Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 19 June 21 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Celine Loader[edit]

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

Can't find any reliable, non-trivial mentions of her. Seems to violate Wikipedia: Notability. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nominator. Not notable person. Doesn't pass GNG. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Communications director for a bank is very much non-notable. Rest reads like a resume. Delete for not meeting NBIO. So many of these non-notable articles about people seem to come from Nigeria or India lately, something's afoot.Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - not notable. Doesn't even come close. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Not notable. I don't care. CastJared (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Athel cb (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Renfroe[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Does not appear to meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG, and is sourced with fairly trivial coverage primarily from small local papers. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - leaders of major labor unions are generally notable, but as Renfroe has just been elected, the sources are less strong. There are three articles profiling him from local newspapers, a mention in The Guardian which gives some brief biographical information, and a thorough profile from his union, which doesn't provide evidence of notability, but is helpful for additional biographical facts. Warofdreams talk 23:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Mississippi. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is notable because of leaders of major labor unions. CastJared (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep President-elect of fairly large union, even if not much coverage now likely to get it given time. PatGallacher (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is enough media coverage of him. Suitskvarts (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG with secondary sources. Lightburst (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Star Wars: The Force Unleashed. Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starkiller[edit]

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

Almost the entire reception are entirely made of listicles/passing mentions that amount to WP:REFBOMB. Cannot find a single WP:SIGCOV somehow. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Star Wars: The Force Unleashed. There’s some decent info about the development of the character even if like most vg characters he’s not independently notable. Dronebogus (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Honestly surprised he didn't take off as a character, but as others have pointed out elsewhere his unfortunate naming certainly didn't help and the character didn't have the impact I believe everyone expected he would when the games were first announced beyond "Wait, why is he in Soulcalibur?"--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was overshadowed by his more famous brother Base Starkiller Dronebogus (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the article being delisted as GA, but I disagree with the nom's assertion that the reception is "entirely" made up of listicles and passing mentions. For example, Polygon referred to him as "Star Wars' last great video game character" in a full length article, which denotes his importance. His name is referenced in Star Wars canon, which raised the character's profile beyond most of his expanded universe ilk. As Dronebogus have conceded, there is in fact decent information about the character's development. Is he independently notable? The aggregate coverage about the character's development and reception appears to be meet the threshold of significant coverage, certainly more so then Starkiller Base which does not even have an article devoted to the concept. Haleth (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the Polygon article previously and you'd think it would have more of substance, but the title ironically has more commentary than the article itself. It's largely just a plot summary of what happened to him, and I would not call it "full length". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per comment above, I think Polygon is the only useful source at the article somehow. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like Haleth, I believe that the "aggregate coverage about the character's development and reception appears to be meet the threshold of significant coverage", as shown in the amount of reception fullfilling WP:WHYN. In addition, The Best of Star Wars Insider Volume 4, p. 23, Myth, Media, and Culture in Star Wars, p. 146 and Spielerische Fiktionen, p. 286, all have some commentary on the character. Daranios (talk) 10:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the first not a WP:PRIMARY source? "Star Wars Insider" states it is an official magazine and would have an obvious reason to write about Starkiller, amongst other characters. The others appear to be small mentions in the context of a plot summary, though I don't speak German so I cannot ultimately be 100% sure about the last one. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm: Being a character in fiction, I'd say the games and related pieces of fiction are the primary sources, and the magazine is a secondary one. However, it would be a non-independant one (and an interview), so presumably that one source does not count towards notability (but nonetheless as reliable). But the other two should, and none of them is a listicle or passing mention - the main points of critique by the nominator. All three have commentary beyond plot summary, and the interview with the voice actor about the creative process for the character is relevant in that regard. Daranios (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What is there could be improved, but I feel like it barely reaches GNG in its current state. In my search, I've noticed articles about Starkiller that would constitute sigcov. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Star Wars: The Force Unleashed. From the demonstrated sources, I am unconvinced SIGCOV from secondary sources exists for this character. While they are claimed to be significant, this is not borne out from my examination of them. Therefore I must vehemently agree this character should be merged. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Zxcvbnm. There is some grey area with how Wikipedia handles listicles, but "10 Of The Most Overpowered Force Users In Star Wars Legends, Ranked" or " "Top 25 Gaming Hunks" don't count for much. They don't make this character notable in a qualitative sense, nor do they provide readers with any meaningful information. I can see how this character could be mentioned as part of what made the game notable. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Nearly all of the reception is trivial. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is about equal support for Merge and Keep (though Merge has the advantage). Clearly no consensus to Delete this article, just a decision to be made on what should happen next.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Nocturnal Emissions. Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sterile Records[edit]

