's mentioned in a lot of regional crime novels" That mean it has significant pop culture relevance? Like the Prada Marfa? Jaiquiero (talk) 06:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage outside of local or travel websites. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Motley[edit]

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

Not-meeting notability for individuals or business people. Reads like a resume with flowery language. Non-notable per sources, none found we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Oaktree b (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page about Leo Motley should not be removed because he is a significant figure in the technology industry as the founder of Cloudax Ltd and the creator of numerous popular programs and applications used by hundreds of thousands on platforms such as Google Play, App Store, Discord etc. His contributions have had a substantial impact on the software industry and have garnered attention from various sources. Keeping this page allows Wikipedia readers to access valuable information about a prominent innovator in the tech world, preserving his accomplishments for future generations to learn and appreciate. JaydenPritchard (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it's PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional and non-notable person. SportingFlyer T·C 13:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Fails WP:GNG.

SoniaSotomayorFan (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted some unsourced information. But still, all the sources are primary sources like LinkedIn, his personal website, etc. SoniaSotomayorFan (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly this should probably have been speedied. SoniaSotomayorFan (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pure promo, no indication that it meets WP:NBLP. ARandomName123 (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International reactions to the 2012 United States presidential election[edit]

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

Same reasons as those in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the 2008 United States presidential election and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election. This page is a case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wow (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Wow (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2012 United States presidential election (and remove the "main article" link from that page). I am mixed on this. The nom's assessment of NOTNEWS is fully accurate the way the article is structured, and there's actually a bit of SYNTH because of the extreme level of primary sourcing. However, there is certainly secondary coverage of international reactions we could use to construct a fine article on this if someone was so inclined. I am hopeful that by preserving history with a redirect we can leave breadcrumbs for someone to do just that. —siro χ o 07:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

just delete The basic issue is that, unsurprisingly, 99% of the reactions were routine congratulations. Even what negative reactions there were are just people talking. There is just nothing here worth saving, and the precedent is deletion. Mangoe (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing encyclopedic, just regular political chatter with no analysis or context. And I don't see there being any significant secondary analysis of this topic anywhere. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:31, 27 July 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!} 03:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olivier Guillon[edit]

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

Our notability criteria for Olympians has changed significantly over the years, and simply being one is no longer enough for an article. While I suspect there might be coverage in French that I am not seeing, my search for anything related to Guillon has turned up little more than stats pages, photographs, and brief mentions (i.e. WP:GNG does not appear to be met). The fr-Wiki article has more information but similar sourcing issues. Primefac (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Olympics, and France. Primefac (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also seems to own a stables in Ladiville - Les Ecuries du Grand Guillon. Kingsif (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Stub biography of sportsperson who does not satisfy the current sports notability guideline. The subject previously qualified under the Olympic notability guideline for having competed in the 2012 Olympics, but the current guideline grants presumed notability to sportspeople who have received a medal in the Olympics. The one reference is a database entry, which is not significant secondary coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wanted to save it, but the best looking French links didn't resolve here for whatever reason. I think it's possibly sourceable so don't mind an AtD or if someone wants to re-create it with better sources? SportingFlyer T·C 13:15, 27 July 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 Battle of the Svatove–Kreminna line. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Dvorichna[edit]

