Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 07	July 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to Rochester Institute of Technology#RIT Ambulance. ✗plicit 23:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RIT Ambulance[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article does not meet the notability guideline. It is largely unsourced and otherwise relies excessively on primary sources. Contributors to the article over the years have added entirely unsourced material which appear to infringe WP:NOR. A previous AfC was opened in 2007 which kept the article. GuardianH (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, does not have sufficient reliable sources for support. Merging into Rochester Institute of Technology is also possible but already has coverage there which looks sufficient too. - Indefensible (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Medicine, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rochester_Institute_of_Technology#RIT_Ambulance. I found a two-page local newspaper article about the service, but otherwise just bare mentions. Insufficient sources to support notability for stand-alone article but the redirect may be useful to readers. Schazjmd (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Schazjmd makes sense too. - Indefensible (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Schazjmd. Good source, hopefully we can make use of it. (Got a little pang looking at the 2007 discussion and being reminded how much more constructive and practical AfD discussions sometimes were, even in 2007. What a long rough slide it's been.) -- Visviva (talk) 21:15, 9 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!} 22:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Woodlands Church[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

According to the logs, this article was first deleted after a PROD on 17 June 2007. The PROD was contested, so the article got restored and AfD'ed on 30 June 2007. By unanimous consensus, it was deleted again on 5 July 2007. Then it was re-created and deleted under G4 on 7 June 2008; but, apparently unknown to the AfD participants, there seems to have another version still extant under the organization's other name, Fellowship of The Woodlands. In 2009, a user renamed the other version to Woodlands Church, and by doing so they must have inadvertently bypassed NPP. I noticed this recently and tagged it for G4, but another user followed me and reverted the tag for reasons that he will doubtless explain. This article has two kinds of sources: the organization itself and some WP:MILL coverage in the local newspaper. Please will the community approve its deletion, and also salt the title considering that it's been disruptively re-created so many times? —S Marshall T/C 20:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 20:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, sourcing confirms they've moved into a new home and opened a daycare centre, I'm not sure why that's notable. I can't find anything that makes this church historic, it's a large church. Oaktree b (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of the pastor that was being naughty with a teen girl, I wouldn't say that helps notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Remarkable sleuthing, looks like it fails notability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kerry Shook should also be considered; this is an utterly MILL megachurch and most of its publicity is paid for, along with Shook's. Nate • (chatter) 00:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's probably ok, I find some book reviews in Publisher's Weekly. Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it's his church, do you think a redirect (to Kerry Shook) and trimming of fat of the church-related content would be a good idea? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He won't be pastor forever, I don't see a redirect as being useful in this case. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

except that he established it in the first place which isn't going to change, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:33, 11 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. I see a consensus that this is notable pseudoscience (with sources to demonstrate), and that while the article may need work and careful presentation, the subject is encyclopedic. ^Complex/_Rational 21:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Specified complexity[edit]

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

According to the template, it fails WP:N and is possibly a hoax, for its accuracy and truthfulness is disputed. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious pseudoscience, not notable for even being a misunderstanding, unlike intelligent design. Some of it could be merged into the authors' names. At least needs TNT in some sections. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep: Recently applied tags notwithstanding, article seems well sourced. The topic has attracted enough scholarly commentary to demonstrate notability. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Just because an idea is pseudoscience doesn't mean coverage of the topic is not encyclopedic. There's an extensive encyclopedic coverage of things like Hermetica. The article might be a hoax if it was written credulously, but the text is actually pretty upfront about the non-scientific nature of the topic (WP:NHOAX). 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 22:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject matter being pseudoscientific is not a reason to delete the article. It just means we need to be careful to follow WP:FRINGE. Partofthemachine (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See also WP:NHOAX. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not keen on the concept or the people associated with it, but that's beside the point: it has been widely discussed and needs to have an article. Athel cb (talk) 08:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable pseudoscientific topic. I don't like it. I don't agree with it. I would hope the Wikipedia page for it will remain one that posits it *as* pseudoscience. But there's no grounds to delete.Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to William Dembski. I see no benefit in having a separate article, TBH. jps (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See wikipedia:Article size#Size guideline. Dembski's article is over 90k characters, which says adding another 20k~30k from this article might not be advisable. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think there is considerable article bloat in both places. jps (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name any specific examples of "considerable article bloat" in this article or in William Dembski? Partofthemachine (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loving documentation of bullshit like Specified_complexity#Specificity is not really something well attested to in reliable sources. Wikipedia ought to excise such blatherskite. jps (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the time being. If later edits shrink it to something smaller, we could consider merging, but that's not a pressing concern. XOR'easter (talk) 19:56, 14 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. ^Complex/_Rational 21:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inderpaul Khela[edit]

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

While a one sentence athlete biography can provide some general notability, the article lacks WP:SIGCOV. The article needs citations from reliable, independent sources; is missing information about Early life, more Career, Personal life, Achievements and honours (if any). JoeNMLC (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - apart from this Shropshire Star article about him getting sent off and then later recalled, I can't find anything decent. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 15 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. ^Complex/_Rational 18:46, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pijush Nag[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. i certainly found some media mentions, but nothing like WP:SIGCOV. Article has been orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and Tripura. PepperBeast (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. I only see brief mentions in RS. APK whisper in my ear 05:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Okoslavia (talk) 06:28, 15 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!} 22:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Arutiunian[edit]

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

His level of play doesn't seem to have reached the necessary level to meet WP:NTENNIS (Davis Cup having been removed a while ago). My searches in Belarusian (Эрик Арутюнян) are not giving any clear indication that he meets WP:GNG either. Head has information about him but Head is Arutiunian's sponsor so it is not a reliable, independent source due to their connection. Other than that, I can only find match reports like tennis.by and Minsk News, neither of which go into any detail about him as an individual. Probably WP:TOOSOON at best. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Belarus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While Tennis Project Guidelines say that Davis Cup is likely to imply notability... nothing is etched in stone. This player has competed in singles only in tennis minor-minor league. These are filled with lots of kids. In the minor league Challenger tour he has only competed in one doubles event, and lost in second round. This player has not achieved notability in the sport, and unless someone can dig up some good Belarusian news coverage, the article should be removed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:23, 8 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 CrossCountry. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CrossCountry network[edit]

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

This is effectively a template page, but in article space. If it is not already covered, the table to the left should go to CrossCountry. The template should already have its own page in the Template namespace. None of the information on the left is even sourced! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, England, Scotland, and Wales. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CrossCountry, agree there is no significant information in the article, but it probably is appropriate to keep it as a redirect. Dank Jae 15:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful info to CrossCountry per WP:NLIST. APK whisper in my ear 06:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a new sub-section of CrossCountry#Services. Iif the table was appropriately sourced, I may have suggested merging as the content could be useful, yet it could be inaccurate and so adding it as new data to the target could be misleading. As the route map is already a template, I can't see any benefit to merging. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:42, 15 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. The page creator might be a sockpuppet but the accounts were just blocked today so there was no block evasion occurring so this article is not eligible for CSD G5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Never been elected and referencing is very poor for a WP:BLP. He is a son of notable politician, but notability isn't inherited. scope_creep^Talk 07:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Gujarat. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article easily qualifies for the WP:GNG . The author has given 30+ genuine references and 5+ independent and established news agency articles. For the deletion request starter please note that the person is not claimed to be a politician but an activist, so it does not need to qualify WP:NPOL.Jatin1219 (talk) 06:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity is never really a thing. What is the top three references per WP:THREE that proves he is notable. It states in the lead and has a load of election results listing in a BLP, so WP:NPOL applies. Also he doesn't seem to be activist either. It says he is an activist, but there is not a section on his activism. It is super tenuous. It has also been previously deleted due to lack of coverage. and having done a WP:BEFORE I couldn't see anything of note. So where is WP:THREE that prove he is notable? scope_creep^Talk 07:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep please read the page carefully, without even trying hard i can find three reliable and independent references qualifying WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV . Take a look at these [1] [2] [3] , here is also a bonus one for you [4] .