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

NN record label. Related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earthly Delights (record label). No reliable sources. UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is support for a Merge but no Merge target specified. Earthly Delights is being merged to Nocturnal Emissions, is this a possible Merge target as well?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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! 22:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vermillion Lies[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG ---FMSky (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, and Music. FMSky (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did find a few sources,this one from a local newspaper called Monterey County Weekly [1] while it appears to be independent from the subject and there is some decent coverage, it is a local newspaper and the article has a pinch of "oh goodie! the local gals are back", this one is from 2007 published in the Register-Guard [2] has a small write up abouth the sisiters,their show and instruments. Arguably the best coverage of the article appears in this NPR piece from 2007 [3]. The sources which are already on the article are from Monterey County Weekly [4] which is not full accesible without paying and thus the exact quality of coverage can't be determined also, there are 2 more sources from Taos News at the bottom of that page which are no longer accesible and are not available on the Taos News website either. The one from Curve magazine does appear entirely promotional at first but it might have some coverage [5] but, once again its behind a paywall. If someone could confirm the quality of the Curve sourceor the Taos News sources, find other sources then I'd think about a "weak keep". Bingobro (Chat) 09:44, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by Visviva. Bingobro (Chat) 08:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think the sources above quite get us to WP:GNG especially considering the article is written fairly promotionally. SportingFlyer T·C 15:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given that additional sources exist if there is anyone who has the ability to evaluate whether or not they help to reach GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, I am not overwhelmed by the quality of the sources but the following clips from Newspapers.com seem like they could provide sufficient sourcing for an adequate article:
  • Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this AfD from newspapers and magazines that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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! 23:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Asquith[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet GNG, being in the Guinness World Records book isn't notable. Rest is trivial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of the articles that I found were essentially interviews, and some are copies of each other. He self-published a book. That's all I can find. Also, I looked him up on the Guinness site and he doesn't turn up in a search there, so we really only have his word that he holds a record. Lamona (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 14:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sukanya Barua[edit]

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

Does not meet minimum requirement for WP:NACTOR. Of the six sourced referenced in the article, the first is a website called Wikiwiki which mirrors Wikipedia formatting and structure; the second source is an interview granted by the subject, and the third source is simply a plot of a film the subject starred in and received only single mention in the list of characters. The remaining sources do not establish notability Noneate (talk) 15:42, 13 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! 22:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. ✗plicit 01:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Connor[edit]

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

Non-notable radio presenter, all sourcing is from the BBC or simple confirmation of the program the individual hosts. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Radio, and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify There is a Frankie Connor who was a member of a '60's band "The Hideaways" and I suppose this could be the same person. However, nowhere on the BBC pages do I find anything that would give me any info about this person so that this connection could be made or disproved. Some biographical information is necessary to even place this person in a historical slot. If that can't be found, the article should not be moved to WP main space. Lamona (talk) 22:08, 16 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! 22:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify - this BBC article [6] confirms Connor was a member of the notable band The Hideaways (band) 1963-1972. There is potential for notability as both a radio personality and a musician - recommend giving article author time to find sources. Happy to change !vote if further sources available. ResonantDistortion 12:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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! 23:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Brusseau[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a singer-songwriter, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claim here is that she released her first five-song EP a few months ago, which is not a notability pass per se in the absence of significant WP:GNG-worthy coverage about her music -- but there's no sourcing about her music shown here at all, and instead the footnotes exist entirely in the context of her also having been a lighting designer in local community theatre. But that doesn't satisfy any Wikipedia inclusion criteria either, and two of those four footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, while both of the other two are reviews of the theatre show by high school students in minor community hyperlocals, which both briefly mention Brusseau's name without being about her in any non-trivial sense, meaning that isn't enough coverage to magically vault her over WP:GNG either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a much stronger notability claim, and much better referencing for it, than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 13 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! 22:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely PROMO. all I can find is this [7], she was in a high school play? I'm not even sure it's the same person. There is nothing found for this musician. Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources listed are not independent and also do not support notability, and certainly not notability as a musician. Bensci54 (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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! 22:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flotilla effect[edit]