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

I think it is better for us to include all articles in the Svatove-Kreminna area into one single article. In other areas we've gotten messy articles such as Battles of Bohorodychne and Krasnopillia and Battles of the Donetsk suburbs. Also, this article is pretty short, the battle part only covers three paragraphs that can be easily integrated into Battle of the Svatove–Kreminna line. I also follow invasion news and there haven't been many reports of intense fighting at Dvorichna, these are minor skirmishes. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and Ukraine. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The battles in the body of the page are just the Russian capture of Dvorichne in the spring, and the skirmishes in Dvorichna are half-plagiarized from ISW sources or talking about unrelated battles across the frontline and claimed goals of Russian forces. The sourcing for the skirmishes in Dvorichna should be moved to the Svatove-Kreminna line page. Jebiguess (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree for several reasons. Here, for example, The Battle of Orihiv was deleted last year because your colleagues had the same opinion as you regarding this article. They even deleted the blueprint (Draft: Battle of Orihiv). I can't think of spending time on Orihiv again until Russian forces go on a counteroffensive, and only if the Ukrainian counteroffensive launched on June 4 fails. If there was a theoretical battle for the city itself (as some colleagues pointed out), then it could be considered that the Russians never approached the city and therefore the battle for that city never existed. But, since there was a strong front that was consolidated on March 8 of last year, and if my article at the time was corrected to the Battle of the Orihiv Front, then on June 11 of this year, Ukraine would be considered to have won that battle. , which is one of the smaller successes for the entire war, but for part of this current Ukrainian counteroffensive, it is certainly a victory that pushed the Russian forces ten kilometers to the south and thus the front was moved to the first Russian defense line near the town of Rabotyno, which the Ukrainian forces have not yet reached arrived. Orihiv is certainly not a topic anymore, but we should focus on the cities and places where a strong front was formed on both sides, and that is certainly Dvorična (on the Kupijanska direction). What is much more important for this small place is that it is the first landing of the Russian army across the Oskil River, from where they were completely pushed to the left bank by the Ukrainian Kharkiv counter-offensive in September of last year, where a strong Russian defense line of Svatove-Kremin was formed fifteen kilometers east. What happened on June 1 of this year is that the second line of Ukrainian defense on the Svatove-Kreminna line was breached, and for the first time since September of last year, fighting is again taking place on the right side of the Oskil River with the aim of cutting the supply line between Kharkiv and Kupyansk , as well as to encircle the Ukrainian forces on the left bank of the Oskil River and completely destroy them on the Svatovo-Kremina line, and of course to create the conditions for an attack on the strategically important city of Kupyansk from that direction, because if that city falls, all Ukrainian successes in Kharkov counter-offensives will be nullified. Another reason why I attach importance to the battles for this small town of Dvorichna is that the Ukrainians fiercely defend that town and have an extremely strong defense line, the collapse of which would give the Russians an opportunity for a wider penetration to the west towards Kharkov and in the south towards Izjum, which were lost last autumn without much fighting and fatal escape. I hope you understood me from the examiner's article. I will propose to open some new articles for new battles for very important and strategic places like;

Battle of Torske
Battle of Krasnogorovka
Battle of Pyatihatki

The place of Torske is not a small town at all, and especially not a village. On July 11, Russian forces broke through the Ukrainian defense line and occupied some eastern parts of that city. Any place where there is a line of contact and where tens of thousands of soldiers have fallen on both sides is worth a separate article unless there is a battle for a large city near it, such as Klescheyevka and Kurdiumovka, which are part of the battle for Bakhmut, and those two small places do not have room for a separate article. Belohorivka is a very important place that divides Donetsk and Lugansk regions, it is located between the two strategically important cities of Siversk (controlled by Ukrainian forces) and Lysichinsk (controlled by Russian forces) and of course it is located across the Donets River, where the the great battle near the Svatovo-Kremina line. Baba Mica (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You created a page for the battle of the city of Dvorichna. This deletion discussion is stating that despite known fighting in Dvorichna, there is so little sourcing and knowledge about the situation that it doesn't merit it's own article. Going on a spiel about previous unrelated pages about battles in Orikhiv, Torske, and P'yatykhatky doesn't aid your point at all, it's just a description of the war in Ukraine since June and how everything vaguely connects. I also keep track of the war, and I have since the bulk of the invasion in February 2022 - there's no need to bring up other frontlines, much less other towns.