I think you are having confusion because of the nature of the article, it is an activist page and that too an election contesting activist . These type of pages are quite rare, I can help you with these type of articles in future too, if you need then you can just mail me before directly initiating a WP:AFD as some might consider it violation of WP:NOBITING . Better safe then sorry.

Have a good day ahead Jatin1219 (talk) 04:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Scope creep , I have added activism section now, please check it.

Subject has many such reliable sources through which it is proved that the subject is a notable person being an activist, such as

This source https://ahmedabadmirror.com/fight-for-recall-right/37560635.html is published by a notable media group, which tells how activism was started by the subject, which is completely Based on independent research.

This source https://ahmedabadmirror.com/right-to-recall-activist-spurred-by-annas-win/36616620.html demonstrates how the subject contributed to a national movement and it is written independently and researched by a notable source.

Similarly, the information given in this https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/india/an-ad-calls-out-for-action-against-evms source is also written on the basis of an independent research, which gives recognition to the subject as a notable person. This source is not an advertisement, but it is an original research done by Notable Media Group.

Similarly, the allegations made on the subject in this source https://archive.org/details/gujrat-sandesh-20-nov-2015 are original research done by a Notable Media Group. It proves the subject notable.

Now this source https://www.aajtak.in/education/story/from-all-over-india-farmers-and-these-groups-are-raising-issue-of-back-to-ballot-tedu-668758-2019-07-15 is also an independent research by a notable media.

This source https://www.thequint.com/news/india/only-19-parties-received-money-from-electoral-bonds-bjp-got-68-investigation-bjp-reporters-collective-supreme-court-105-parties also proves subjects notability.

Now if you declare all the sources as press release or advertisement, then I would like to know the reason from you that what have you seen in the given sources that you are calling them as press release or advertisement . For your information, let me tell you that all the sources given are considered remarkable in the view of Wikipedia. Rejecting the articles published by them as original research by calling them press releases raises a question mark on the notability of those media groups which have been considered notable by Wikipedia many years ago, which is a surprising thing. Therefore, I request you to review all the sources given by me. Info.apsharma (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your sources aren't considered reliable here [5]. He's got tons of coverage, but next to nothing in sources we recognize. Oaktree b (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment of the four sources linked above, the first is simply repetition of an advertisement placed by the subject of the article, the second is almost entirely quotes from a press relase, the third is marginally passable, the fourth lacks a byline and appears to be a press release. It's possible that the subject passes the GNG, but the sources cited here are not a particularly convincing demonstration of that. Also, FWIW a "genuine reference" does not equal a reliable source. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn Dude, the subject is an activist not a politician. All the given references qualifies WP:RS . Our wikipedia platform do not have detailed policy to handle the WE:NP(Activist) , that's why we are having confusion here.

The nature of activism(especially political activism) is that they do not get many detailed biographies published for them(like politicians) but still the references given are quite good and effectively proves that the subject have received significant media coverage according to WP:SIGCOV .

Now you might have miscomprehend some references sources, the first reference i have highlighted is an event coverage by reliable source and it proves that the action of the subject(i.e. advertising against EVM) have gained a significant media coverage from reliable and openly verifiable media agency, the second reference too is coverage of the subject's relation with other significant and notable movement by a reliable news agency so it too easily qualifies the Wikipedia policies.

The third reference too is a detailed news coverage on the Subject when he partakes in election activity, it too is according to WP:RS . I think calling it "marginally passable" will make majority of other news references of same nature as "marginally passable" .

Please note that all of the above references and other references of the article qualifies WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV . They all are writtten by independent and relaible professionals working in well established and trusted news agencies.

I do request you to read the article again and keep in mind that the subject is an activist that have attracted significant coverage according to WP:SIGCOV and not an politician. Also my personal view here is that I find no other reason to renominate the article forWP:AFD other then disgusting Biting the newbie habit of some people of wikipedia.

Have a good day ahead. Jatin1219 (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of him being an activist. It is most tenuous evidence I've seen in a long time. It is a puff-piece article. scope_creep^Talk 16:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However one classifies this person, there's no convincing sourcing on display to demonstrate satisfying the GNG. The majority of the sources in the article at present are no more than passing mentions, citations to registers/directories or self-generated. Those that are not suffer from the problems of those cited here: press releases full of direct quotes with no independent analysis. An article which regurgitates of the contents of the subject's paid for advertisement with no analysis whatsoever or counter opinion cannot be considered for the purposes of demonstrating notability. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/this-iit-graduate-makes--right-to-recall--his-poll-plank/694337/

And

https://ahmedabadmirror.com/fight-for-recall-right/37560635.html

Reference has a level of original research. WP:THREE is just a personal guideline and not a Wikipedia policy, so not all Wikipedians adhere to it.

The editor can use more reliable sources but deletion will be excessive.Oyemithoon (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no Reliabe Sources talking about this person. Economic Times and the like are non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to incubate and improve; better than just deleting the page in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Political candidates do not get articles just because they've been candidates, and I'm not convinced the small handful of articles that might confer notability are independent enough of him because they're interviews on his political positions. Not quite enough here for GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 20:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Indefensible. I agree that this is too promotional of a BLP to be in mainspace in its present form, but I am not at all convinced that it does not meet the GNG. The arguments above to that effect appear to hinge on rather questionable authority -- either an ad-hoc whitelist maintained by NPP (whose members may be surprised to discover that it does not actually have authority to set policy for the whole encyclopedia), or the mere fact that RSN discussions ended in "no consensus", as in the case of The Economic Times. A "no consensus" on a source should not be turned into a consensus to disregard it. -- Visviva (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been draftified and then deleted. Its the same article with the same UPE agency team. I doubt that will make a difference in an article that has zero real sources. And drafting is not something you do when the article has previously been deleted. scope_creep^Talk 10:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll have to disagree on whether it has zero real sources, but do you have any authority for the statement that drafting is not something you do when the article has previously been deleted? I don't see anything to that effect at WP:ATD-I or WP:DRAFT. -- Visviva (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to draft is a good middle ground in my opinion, there is a possibility the subject has enough notability already to keep the article per Visviva. There seems to be more here than some of the other stubs or articles which are more clear delete candidates. - Indefensible (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per others. Okoslavia (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or draftify per the above comments – a rewrite would be beneficial to make it sound less promotional but I agree that it does sound like it pass the notability standard and should not be deleted. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We will take a look at the references today. scope_creep^Talk 08:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The originating editor has just be blocked for being a sockpuppet. So it is essentially the same guy that created the previous article and this article. scope_creep^Talk 15:42, 15 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!} 23:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid fans[edit]