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

The term "Flotilla Effect" is coined in the paper (Price & Levinger, 2011) cited on the page. However it is not used anywhere else. It is entirely a concept coined by politicians and released on behalf of the Green-EFA group in the EU parliament. It has no wider currency. The page has a heading "scholarly references", but while these 3 papers do all cite (Price & Levinger, 2011) for their purposes, none of them actually refer to, nor use the term "Flotilla Effect". Page content indicates this is very much a local political issue. (Price & Levinger, 2011) only has 5 citations according to Google Scholar. Welsh newspapers are used to bolster the credibility, but all simply refer to the political "think tank" paper. There is simply no notable subject here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Europe, and Wales. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I agree that the number of sources is not expansive, but the article does reference 14 sources (+1 that seems self published), including multiple news articles from different establishments. There are multiple scholarly productions that do mention the term "Flotilla effect" e.g the original by Adam Price [8], one by Cardiff University [9] (and a third by a Plaid researcher [10].) I agree with your banner that the vast majority are focused on Wales with the exception of one mention in Scotland.
    There could be a reasonable argument to move content from this page to Economy of Wales and/or Welsh devolution and/or Welsh independence which would be more sensible than a delete. In future, it may be more appropriate to propose a Merge in situations such as these. Titus Gold (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of the sources cited do not refer to the term "Flotilla effect", they refer to the document itself, "The Flotilla effect". (There's also no need to link to academia.edu, the third document is available on the actual site[11]!) A few other sources I looked at do this as well. If there is no use for the term, or even much non-independent reference to the paper, the best merge target would surely be Adam Price. CMD (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in my source search, it appears to be a term coined in an academic paper which saw no re-use apart from its authors and a small handful of cites. Non-notable term. SportingFlyer T·C 08:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although a minor mention could be retained/merged with Adam Price, as the paper is usually credited to Price rather than Plaid Cymru or the Welsh independence movement as a whole. Some sources (some are blogs) are from Price himself or other Plaid politicians or a self-published source, questioning the independence of some sources, while the scholary references are mainly a passing mention, while wider sources were short-lived being mainly from when the paper was first published, with no developments since. So essentially this article is on a minorly cited Plaid Cymru research paper, with little independent coverage outside associating with Price, Plaid or Wales. DankJae 15:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a selective Merge with Adam Price or another target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I am not really convinced there is a need to add this to the Adam Price article, as the term has seen no re-use beyond the initial press releases, and those were not independent. However I don't oppose a minor mention there.
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Procedural keep‎. I respectfully conclude this discussion, in line with the fourth criterion, as a procedural keep. The closure is based on the fact that the editor who initiated the discussion was blocked on the 1913th of June, when they started it the same day they made the nomination. According to WP:SK guidelines, if "The nominator was blocked or banned at the time of making the nomination, so they were not supposed to edit. In that case, the nominated page is kept while the nomination can be removed from the log". Considering this circumstance, it appears that the ongoing AfD (Articles for Deletion) discussion may not be considered valid, and it would be appropriate to close it as a procedural keep, especially considering the general consensus among most participants. However, I will proceed with reviewing the article's references and, if necessary, will initiate a new deletion discussion. If anyone has already assessed the sourcing and believes the page fails to meet the required standards, please feel free to renominate it. (non-admin closure) AmusingWeasel (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SI-UK[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP as none of the sources provides significant coverage on this company. Coverage is limited to badly disguised press releases and passing mentions. Maduant (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC) (sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC))[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, and United Kingdom. Maduant (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan, Thailand, and Delhi. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This company is among the largest, and there are several reputable sources like IndianExpress, FreePressJournal, BusinessWorld, HeraldScotland, and DailyExcelsior that provide comprehensive coverage. Additionally, there are numerous other sources available online. The company operates in over 40 countries and has partnerships with leading UK universities. It also received a 'highly commended' recognition in the Student Counselling Organization of the Year category at the 2021 Pioneer Awards. By incorporating these sources, the article can be enhanced and benefit greatly. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to retain the article and mark it for improvement instead of deletion.Zehnasheen (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the article should be deleted in accordance with the rationale provided by the nominator. RPSkokie (talk) 13:09, 20 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! 22:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Glanced through some of the references, thinly veiled press releases indeed. However, if the nom was blocked then is the afd still valid? --Ouro (blah blah) 02:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Given that the nominator is presently under a ban, it may be essential to adhere to the appropriate procedural closure and then proceed with re-nominating the article. RPSkokie (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Response to comment is re-nominating the article prescribed under procedure or voluntary? Can You point me to the rules please? --Ouro (blah blah) 15:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A nomination can continue if the nominator is discovered to be a sockpuppet. What I have seen is that if there were no "Delete" votes, then the discussions are closed early as a procedural "Keep". But since there is a difference of opinion here, the discussion can continue. Liz Read! Talk! 04:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. No input is forthcoming, and no clarity whether the named chair counter Dr vulpes' early input. Star Mississippi 02:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kamran Talattof[edit]