Even if the known target of Russian forces is Kupiansk, unless you can find a reliable source stating "the objective of the Russian forces in the battle of Dvorichna is to reach Kupiansk", then it cannot be stated in the article. Your sources, all ISW, mention there is fighting in Dvorichna on several occasions, but do not show evidence of a single, continued battle with noteworthy results. This is why the fighting in Dvorichna is relegated to the Svatove-Kreminna line page - the battle in Dvorichna is no more or less significant than the battles in Novoselivske-Kuzemivka, Chervonopopivka, and other places along the line. Maybe the battle will become more important years from now, but that will be when the battle ends and survivors, witnesses, and governmental organizations publish more information about it. For now, there is so little information to merit an independent article, much less one describing it as a continued clash like Bakhmut, Marinka, or Avdiivka instead of a series of skirmishes and occasional frontal assaults that's part of a frontline-wide occurrence. Jebiguess (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I had very little time to look for more detailed sources. However, you could have at least made a draft like Battle of Vuhledar, Battle of Orihiv (which was deleted before, and I had a lot of background material and preludes), but you didn't, which is not OK. You can arrange that very easily and help me and we will monitor whether the place of Dvorichna will have the role of the new Soledar, and Kupiansk the role of the new Bahmut. Secondly, those two cities are connected by the umbilical cord and the central vein by the river Oskil and they are located outside the Svatovo-Kreminna line. Similarly, the Bakhmutka River connects the cities of Soledar and Bakhmut, just as the Donets River connects the town of Bilohorivka with the city of Siversk. Soledar was an outpost and fortress that was the defense of Bahmut. Bilohorivka is a strong Ukrainian fortress in the defense of the city of Siversk and a springboard for the attack on the city of Lysychinsk. Avdeevka, Piski, Marinka, Vodianoe and since July 17 Krasnohorivka are strong fortresses for the defense of Kurakhovo or for the attack on Donetsk. Vuhledar is a strong fortress in the defense of Kurakhovo from the south and a springboard for the attack on Mariupol from the north and Volnovaha from the west. New York is a strong fortress in the defense of Toreck and Konstantyaniivka. The place of Popasnaya was an outpost and a central point of resistance in the defense of the city of Sieverodonetsk. All isolated points where major battles take place with a large concentration of military forces and equipment deserve attention and a separate article, especially the longer the battle lasts and the more people die, the more significant that place is. The difference between the town of Dvorichna and the town of Dvorichne is that they are on two different banks of the river Oskil and the town of Dvorichne is that the Russians took this place on the left side as part of the Battle of the Svatove-Kreminna line on May 15 as part of their winter-spring counter-offensive. As for the town of Dvorichna on the right side of the Oskol River, the Russian landing parties landed successfully on June 1, unlike the disaster on the Donets River near Bilohorivka in May of last year where they suffered a disaster and terrible losses. The Russians are entrenched in that small area of 4km on the right bank of the Oskil River and until the Ukrainian forces destroy them or drive them back to the place of Dvorichne on the left bank, it means that the battle is going on because both twitter and telegram channels on both sides claim that the Russians are attacking the place of Dvorichna by land from the south and landing from the east. Another thing is that the media from the Ukrainian, Russian and Anglo-Saxon sides are silent and pay little attention to the fighting near this place because the Ukrainian summer counter-offensive, the Wagner Group Rebellion and the NATO summit in Vilnius totally blinded the world's attention. If something radical does not happen in the north of the front, the article should by no means be deleted, but a draft should be made and contours left for further continuation, which will depend on the development of the situation. The Russians really stepped up their attacks on that front after the NATO summit and especially after the Ukrainian successes on the southern flanks of Bakhmut. As for sources from ISW, of course I will use their sources as relevant because they follow the front minute by minute. Who should I use if not them? What I skipped because I didn't have time were the Ukrainian and Russian sources, and for that I need a perfect knowledge of the Cyrillic alphabet. Baba Mica (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now let me turn to the article Battle of Krasnopilia and Bogorodichnoe. That battle was extremely important above all for the Ukrainian army because that battle was the door to perhaps the main objective of the Russian army, which is the strategically important city and military center of Sloviansk. The battle was absolutely frontal and the fact that these two small places are geographically and demographically small does not detract from their military importance from a strategic point of view. The front near Krasnopolia and Bogorodichnoe served the Ukrainians just enough to defend the gates of Sloviansk, which is only 15-20 km from those two places. And for the battles in those two places, you have many more sources than for the Battle of Dvorichna, because I followed the events day by day, hour by hour, since the summer of last year, because then everything seemed that after the Battle of Lysychinsk, the Russians would go full force to finally break through the strong Ukrainian defense line at these