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

This seems to be a recreation of an article that was draftified in 2022, so I think AfD might be a better venue the second time around. I'm not seeing any signifigant coverage that the fanbase of a football team are independantly notable in their own right. Maybe if there's enough well-sourced content there could be a section about the fanbase in the team's article? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Romania. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, and current name could refer to any number of clubs. Giant Snowman 12:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to CS Rapid București, does not appear to meet GNG on its own, reads like an article copy pasted from google translate. Would be better as a redirect, or best as an abridged section in the article for the corresponding club. IceBergYYC (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge? Redirect? Delete? Further consensus needs to be gathered here on a way forward.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the merge or redirect comment above, I'm not sure if there's anything realistically salvageable about this article that would make a merge meaningful. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. As for a redirect in itself... I agree with the first commenter that "Rapid fans" is vague enough to have many possible meanings. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems wrong, given that the leading results on Googling "Rapid fans" are for a Rapid Vienna fan group![6] Nothing about Rapid Bucharest. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just can't find anything in the article (or the concept) that justifies being included in WP under the notability guidelines. Joyous! Noise! 15:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the term is too ambiguous to be appropriately affiliated with just a single football club or fan group. Furthermore, as per nom statement, I fail to see how a club's fanbase can be outright independently notable of the club itself; in this case at least, there is no evidence of that being the case. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:36, 15 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!} 23:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concerto for Tuba and Orchestra (Broughton)[edit]

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

Appears to be no substantial coverage. Current sources are not independent. The entry in the standard Tuba rep book (which has virtually every published tuba piece) is very minimal, suggesting minimal importance. Aza24 (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Aza24 (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found mentions in programs and in a few newspaper articles about performers, but nothing more than that. It's telling that it wasn't a significant enough piece to have any narrative prose in the Bruce Broughton article. Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Schazjmd (talk) 16:01, 9 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. ^Complex/_Rational 18:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vita Moda[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP – possibly entirely fictitious. Jay D. Easy (t) 15:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should probably be speedy deleted as a hoax, as the single reference has nothing to do with the company and there are no references to the company existing on Google. Qcne (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Iffy about the hoax part, but I can't find mentions of it in any sort of media. Delete for a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. No luck with finding anything in RS. APK whisper in my ear 06:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not entirely convinced whether it's a hoax, although with practically nothing coming up in searches would indicate, at the very least, this is not a notable corporation. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:30, 15 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!} 07:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical Sylviidae species[edit]

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

No reason why we need a list of species that used to be classified in a family? Taxonomic changes that significantly split up families aren't uncommon and we don't need to maintain lists of what used to placed in something. This isn't even accurate, it sets an arbitrary date of 2020; Sylviidae is a notorious wastebucket taxon and used to have over 400 species. AryKun (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, and Lists. AryKun (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- If the detailed history of the family can be included in the current Sylviidae, in Parrotbill, and in old Sylviidae's other successors I have no objection to deletion. Craigthebirder (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I mean, including the history of a taxon in the taxonomy section is standard for any article. It won’t have a massive list, of course but it will mention that so and so families used to be placed within the Sylviidae and were split out in so and so year. AryKun (talk) 04:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Might have to go as deep as genera. Craigthebirder (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For wastebasket taxa that used to have hundreds of species in them, listing genera that used to be in them is of absolutely zero use to the reader. It just clutters up the page with pointlessly detailed information when we could just say that it's been split up into so and so families. Sylviidae used to have over 70 genera and currently has 2; I fail to see how named the other 70 would help a casual reader of the page. AryKun (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a classic example of WP:LINKFARM and based on that either it should be deleted. Additionally, IOC taxonomic sequence on this page doesn't meet with the list on Sylviidae so raises question based on WP:V. Nanosci (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well, we can't criticise a list for being list-like, or for having its members bluelinked, that's the nature of the beast. But there is no value in having a basically uncited list of species, begging the question of when (and how often) the old group has been split and reorganised — a topic that might be of interest, but which would not be well described with a list. Far better just to have articles like Sylviidae which can have their own history and phylogeny sections, discussed, illustrated, and reliably cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:36, 8 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. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Pleasant Baptist Church[edit]

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

Most of the sources are not independent as Christian press. The only independent source is ABC but it's a one line mention of the church. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator makes a serious error. Christian media are generally independent of what they cover, unless a denomination or house of worship is talking about itself. Otherwise, they are media just like any other. As a reminder, Wikipedia has many articles about individual churches, and since this one is located in a prosperous English-speaking country, it is no surprise that there are abundant references available about it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: not a run-of-the-mill church, and Eternity News is an independent, reliable source; the nominator appears to misunderstand our WP:RS guideline. St Anselm (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain and StAnselm. Deus et lex (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain and StAnselm. Cabrils (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain and StAnselm.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:17, 15 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!} 07:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firstpost[edit]

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

Non-notable website that has crisis with reliability.

The subject completely fails WP:NWEB. Editorkamran (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, Websites, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The website has enough content but I don't see significant coverage from reliable sources. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as "soft delete". Reopened after being contested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Major news organization in the second largest country in the world and widely cited by newspapers and academic journals. It is achieved at the Library of Congress see https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwaN0033319/. Additional Sources I found include a journal article 1.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, this appears to be a fairly major publishing company. Kind of a challenge just getting past their own publications because of how prolific they are. - Indefensible (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons mentioned above. Regardless of its reliability within WP (and it is a reliable source, IMO, especially for its use on cinema-related articles), it is a notable publication, and easily merits the existence of a WP page for it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as pointed out above, clearly meets the notability criteria. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - including per WP:WEBCRIT - this article has expanded since the nomination to include additional reliable coverage that is independent of this online news portal. I am also able to access the JSTOR results cited above and this outlet appears to be routinely cited in a wide range of academic journals. Beccaynr (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable news outlet, backed by major corporations. --Soman (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.LM2000 (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why not? Okoslavia (talk) 22:19, 8 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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Hart (baseball)[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Joeykai (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, the article passes WP:GNG. Sources provided are all secondary reliable sources. Each one provides an exclusive in-depth analysis of the player. No WP:OR in sight. Conyo14 (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and plenty of coverage in RS. APK whisper in my ear 06:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 03:03, 16 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 Juventus FC. It is not sourced, therefore there isn't anything to merge. However, history is under the redirect if someone wants to source and merge something. Star Mississippi 00:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juventus TV[edit]

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

Unsourced, no assertion of notability of this media outlet for the sports club Orange Mike | Talk 13:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete? Could probably merge into Juventus FC as that article makes no mention of the network, but obviously sources would need to be found and it likely only needs a sentence or two. Qcne (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Lacks enough coverage and sources as is. Placing the info, with sourcing, into Juventus FC seems to be the best option. Let'srun 14:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Juventus FC. Giant Snowman 18:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Govvy (talk) 12:17, 11 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 12:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Grasby[edit]