two small and well-fortified places to begin the Battle of Sloviansk. However, the Russians began to relax and send their army on vacation, thus underestimating Ukraine's real strength while the Ukrainians heavily armed themselves and mobilized multiple times. The Russians were hit hard on the fronts near Dovhenka (Kharkov Oblast) and Krasnopilia and Bogorodichnoe (Donetsk Oblast) by the Ukrainian breakthrough near Balakleya, which started the great Ukrainian Kharkov counter-offensive on September 6, which broke the Russian partial siege of Sloviansk from the north. From the positional battles at those two places, the Russian pressure on Sloviansk during the 9th and 10th of September broke up with a panicked flight towards the town of Liman. The Ukrainian victory at those two places will certainly be among their greatest victories in this war, regardless of what its final outcome will be, because it was at that location that they stopped a much stronger enemy in the defense of Sloviansk. Last year, from April to July, battles were fought for many larger places with the aim of putting pressure on Sloviansk (Kreminna, Liman, Izhyum and Svyatogorsk) and they all fell like pears into Russian hands and very easily, but those two villages held their own and they were convenient for the defense of Sloviansk just enough to buy three months from June 7 to September 6 for the Ukrainians to arm themselves, train and send additional reinforcements, which happened. The siege was broken, and the enemy was pushed back over 100 km to the east. Let me look back once more at the place of Dvorichna (on the right bank of the river Oskil and not on the line Svatove-Kreminna) and the place of Dvorchne (on the left bank of the river Oskil and located on the line Svatove-Kreminna). They are not the same place, but they have a similar name. The place of Dvorichne was occupied by Russian forces back in May of this year after the start of their semi-counteroffensive on January 27. By moving to the right bank of the Oskil River on June 1, Russian forces broke through the Ukrainian defense line and began the first combat operations (at least positional battles) on the other side of the bank. Otherwise, I was very hesitant to write an article related to this small place, which before the Russian invasion of Ukraine demographically had more inhabitants than, say, Marinka near Donetsk, for which heavy fighting has been going on for a year and a half without stopping and it was literally burned and leveled with earth. Will the town of Dvorichna (in the Kupiansk reon) have the same role and fate as the towns of Marinka, Avdeevka, Soledar and Vuhledar (in the Donetsk region), Popasnaya (in the Luhansk region) and Pyatikhatka (in the Zaporizhia region) and will be razed to the ground in severe fighting will either play the role of the villages of Dovhenke, Krasnopilia and Bogorodichnoe and be the line of defense of Kupiansk, Izhyum and Kharkiv or will be surrendered without major battles to the Russians like the initial Russian captures at the beginning of the war of Russian surrender in Kherson and Kharkiv last fall, time will tell. Of course, those geographically and demographically small places can never be as important as the cities of Sieverodonetsk Lisichinsk, Sieversk, Bakhmut and Mariupol, but that does not mean that they have no military-strategic importance in this war. What will happen if the place of Dvorichna is taken by the Russians? Do you think I will stop there and not go to Kupiansk, Izhyum and Kharkiv? That I will again spend hours and hours staring at the screen and looking for sources again and creating a new article as you did to me with Vuhledar several times until the Russians finally launched a zero general assault on the city on January 24th? Believe me it doesn't cross my mind. But I certainly will not forget the importance of places like Krasnohorivka (in Donetsk region), Pyatihatka and Staromayorskoye (in Zaporizhia region) and Torske (in Luhansk region) because they are all extremely important places where the issue of the Ukrainian summer counter-offensive in the south and the Russian winter counter-offensive emerges in the north of the 800 km long front. — Baba Mica (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Baba Mica, but no one is going to read these walls of text to try to understand what you are arguing for. Please try to make a concise argument based on Wikipedia policy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This obsession with recording every little element of the war as if it were Gettysburg or D-Day or Operation Market Garden is war correspondent writing, and not encyclopedic. Mangoe (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge info back into Svatove-Kremmina line article- if that info is there already, delete. Btw you mentioned the Battles of Bohorodychne and Krasnopillia, and there was a consensus to merge it into a new article, Sloviansk offensive, which I've made a draft for already. I'll get to working on that now, but yeah, doesn't need to be an article on its own rn - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 18:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge partially into the Svatove-Kremmina line phase as per HappyWith. Jebiguess (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the notable, verifiable information back into Battle of the Svatove–Kreminna line per nom. I'd like to note that the Svatove-Kreminna line article had (and maybe still has) severe issues with verifiability and taking liberties with what the sources - usually ISW reports - actually said, and this article has very similar writing mannerisms. If there is a merge, I'd recommend to the merging editor to check over the claims to make sure they aren't copying over unverified stuff. HappyWith (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oxygen trifluoride[edit]