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

PROD declined "with the subject has received considerable coverage in reputable online sources and is especially notable as the first woman WOFF-AF" but there is no RS coverage presented and the article does not claim she is the first female WOFF-AF (whatever that is). The award of a Medal of the Order of Australia alone (the lowest category of the award and one with no quota) would appear not to compensate for an otherwise complete failure of WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Australia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- See WOFF-AF for role. Still thinking about my !vote. WWGB (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – a basic Google search yields considerable coverage in reliable sources (including, but certainly not limited to, [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]) and a cursory read of the existing article explains "WOFF-AF". That is, Warrant Officer of the Air Force – the most senior enlisted member of the Royal Australian Air Force and the senior enlisted advisor to the Chief of Air Force. The role of WOFF-AF is notable in itself, but Grasby's appointment as the first woman to serve in the role also received reliable, independent coverage (including [13] and [14]). Grasby easily satisfies WP:GNG. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 1-5 are press-releases or primary government sources. The rest are from iffy websites, I'd not consider any of them useful. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only sources 2 and 4 are government sources. Source 1 is the web version of a chapter published in an academic book, Niche Wars, by ANU Press. Source 3 is from a quasi-think tank with military affiliations, 5 is an article from The Canberra Times, 6 is the newsletter of a notable veterans' association, 7 is an article published in The Mandarin, and 8 is from a news outlet that publishes on military-related topics. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, there is enough coverage to indicate notability. - Indefensible (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The role of WOFF is in of itself not grounds for notability. Note the list of people who have held this role are not bluelinks - and there is nothing in WP:GNG to tell us that WOFF = notable. Given the role is not notable, the first female to hold the role is equally not notable. Are there other grounds for notability? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No discussions in RS, only sourced to press-releases or gov't websites. Not meeting notability guidelines. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only mention of her in the news I could find, and she's mentioned in passing [15]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has significant coverage in multiple RS so satisfies WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not cut and dried. Re sources provided by Abraham, B.S.: 1-4 & 6 are press-releases or gov't websites; 5 is a Canberra Times reference, however this is a quote from Grasby so not a strong platform for notability; 8 is ‘Contact’ a self described as a blog, but not necessarily disqualified because of that - WP:N; 7 The Mandarin is possibly the strongest reference going toward notability. When combining all, coverage possiby gets over the bar of WP:GNG; when combined with notability of WOFF-AF per se, my inclination is to Keep.Spinifex&Sand (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: To clarify, only sources 2 and 4 above are government websites. Source 1 is the web version of a chapter published in an academic book, Niche Wars, by ANU Press. Source 3 is an interview with a quasi-think tank that has military affiliations, and 6 is the newsletter of a notable veterans' association. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Abraham BS. Deus et lex (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to have enough coverage in a variety of sources. The references above to "Source 1" as a chapter of Niche Wars re confusing as the current Ref 1 "no. 22" doesn't look like that, while Ref 7, Boulton, is clearly from the book, but that's what happens with constant improvement of an article by addition of new refs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by PamD (talk • contribs) 08:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]
Keep RAFRegtRockApe (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has widespread coverage in RS, per Abraham BS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. SNOW. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:15, 12 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 18:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signals Network[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is offered here, merely incidental mentions in news stories about cases in which the organisation has played a role. It therefore fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, and California. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sourcing is there, including the Congressional site that explains it. Whistleblower support organizations. Most whistle blowers never make the news, so there would not be "significant coverage". And the media is only interested in the big stories, not the everyday average type. Whistleblowers probably would not come forward if they knew their identity would be in the news. i.e., Mark Felt was the whistleblower known as Deep Throat, but his identity was kept secret until he was near death. Signals is one of many such whistleblower organizations that work with the United States Congress, to encourage and assist individuals who wish to provide the government with reports and evidence of corporate misconduct and human rights abuses. The Activities (cases) listed in the article certainly do have independent sourcing. — Maile (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - There is enough coverage of the group as the article stands to keep it. Wistleblower organizations are not the type to have large profiles written about them, which is why there is a lack of profiles written about them. — Let'srun (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ORG. Besides the refs already included, here is coverage in The Daily Telegraph and also in the Los Angeles Times. APK whisper in my ear 06:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as the first author of the article I'm not sure if I can vote for it to keep, but I can explain why I think it deserves a dedicated page. In the category 'Whisteblower support organisations' there are other similar organisations that have a dedicated page like [POGO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_On_Government_Oversight) and [GAP](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Project), some with more activities and other with less, so I think it makes sense for Signals Network to have the dedicated page as well. Also the wikipedia article only includes the most known cases that The Signals Network worked, that have public references from independent sources, but probably there are more to be added. Sidorela Uku (talk) 11:02, 11 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. ^Complex/_Rational 18:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mekin Mustafa Kemal Ökem[edit]

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

Ambassadors aren't inherently notable and this Turkish ambassador has no claim to notability outside of one appointment. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Israel, and Turkey. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aintabli (talk) 14:38, 13 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 08:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Rossler[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. JTtheOG (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Luxembourg. JTtheOG (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:29, 10 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 Fiji international footballers. Sourcing is of insufficient depth Star Mississippi 13:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misaele Draunibaka[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Fiji international footballers. One appearance for the Fiji national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - refs added.--IdiotSavant (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. One decent source is not enough. Giant Snowman 12:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The sources added by IdiotSavant are a good start but not enough currently. The Fiji Sun articles are interviews and the Fiji Village piece is a very short mention. I'm unable to find more significant coverage online or in Fijian news sources. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per IdiotSavant. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how interviews and a two-sentence mention add up to significant coverage? MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may be helpful to review the actual language of WP:SIGCOV. Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The Fiji Village article may be short, but the article subject is definitely its main topic -- he's right there in the headline -- which by the plain language of the guideline is more than enough to qualify as significant. -- Visviva (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG with sources added.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The first Fiji Sun source is a local interview from when he was a teenager and so fails YOUNGATH. The second has some decent details but is mostly an interview. The Fiji Village piece is an utterly routine transactional report. I don't see GNG or even SPORTSBASIC being met. JoelleJay (talk) 22:52, 6 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!} 05:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom, the sources just don't seem like enough for SIGCOV to me. AryKun (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. I feel that the guidelines are being twisted out of shape a bit here. As discussed more fully in my sub-reply above, the Fiji Village article, of which he is the main topic, falls well within the actual requirements of SIGCOV, as set forth in that guideline. So too do both of the Fiji Sun articles, which despite being partially interviews also contain a nontrivial amount of biographical reporting by a journalist independent of the subject. So we have three sources of nontrivial coverage, which is enough to satisfy even the more stringent interpretations of the GNG. As to the high-school interview in particular, WP:YOUNGATH is a notability criterion for athletes in high school and below (and on its face reads as a sensible precaution to protect the privacy of minors). It is not a source evaluation criterion, and has no bearing on people who are no longer of high school age. -- Visviva (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the nomination is the ideal solution here. No sufficient coverage for an article. scope_creep^Talk 22:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and others to List of Fiji international footballers, where the subject is mentioned. CycloneYoris ^talk! 12:33, 15 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 Fiji international footballers. Consensus is sourcing is of insufficient depth Star Mississippi 13:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apisai Smith[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Fiji international footballers. One appearance for the Fiji national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. Sources like this and this have a few mentions from his time in New Zealand fourth division, but not enough coverage IMO. JTtheOG (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - refs added. It might pay to check Fijian media (Fiji Sun, Times, Village, Live, and FBC News) before nominating these.--IdiotSavant (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. The sources are routine, transfer news. Giant Snowman 12:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per IdiotSavant. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources already in article. Appears to be slightly more than WP:ROUTINE transfer announcements as they also go into detail of Smith's playing career more than routine announcements typically do. Frank Anchor 18:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, neither of the two sources (from the same author) mentioned in the nom give him more than trivial attention as an individual, rather they contain a couple sentences on him and another player as a pair, as part of routine pre-match hype. The rest of the sources in the article are solidly routine transactional coverage (which always have background on the player's career; such content is not indicative of non-routineness) and trivial mentions. JoelleJay (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There seems to be enough coverage here.KatoKungLee (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a fundamental divide here among participants about whether or not sources provided are Routine or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Fiji international footballers - the !keeps seem to be considering any news coverage mentioning the individual as being sufficient to justify a degree of notability, yet the articles amount to little more than WP:ROUTINE transfer news and do not significantly cover the subject. His playing career seems somewhat sparse which leads me to think that little of the needed coverage will exist. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Fiji international footballers where the subject is mentioned. A standalone article is clearly unwarranted per GNG and SIGCOV, and redirecting is clearly the best option here. CycloneYoris ^talk! 12:29, 15 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!} 05:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raymorn Sturrup[edit]

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

Seven official appearances for the Bahamas national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Bahamas. JTtheOG (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:36, 8 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!} 05:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Pritchard[edit]

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

Six appearances for the Bahamas national football team. Not known to have continued his playing career after college. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Bahamas, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:36, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per my BEFORE search. Jogurney (talk) 18:49, 14 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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen Shankar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable actor, source bot confirms most of the sources are iffy with one being red, so non-notable. I can't find mention of this individual in RS either. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all the sources are movie-related news and interviews. According to WP:ICTFSOURCES, the Times of India is not a reliable source. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 09:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the sources in this article are weak, subject meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple notable films, with articles in English Wikipedia, including Gultoo and Hondisi Bareyiri. —siro χ o 06:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since passes WP:NACTOR. Protagonist in first three films and antagonist in fourth film. DareshMohan (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ENT. Neutral - Only six films listed, two of which have not been released. The article only has four sentences (one of which is unsourced) describing his career. Noting indicates notability by Wikipedia standards.— Maile (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added note: This article is not ready for main space. The first paragraph under Career is not written in complete sentences. — Maile (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed to "Neutral", simply because this is an Indian actor in Indian films, and I don't know what qualifies as "significant roles in multiple notable films" for this particular actor's career. — Maile (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion of whether the subject meets NACTOR seems appropriate given the swing between the past two relists
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:46, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as played in lead role in 4+ movies. Even if this page get's deleted, very sooner the page will be eligible for inclusion. No point to delete in hurry. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (!vote farther up). WP:NACTOR says This guideline applies to actors ... Such a person may be considered notable if: 1. The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films. Significant roles in 4 notable films (top billed in 3 of them). I will need some clarification of the guideline if it does not apply to this subject. —siro χ o 08:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly had significant roles in multiple notable films, so it's a WP:NACTOR pass.—Alalch E. 21:23, 15 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. If anyone wants this restored and moved to a WikiProject as suggested in this discussion, let me know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Index of articles related to terms of service and privacy policies[edit]

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

This article is purportedly an index article, but is instead a WP:COATRACK with so much original research I can't even begin to describe. All of the references are solely used to make a point that ToSs are covered in media, so it fails to meet WP:LISTN. Most of the article links aren't even to articles regarding ToS or privacy policies, either; they just link to a section in a website's/service's article. The links to full articles are only tangentially related. SWinxy (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Internet, and Websites. SWinxy (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Articles Relating to Terms of Service and Privacy Policies
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with nominator and with what was said by WeirdNAnnoyed Editchecker123 (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This almost seems more like a part of a WP:WIKIPROJECT, is there an appropriate one that might benefit from it. It seems to be primarily put together by User:Numbersinstitute, so perhaps they'd like it userfied until a good Wikiproject home could be found? —siro χ o 07:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, it looks like a lot of good work went into the article and it is well sourced so ideally we would not delete it and it’s edit history if it could be preserved and reused in WP:WIKIPROJECT Editchecker123 (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTDIRECTORY is irrelevant for an index. The point is to serve a navigational purpose linking to Wikipedia articles on a given subject. The problem is this just doesn't do that. It's a hodgepodge of subjects that sorta-kinda have something to do with these policies (but not convincingly). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:31, 11 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!} 23:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulmanap Nurmagomedov[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited, simply being the dead father of a famous athlete is not enough to demonstrate notability. Either is being the "famous guy that works with other famous people", as evidenced by the lack of mentioning anything other than being Khabib's father the majority of this article or in most articles found online. Take Khabib away and this is just another Sambo instructor in Russia. Nswix (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Russia. Nswix (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple marks of recognition: "he was named by the Russian Book of Records as the most successful combat sambo coach in the country." He was depicted on a postage stamp of Kyrgyzstan after his death. There are multiple references in the Russian article at ru:Нурмагомедов,_Абдулманап_Магомедович that could be added to the story. He is notable independently of his status as father and coach of a famous athlete. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I was involved in editing this article, I won't give a vote. But he's famous not just because he Khabib's dad. He's actually an accomplished coach in Dagestan in Combat Sambo and later MMA. Some guys claim that Khabib is such a good coach to his relatives and teammates but its actually his father who did most of the work to train them to get where they are. I feel he should be known more because of that rather than just the fact he was Khabib's dad but the average casual viewer doesn't have time to check I guess. - Imcdc Contact 12:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being involved in editing the article doesn't mean you shouldn't !vote. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI would argue he is of note for his coaching of Sambo and MMA to Athletes in Dagestan, not just being Khabib's father. He has also coached Islam Makhachev, Rustam Khabilov, Azamat Hashimov, Shamil Zavurov, Gadzhimurad Nurmagomedov, Magomedrasul Hasbulaev, all notable athletes from the region. Mustytoast (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that subject doesn't pass criteria for Sportspeople, but it seems like subject meets criteria for WP:GNG as per Nswix. Lethweimaster (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable. One of the most recognized combat coaches in Russia. Amaekuma (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So far no one has actually provided valid evidence that this person is notable. If he meets GNG, then specific sources demonstrating such must be provided. JoelleJay (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently Nurmagomedov was awarded with the titles Honored Trainer of Russia [ru] and Master of Sport of USSR [ru], both of which seem fairly prestigious titles in Soviet/Russian sport. However I don't know enough about the criteria of notability in sports to know if that's an argument for notability, so I won't vote. ^[1]source from RIA Novosti Jaguarnik (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguarnik, it's not, athlete notability is determined by GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an objectively false statement. We have an entire guideline page made up of specialized notability criteria for athletes; it even includes an MMA criterion, although I don't think it would have any bearing here. -- Visviva (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://ria.ru/20200703/1573860685.html