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

This substance does not exist. The current article is misleading. Theoretical studies only have passing mentions, and are mainly on the OF₃⁺ ion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primary references include:

^[2] mention of heat of formation of ion in a table on page 33.
^[3] theoretical Ionization and dissociation energy on page 206 as entry in table.

Secondary references include:

^[4] expands the table entries from 2 primary references into words.
^[5] mentions the dissociation energy from the price reference and speculates on a molecular shape. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ Wylegała, Anna; Głowacka-Grajper, Małgorzata (2020-02-11). The Burden of the Past: History, Memory, and Identity in Contemporary Ukraine. Indiana University Press. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-253-04673-4.
^ Jolly, William L.; Gin, Christina (September 1977). "The estimation of heats of formation of gaseous cations from core electron binding energies". International Journal of Mass Spectrometry and Ion Physics. 25 (1): 27–37. doi:10.1016/0020-7381(77)80101-0.
^ Price, W. C.; Passmore, T. R.; Roessler, D. M. (1963). "Ionization and dissociation energies of the hydrides and fluorides of the first row elements in relation to their electronic structures". Discussions of the Faraday Society. 35: 201. doi:10.1039/DF9633500201.
^ F Fluorine: Compounds with Oxygen and Nitrogen. Springer Science & Business Media. 29 June 2013. ISBN 978-3-662-06339-2.
^ Chase, Malcolm W. "NIST-JANAF Thermochemical Tables for the Oxygen Fluorides"

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability, just a rare passing mention in a primary lit and in compendia of all related chemicals. Even one of the refs includes a CASNo that upon searching CAS notes that the number is deleted and redirects to a chemical with a different number of fluorines. And as nom noted, it's misleading or conflating the neutral and cationic entities. There was an objection to a PROD, with a suggestion to merge/redirect to Oxygen fluoride. But I don't see enough here to merit listing there if we can't even be sure what actual entity the refs are talking about. And if there's nothing except (at best) database tokens and machine-calculated MW and confusion in the lit over WP:V details, there's nothing to merge or even say, and therefore the redirect wouldn't be valid. DMacks (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not a chemist so take this with a pinch of salt, but isn't this topic the same as Trifluorooxonium? JMWt (talk) 08:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Trifluorooxonium is the ion (OF₃⁺) I mentioned above, formally derived by taking an electron off Oxygen trifluoride. So they are related but differ, and perhaps this page could be a redirect to it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete At this point it's just an entry from a database table; one would think that if it were real, it would be showing up as an entry in Derek Lowe's "Things I Won't Work With" series, right next to dioxygen difluoride, which one has to think is less reactive. Mangoe (talk) 12:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Mangoe; in the unlikely event of this existing, it would undoubtedly delete itself (and its immediate surroundings) with impressive rapidity and enthusiasm, and we should respect its wishes. Elemimele (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given above, the creator of the article seems to be thinking of the OF₃⁺ cation. While we are at it, we should probably also delete OF₄, since I can't find any documentation that substance exists either. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be fantasy, maybe due to misunderstanding of statements about OF₃⁺. Athel cb (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is a merge or redirect to Oxygen fluoride with considering as an WP:ATD? ~Kvng (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxygen tetrafluoride. ~Kvng (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mostly passing mentions of a hypothetical. Also, per User:DMacks. ARandomName123 (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shenti Lauren[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG; is a case of WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Puerto Rico. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E. Seems to have no coverage outside this. Redirect to Miss Puerto Rico is also fine. ARandomName123 (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lost In Society[edit]