Keep - He has gotten a lot of coverage and even people who only watch UFC once in a while like myself know who he is.KatoKungLee (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to go on record as saying I don't think any of these keep votes have actually provided valid evidence that this person is independently notable of his son's fame. Nswix (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, WP:NOTINHERITED is very clear that it would not apply in cases such as this: Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. (My emphasis.) Please consider reading the authorities you are citing. Second, WP:NOTINHERITED is neither a policy nor a guideline. It is an essay (or rather part of one), specifically a rather unfortunate essay that is chiefly used for dunking on others' good-faith arguments at AFD. It does not have any force of its own, so it could not provide any support for deletion even if it applied here. Third, there are a number of Russian sources that are currently cited in the article. On their face they appear to be articles in independent reliable sources that are entirely about the article subject, e.g. [16], [17], [18]. I have searched RSN but have not come across any prior discussion of these sources. Maybe there's something wrong with them, but nobody has raised any concerns about them so far in this discussion or any other discussion I can find. It therefore appears that the GNG is met. -- Visviva (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Viva admin. Okoslavia (talk) 12:51, 10 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 SK1/withdrawn. Suggest considering WP:NOPAGE/WP:SPINOFF cases be dealt with via WP:PROPMERGE/WP:BLAR as AfD naturally tends to consider standalone notability. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zaha Hadid Architects[edit]

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

Unnecessary WP:SPINOFF of Zaha Hadid. I suggest redirecting per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. gidonb (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Business, Companies, and United Kingdom. gidonb (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A company is not the same as its owner, and the firm may be independently notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is not about some hypothetical situation. It's about a specific article on a specific organization. Plus notability is only one variable in information governance. gidonb (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is additional background on this nomination here. gidonb (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient references to support notability independent of the founder. - Indefensible (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think that is a good point. Starlighsky (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should add "keep" to your comment if you want to vote in agreement, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_contribute for instructions. - Indefensible (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks...will do. I was researching the issue in terms of notability before i add '''Keep'''. Starlighsky (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The architectural firm has won awards on a global scale: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zaha_Hadid_Architects&wvprov=sticky-header#Awards_(2023). I agree with the previously posted Keep vote on how they company has its own notability, independent of the founder.Starlighsky (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Starlighsky[reply]
Comment. Diff between current state and that at time of nomination for deletion → https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zaha_Hadid_Architects&diff=1163304583&oldid=1162770750 (3 human and 1 bot contributor); current state of article → https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zaha_Hadid_Architects&oldid=1163304583 --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:02, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The winning of awards and having many projects is not necessarily a sign of notability in the sense taken by Wikipedia, which is something a lot of people chafe against. If we chop ALL of that content off, we are left with two citations, one a link to the firm's website and one I added the other day (Bernstein 2016, W). I'll review the other citations for the lists and see if any of them can contribute to core content or not, but I am not that hopeful at the moment. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is that Architizer site reliable? I think if we strip all the WP:PRIMARY refs there would probably still be enough to support the article, especially if we spent time reviewing all of the projects to find more refs. - Indefensible (talk) 07:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wish I could say 'yes' but there is no indication on their website as to their editorial or contribution policy, nor even information on their management or location. The source has not been brought up previously on WP:RSN that I can see. I think the general public thinking is "use it until you're told not to", but the conservative approach would be "when in doubt, don't trust it", and I have a doubt. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I did not see it either which is why I asked to see if anyone else knew more. But again even without the Architizer sources, I still think we should be able to find enough to support the subject. - Indefensible (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the world’s leading architecture practices, notable independently if its founder, creator of a great number of notable buildings and winner of many architectural prizes. Hard to think of a more notable practice really. Mccapra (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. In this Article for Discussion, my claim was that the subject was an improper, unnecessary WP:SPINOFF, and should thus be redirected. As often goes, all answers were about the NOTABILITY of the subject, which was explicitly NOT the issue. In other words, all opinions above should be discounted as totally irrelevant. At the same time, a SUCCESSFUL effort was made to expand the article into a justifiable SPINOFF and as the nominator one should also keep track of that. Now that the intro no longer matches the reality in the article, I choose to withdraw. Thank you all for the efforts, especially in the article itself! gidonb (talk) 18:41, 9 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 Nip/Tuck. as an ATD Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carver (Nip/Tuck)[edit]

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

2/3 of the sources used in the article are unreliable, a quick Google search doesn't give sources that establish the character's notability... or at least I think so because it seems like some sources can be used. Either way, I'm unsure, so I'm sending this to AfD. Spinixster (chat!) 03:01, 8 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!) 03:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No analysis/reception section, what I see is plot summary and trivia about where the character appeared (see MOS:TRIVIA, WP:NOTTVTROPES, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Piotrus. Not enough WP:SIGCOV to verify the notability of its reception. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:53, 14 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 CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Sanders[edit]

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

Article uses primary and episodes reviews, a quick Google search gives no sources to establish notability outside of the show. Spinixster (chat!) 02:55, 8 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!) 02:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I noticed this a while ago, but wanted to think it over before commenting. This was a minor character that turned into a side character. The notability is lacking due to the depth of the character. There really isn't any. Unlike the growth of Gil Grissom, Sara Sidle, or Catherine Willows, which had better impacts outside the show, Greg Sanders does not meet that requirement. It is better-suited for the CSI wiki fandom. Conyo14 (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters, not seeing anything here but plot summary fancruft. Fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect with only WP:PLOT information, there isn't enough WP:SIGCOV to pass the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:52, 14 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. We are at a numerical delete, however when looking at weight and the discussion of tertiary sources, it appears Cunard's sources counter the assertions of it being a potential hoax, and it being longtime unsourced with no potential for coverage. That said, there is also no clear support for keeping the article. With no input after the relist, I don't see that another will bring about consensus. Star Mississippi 13:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Video Game[edit]

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

Game show identified by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) and IJBall (talk · contribs) as failing WP:GNG at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#The_Video_Game. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Video games, and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Article has been effectively unsourced (WP:Primary sources don't contribute to notability) since its creation in 2007. And I can't find anything in the Los Angeles Times about it from circa 1984, which is a very, very bad sign if you're looking for evidence that this got any (press/media) coverage at all. A minor game show, that aired only in first-run syndication, is exactly this kind of show we were thinking about when we crafted WP:NTVNATL – this show has received apparently no secondary coverage (let alone "significant" coverage!): therefore it fails both WP:GNG and WP:NTV. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to support WP:GNG was found. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Either this was a hoax added in by a long-ago fan, or someone (or some station) surely has the tapes somewhere! (Footage or it never really aired. Although that title is mentioned in the broadcast details for Starcade, produced by the same company [JM]--and I'm having doubt this postscript trivia will persist on there for long...) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 07:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Encyclopedias and other books:
  1. Lu, Zhouxiang (2022). A History of Competitive Gaming. New York: Routledge. pp. 51–52. ISBN 978-0-367-55961-8. Retrieved 2023-07-01 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "After Starcade was discontinued, JM Production produced The Video Game, which aired in syndication in North America between September 1984 and September 1985 and was filmed at Six Flags Magic Mountain amusement park in Valencia, California. Each episode started with a home video game competition between two players called down from the audience. The contestant who scored more points on a Commodore 64 game was invited onstage to play a random mini game, including a maze game and several video themed-quizzes, to win a prize. The show then continued with another two rounds, each featuring two audience members. The three winners then came back on stage to compete in a maze game for the final prize. As in Starcade, the winner then played a video arcade game for 30 seconds to beat a predetermined high score for the grand prize. Tim Crowley of California recalls his journey to The Video Game: ..."
  2. Schwartz, David; Ryan, Steve; Wostbrock, Fred (1995). "The Video Game". The Encyclopedia of TV Game Shows (2 ed.). New York: Facts on File. p. 216. ISBN 0-8160-3093-6. Retrieved 2023-07-01 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: "The Video Game premiere: September 1984; packager: JM Productions; broadcast history: Syndicated September 1984–1985; host: Greg Winfield; assistant: Karen Lea; announcer: Christopher Kriesa; producers: James Caruso, Mavis Arthur; director: James Caruso, Phil Martino; set designer: Tho. E. Azzari; origination: Six Flags Magic Mountain, Valencia, California. "The Video Game," usually seen on Saturday mornings, featured two contestants who competed in three rounds of playing video arcade games. The first player to reach a predetermined point score won the game and played for bonus prizes in the second half of the show by answering questions related to video game characters and by playing additional games."
  3. Terrace, Vincent (1985). Encyclopedia of Television: Series, Pilots and Specials 1974–1984. New York: BASEline. p. 434. ISBN 0-918432-61-8. Retrieved 2023-07-01 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: "The Video Game. Two contestants compete in three rounds. In the first half of each round the contestants play the same video arcade game. The player who first reaches the predetermined score wins and proceeds to the second half of the round. The format varies somewhat, but the object calls for the contestant to either answer questions concerning video arcade characters or play video games (and attempt to reach a certain score within a very limited amount of time). Video-oriented games are awarded as prizes." The book notes that the host is Greg Winfield, the assistant is Karen Lea, the executive producers are James Caruso and Mavis Arthur, the associate producer is Paul Martin, the director is James Caruso, and the announcer is Chris Creasis. The book notes the show is syndicated, is 30 minutes long, and aired 10/84."
  4. Terrace, Vincent (1991). Fifty Years of Television: A Guide to Series and Pilots, 1937–1988. New York: Rosemont Publishing & Printing. p. 768. ISBN 0-8453-4811-6. Retrieved 2023-07-01 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: "The Video Game. Game; 30 min; Syn. 10/84. Object: For contestants to play various video arcade games in return for prizes. Host: Greg Winfield. Assistant: Karen Lea. Announcer: Chris Creasis. Producer: James Caruso, Mavis Arthur."
  5. Lu, Zhouxiang (2023). "Esports". In Wolf, Mark J.P.; Perron, Bernard (eds.). The Routledge Companion to Video Game Studies (2 ed.). New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003214977-44. ISBN 978-1-032-08123-6. Retrieved 2023-07-01 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "The popular TV Powww! (1978), the That's Incredible! Video Game Invitational (1983), video game TV shows Starcade (1982–84), and The Video Game (1984–85) not only introduced competitive gaming to a wider audience but also helped video games to achieve mainstream popularity."
2. Newspaper, magazine, and other articles:
  1. Mitchell, John (1984-09-14). "Newbury Park pair bring home TV game show loot". Thousand Oaks Star. Archived from the original on 2023-07-01. Retrieved 2023-07-01 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Brad Krapff, 11, son of Sharon and Glen Krapff of Newbury Park and a fifth grader at Maple Elementary School, won $3,500 worth of prizes for coming out the champ on "The Video Game," a brand-new show. This game is from the producers of the successful "Starcade" and will debut at 9:30 a.m. Saturday over Channel 5. The show's contestant coordinator, Marie Shepard, told Brad's mother that he was the most enthusiastic of all the contestants on the 15 shows they've taped thus far, and because of this the show on which he appeared has been chosen to be the series' premiere telecast. In his performance, young Krapff defeated another contestant in a video baseball game and then outfoxed two others winners in a "playoff" competition. He garnered the program's "grand prize" by knocking off a high scorer — a person M.C. Greg Winfield brought on-stage especially to compete with him — in a game of Donkey Kong." The article says his prizes were "a new video game called Vulgus, a telescope, a remote controlled robot, a complete stereo system, $225 in game cartridges and a T-shirt".
  2. "Sun Line". The Jackson Sun. 1984-08-16. Archived from the original on 2023-07-01. Retrieved 2023-07-01 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "The rules will be different and you'd have to get to L.A. on your own, said the executive producer with J.M. Production Co., which also produces "Starcade." While "Starcade" includes more competition in the actual playing of electronic games, "The Video Game" will be more question- and- quiz-orient- ed. Prizes will include games, robots of various sizes, video cassette recorders and others. An advantage of the new show will be that you'd have to make only one trip. "Starcade" contestants must make one trip for the audition and another for the taping. "The Video Game" will be taped live at Magic Mountain at Six Flags in Valencia, Calif., ... Contestants will be chosen from the audience in a way similar to "The Price is Right" and there are no age limits. The show will air once a week from Sept. 15 to the end of the year. ..."
  3. "Syndication". Variety. Vol. 288, no. 41. 1985-09-23. p. 90. EBSCOhost 2587875477.
    The article notes: "The Video Game is a game show designed for teens that tests their knowledge of video games. Young celebrities join host Greg Winfield in doling out hi-tech prizes. From the Video Game Corp."
  4. Nedeff, Adam (2023-05-24). "A Donkey Kong Game Show? Starcade Provided Video Gaming Star Power". The Strong National Museum of Play. Archived from the original on 2023-07-01. Retrieved 2023-07-01.
    The article notes: "The Video Game (1984, syndication) Another JM Production that began production almost immediately after “Starcade” wrapped. Contestants competed in a game structured somewhat like “The Price is Right”: the contestants would battle head-to-head in an arcade game, with the best scorer advancing to play one of several mini-games"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Video Game to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your first five sources are all WP:Tertiary sources which also do not contribute to notability.

I'm not sure either Thousand Oaks Star or The Jackson Sun could be considered "in-depth" coverage, but I guess they're something. I can't assess the Variety piece, but based on the article title I'm guessing it's just a passing mention. I definitely think The Strong National Museum of Play is not a good enough source... So, at best, that's two acceptable sources. I would still say this falls short of justifying a standalone article – I could see including a section on this show at Starcade, as per WP:NOPAGE however.

So I am still at delete, though I could see merging a little bit of the content to the article to Starcade, as per WP:NOPAGE, using the Thousand Oaks Star and The Jackson Sun to source it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The mere existence of a tertiary source implies that there is a secondary source. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get that at all. For example, a book that "lists all Atari 2600 video games" ("tertiary source") does not guarantee that every one of those games would have gotten secondary coverage (esp. not "in-depth" coverage). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TERTIARY redirects to Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, which says, "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources."

The policy says that tertiary sources can be used to establish notability. Even if tertiary sources could not be used to establish notability, Lu 2022 is a secondary source, not a tertiary source, as it contains the author's synthesis of information from primary sources.

WP:NOPAGE says:

When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic).

The Video Game is a completely different show from Starcade with different game rules, different histories, different hosts, different announcers, and different staff. It does not make sense to merge the two articles together when both are independently notable.