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

Article provides no evidence of notability per WP:NBAND, any information presented is solely relied on a regional news outlet. Magatta (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Magatta (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 01:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing appears to be an interview and some very local news coverage. I found one brief discussion of an album in the Brooklyn Vegan, but there isn't enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are not enough sources and the ones provided are mostly interview or quotations. Naomijeans (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Wardell Wilkes[edit]

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

No notability for this American artist - the only potentially useable source, LA Weekly, is a press release. So is the second. So is the third. And so we fail WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that I found the 'personal artist to Rosa Parkes' claim raised an eyebrow when I made this nomination but I didn't investigate it in particular - I now note it has been challenged and removed. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, notable as a Civil Rights Movement artist, with a full feature article in Life & Style, several sources, and several exhibits. Please read the article. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He painted a mural at a school? That's his notability. Long way from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:ARTIST. I read the article and the citations. Item such as this reference to the Richmond Observer https://richmondobserver.com/lifestyle/south-carolina-artist-to-exhibit-works-at-dobbins-heights-community-center.html do not inform us about the artist, but reads like a press release. Life & Style's article on Wardell Wilkes is an over-the-top puff piece. https://www.lifeandstylemag.com/posts/karl-wilkes-presents-a-whole-new-world-of-visual-arts/ None of the citations can be considered significant critical attention. It is just WP:TOOSOON. The creation of the article in Main Space after 10 edits by SPA MariLucifer, with no other activity is suspicious.WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I failed to find anything but some very local "human interest" stories - nothing from art critics or others of stature in the art world. He fails notability under WP:ARTIST - no major shows, not well-known in his field. Note that the sources in the article tend to refer to him as "Karl Wilkes" without the middle name so I did my searches with that. Lamona (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct he has lived a life based on lies. You will not be able to find any proof about any of his claims. He can't be verified. 2601:408:C000:680:8046:3F2D:6BB8:45F6 (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they can, he did paint things, they just aren't notable for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a clearer and broader consensus. BD2412 T 00:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

Delete Google brings up four social media aggregators, linking to his social media. No sourcing in Gnews, Books, Scholar or Jstor. Likely PROMO.Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cédric Vernier[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. Significant coverage cannot be found. This is not significant coverage, and it is a primary source since it is a direct interview of the person in question. Something trivial that I will mention is that even if this was created at a time that WP:NFOOTY existed, it still fails NFOOTY. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and France. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer which fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[:0-1] Wylegała, Anna; Głowacka-Grajper, Małgorzata (2020-02-11). The Burden of the Past: History, Memory, and Identity in Contemporary Ukraine. Indiana University Press. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-253-04673-4.

[2] Jolly, William L.; Gin, Christina (September 1977). "The estimation of heats of formation of gaseous cations from core electron binding energies". International Journal of Mass Spectrometry and Ion Physics. 25 (1): 27–37. doi:10.1016/0020-7381(77)80101-0.

[3] Price, W. C.; Passmore, T. R.; Roessler, D. M. (1963). "Ionization and dissociation energies of the hydrides and fluorides of the first row elements in relation to their electronic structures". Discussions of the Faraday Society. 35: 201. doi:10.1039/DF9633500201.

[4] F Fluorine: Compounds with Oxygen and Nitrogen. Springer Science & Business Media. 29 June 2013. ISBN 978-3-662-06339-2.

[5] Chase, Malcolm W. "NIST-JANAF Thermochemical Tables for the Oxygen Fluorides"

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]