Cunard (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I'm still at delete, if you're ruling out any merging of content. And, yes – I don't believe that tertiary sources can be used to establish notability, regardless of what that language implies (I chalk that up to being badly worded). An article that only had tertiary sources only would almost certainly fail at WP:AfD... As for Lu 2022, that qualifies as nothing more than a "passing mention". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Wiktionary defines the word "multiple" as being "more than one". The two newspaper articles by themselves are sufficient for the television show to meet the notability guideline.

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline further says: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Lu 2022 provides 151 words of coverage about the subject. This "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content", so the source qualifies as significant coverage.

The policy Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources is not "badly worded" language. The policy is very clear that "tertiary sources" can be used to establish notability. If editors want to exclude tertiary sources from establishing notability, they need to get consensus to change the Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources policy.

That The Video Game has entries in multiple encyclopedias strongly contributes to the body of evidence establishing it is notable.

Cunard (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User Cunard's sources are sufficient to establish notability, thereby preserving NPOV and Verifiability. If there's more discussion to be had over a merge versus a separate article, or whether certain sources count as tertiary or secondary, that can be done on the articles talk pages, but it does not amount to an argument for deletion. —siro χ o 10:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No truly in-depth sources, only trivia and passing mentions. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:47, 8 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. mainly because those advocating Keep did the legwork and went out, located sources and made persuasive arguments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Public Counsel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Public Counsel

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

Fails WP:SPIP and with no secondary sources, it is a cut and dry case of WP:FAILORG Let'srun (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and California. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Question": Did the nominator do WP:BEFORE? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Let'srun (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Acts as a brochure article, advertising services. UPE. No significant references and never been referenced since it was created. Fails WP:NCORP, fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 20:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Good grief; this is a source-free advertising brochure. None of the assertions made in the article are verified or sourced, and I suspect COI; it was created by a SPA not only with no other edits, but where their user page is tagged with <Advert removed per WP:Spam>. The article was created fourteen years ago, has been notability tagged for four, and it's high time we pitched it. Ravenswing 06:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously under-referenced, but also obviously notable on its face. Almost certainly there are good refs out there, Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A cursory newspapers.com search turns up numerous relevant hits, including this one, which I have just added to the article. BD2412 T 02:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss BD2412's additions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and fix the advertisements. Chamaemelum (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs some cleanup, but it's not that bad from a promo perspective, especially after the opening sentence was improved recently. A few more minor phrase updates and we'll have a decent start. Here's some more coverage, too: A review of legal services: [19] Congressional testimony from multiple individuals who did not seem to be affiliated: [20] —siro χ o 05:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it a bit of a copyedit and added a bit of information from references above. —siro χ o 06:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - surprisingly was not able to find as many sources for this subject as expected, and I actually think coverage discussed above is not really enough. Seems kind of in limbo, I would move this to draft space for any potential improvement. - Indefensible (talk) 18:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Visviva's additional findings. Does anyone know why there is mainly coverage from decades ago but not much recently though? - Indefensible (talk) 03:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BD2412 and siroxo. Note that searching is made rather difficult here by the organization's obnoxiously generic choice of name. But here is another source, a 1980 LA Times piece on the establishment of the program: p1, p7. There also seem to be a lot of sources on HeinOnline, e.g. the search snippet for this law review article by Ted Kennedy indicates that it likely contains some discussion of the org (. . . fourteen months, Public Counsel has provided 350 lawyers to serve needy clients, and nearly $2 million worth of legal skills.). (Of course that could turn out to just be a quote from a press release or something, but maybe someone with access can check it out.) So I'd say: (a) I believe the GNG is in fact met with the sources we actually have in hand, which provide significant, independent, in-depth coverage in reliable sources; and (b) there is ample reason to believe that additional sources exist that would extinguish any remaining doubt on (a). -- Visviva (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a notable legal organization in Los Angeles legal aid community. Jumplike23 (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. 800+ Google hits in the Los Angeles Times archives, 50+ Google hits in the Orange County Register archives. Even if a few of these refer to unrelated, similarly named organizations (there is a group called "Public Counsel Opportunity Under Law" in Michigan and the Massachusetts Committee for Public Counsel Services in Massachusetts), there are clearly significant coverage out there. Neutrality^talk 00:36, 15 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 Wiel Arets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiel Arets Architects[edit]

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

Unnecessary WP:SPINOFF of Wiel Arets. I suggest redirecting per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. gidonb (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Business, Companies, and Netherlands. gidonb (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A company is not the same as its owner, and the firm may be independently notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is not about some hypothetical situation. It's about a specific article on a specific organization. Plus notability is only one variable in information governance. gidonb (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is additional background on this nomination here. gidonb (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Wiel Arets. A quick WP:BEFORE suggest that the firm is not independently notable (coverage is all lists of companies, list of projects, or focused on the architect), and in this case we need multiple sources that meet WP:SIRS. Merge should be fine, especially after a fork and split 11 or 12 years ago [21][22] —siro χ o 04:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Wiel Arets per User:Siroxo. If this does get merged, perhaps the "notable projects" section should be cut down. That list seems way too long. --My Pants Metal (talk) 17:14, 8 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!} 02:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gokuldham High School[edit]

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

Promotional article, all sources are from the school's website or similar user generated content sites. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Maharashtra. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find GNG-level sources. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, no reliable sources to support the article. - Indefensible (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am hungry to Delete it. Okoslavia (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only primary sources provided. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 13 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!} 02:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C. M. S. English Medium High School[edit]

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

No indication of notability and lack of reliable sources Ratnahastin (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Maharashtra. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is routine. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why not? Okoslavia (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No SNG, No GNG is meeting here Okoslavia (talk) 16:39, 13 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!} 02:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St Xavier's High School & Junior College (Bhandup)[edit]

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

No reliable sources, the school is not notable enough for its own article. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Maharashtra. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only primary sources provided. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 12:00, 11 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 01:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S.E.S. High School and Junior College[edit]

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

Doesn't meets the notability guidelines and overtly relies on their own websites and blogs for referencing [23] [24] Ratnahastin (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost all the sourcing is from its own blog website, same for the Hindi version. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 07:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 11 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 01:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Convent of Jesus & Mary High School & Jr. College, Kharghar[edit]

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

Lack of notability and coverage from reliable sources Ratnahastin (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Maharashtra. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Christianity. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 10 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 00:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolás Valencia[edit]

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

Does not pass GNG. Bedivere (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Chile. Bedivere (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTCV. Does not seem to meet WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC, or WP:AUTHOR. —siro χ o 03:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 11 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 00:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Oval News[edit]

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

Non notable Qwv (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Transportation, and Websites. Qwv (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article does not cite a single source. I would be open to revising my vote if sources are added.

Editchecker123 (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found a reference in Norwegian, but still probably not enough. There might be more in old newspapers from pre-2000 though. - Indefensible (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you can share the link here? I believe from WP:RS the language of the article isn't the determining factor. I’m happy to integrate it into the article. Editchecker123 (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Editchecker123 Here's the link > https://www.bilnorge.no/bilverden/ford-slutter-fred-med-blue-oval-news/1549475, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability, Other than the link above I cannot find anything at all on this news company, Fails SIGCOV & GNG>. –Davey2010^Talk 17:29, 9 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.

[1] ttps://ria.ru/20200703/1573860685.html

[1]