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

Years ago (in 2011), the article Kamran Talatoff was nominated for deletion and deleted following a proper review. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamran Talatoff. This article appears to be about the same person. I am nominating this article because its history predates the article that was deleted, and since they both appear to be about the same person, the same deletion rationale appears to exist. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @UtherSRG: I considered that, but since it's been 12 years since the original AFD, I thought some consideration was due. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous and this current nom Karnataka (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic
  • Comment: No consideration on Keeping or Deleting yet. CastJared (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @CastJared: Can I ask why you edited this page if you have no opinion? (This is a serious inquiry -- I'm curious if this edit somehow affects the AFD process overall or your interaction with this process.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, I'm not sure if I vote to keep or delete. CastJared (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Then don't comment unless you have something constructive to add to the discussion. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPROF, let's go down the list
    The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.: Can't really tell, they've published in a really small field but even then the citation count is low. That said if there's an expert in this area who can enlighten me on the notability within the field please ping me.
    The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.: Looking at their CV I don't see anything
    The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).: Not from what I can tell
    The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.: Does have a few cross campus grants but nothing major.
    The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.: Not a named chair
    The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.: Not the president of an academic society
    The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.: Not able to find anything
    The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.: Not the chief editor of a major mainstream established academic journal.
    If I've missed something please ping me. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 00:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could find no academic reviews, which are usually a better indicator of notability than citations in the humanities, of Talattof's work. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC) (see below)[reply]
  • Keep : Multiple independent reviews of at least two of his books. Have added to page. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC))[reply]
    I don't know what was wrong with my previous searches, but I see those now. The subject passes WP:AUTHOR, which in the humanities implies a pass of WP:PROF#C1. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NPROF. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Does his being listed as the Elahé Omidyar Mir-Djalali Chair in Persian and Iranian Studies (here https://persian.arizona.edu/faculty) count as having a named chair and thus allow a pass of WP:PROF 5 ? (Msrasnw (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep As the person who nominated this article I should explain that I only did so because this article existed at the time that the prior AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamran Talatoff; same person, different spelling) was discussed, but apparently missed scrutiny due to an oversight at that time. Whether or not this article would have been retained at that time (2011), Talattof's notability appears sufficient now to retain the article. The many scholarly reviews of his writings, and the fact that he occupies a named chair (although one could question whether the University of Arizona consitutes a "major university") appear sufficient to pass WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the OP has just recently become a "Keep", give time for the "Deletes" to consider; first relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aszx5000 (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the information uncovered above by Msrasnw: He was given an endowed professorship at the University of Arizona in 2016, as Roshan Institute Chair in Persian and Iranian Studies [12] and has since become Elahé Omidyar Mir-Djalali Chair in Persian and Iranian Studies, clearly passing WP:PROF#C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS I note that there are WP:AUTOBIO issues in the edit history (not so much in the current version of the article). They are not a reason for deletion, and if necessary can be handled by protecting the article from being edited by the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after nominator's change of opinion. COI issues still need to be dealt with but that can be handled later if this article is Kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dilshad Kamaludheen[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the notability guidelines. zoglophie 21:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment:I have followed all the guidelines and notability of Wikipedia strictly. I have also written it in a neutral point of view. Apart from that, this page was approved and reviewed by a senior Wikipedia editor yesterday only. Her name is User:Florentyna. she has 16,000 edits in her profile and have created 1700 Articles. If there was any problem, she wouldn't have approved it in the first place, right?. but still, i will check the content and add more References if that's the case. Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 05:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the notability guidelines. I have taken some of the references directly from the Tournamentsoftware.com and news articles, pdfs to support the contents where the person participated in tournaments. It is an official data where State Level, National and international matches are recorded for badminton and since, this page falls under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons - Wikipedia. It mentioned that it should have Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V) and No original research (NOR) So, i made this article with respect to that and whatever content i have wrote. i made sure that i have evidence to back it and i have mention that for each content i have written with regards to the primary, secondary, and tertiary sources of the Wikipedia guideline. Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:The person has significant amount of coverage found on the internet some of the following references are listed below (You may find more on the internet) -
  1. "Players: Dilshad Kamaludheen". bwfbadminton.com. Badminton World Federation.
  2. "Dilshad steals the show with easy wins". gulfnews.com. 22 May 2005. Retrieved 14 June 2023.
  3. "KAMALUDHEEN Dilshad | Profile". bwfbadminton.com. Retrieved 14 June 2023
  4. Technologies, Melonsys. "The Official Website of Badminton Association of India |
  5. BadmintonIndia.org". www.badmintonindia.org. Retrieved 26 May 2023. "Achievements". MG School of Physical Education and Sports Sciences. Retrieved 14 June 2023.
  6. "All Kerala snooker tourney from July 31". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 26 May 2023.
  7. AIU team still in limbo". The Hindu. 4 November 2012. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 14 June 2023.
  8. "Double for Mahatma Gandhi Varsity in badminton tourney". The Times of India. 19 December 2013. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 26 May 2023.
  9. "Mixed day for Indian shuttlers at Canada Open". The Hindu. 25 June 2015. ISSN 0971-751X. Archived from the original on 2016. Retrieved 14 June 2023.
  10. Narayan, Shankar (17 June 2015). "Manu Attri and B.Sumeeth Reddy through to the second round of US Open Grand Prix Gold". www.sportskeeda.com. Retrieved 14 June 2023.
  11. da, kd (2015). "Kerala State Level Championships 2014 - 2015" (PDF). Ijssindia: 1.
  12. "Air Costa 70th Inter State - Inter Zonal Badminton Championships 2015 at Vijayaw - Results for Rahimtoola Cup for Men". www.tournamentsoftware.com. Retrieved 27 May 2023.
  13. "Air India, PSPB triumph". The Hindu. 1 February 2015. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 27 May 2023.
  14. Kerala shuttler gets two-year suspension". The Times of India. 8 November 2018. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 21 May 2023.
  15. "KBSA backtracks, lifts N. G. Balasubramannian's two-year suspension". sportstar.thehindu.com. 8 November 2018. Retrieved 21 May 2023.
  16. Commissioner, Principal. "Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs" (PDF). Indian Revenue Service.
Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 09:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After checking out the updated references and analyzing it with the updated contents . I assume that this article qualify the basic criteria of WP:NSPORT and WP:GNGBaddyzone (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would clarify that all the sources above are either listings of the player names or just passing mentions. The sources are far from having significant coverage of the player. Moreover, this player doesn't even pass the old WP:NBAD guidelines, let alone the present one. So, the above claims of having any kind of notability are just false.
    Also, are the accounts Baddyzone and the creator themself are anyhow related? Because Baddyzone created Draft:Dilshad Kamaludheen and Syed Sadique being an extended confirmed user made the article themselves! This seems suspicious too. zoglophie 14:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, I will answer your questions honestly one by one.
    i think not all the sources are just listings of the player names or just passing mention. let me show you some of the articles which has some good amount of coverage about the person -
    Rayan, Stan (2009). "Dilshad: Making good progress". The Hindu. p. 1.
    "Dilshad steals the show with easy wins". gulfnews.com. 22 May 2005. Retrieved 14 June 2023.
    His partner Balasubramanian had a 2-year ban which didn't permitted them to participate in the competitions. His partner posted a viral picture on social media comparing how the Kerala state association treats their winners to other state winners. Due to this controversy they both got decent media coverage. i have mentioned about this. since, I wanted the article to be written in Neutral point of view.
    - "Kerala shuttler gets two-year suspension". The Times of India. 8 November 2018. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 21 May 2023.
    - KBSA backtracks, lifts N. G. Balasubramannian's two-year suspension". sportstar.thehindu.com. 8 November 2018. Retrieved 21 May 2023.
    - KBSA temporarily lifts suspension on shuttler NG Balasubramannian". The Times of India. 9 November 2018. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 14 June 2023.
    Pls Note -
    I have mentioned the references on the basis of sentences i have written so, that i am able to provide evidence. For e.g. - The person has a podium finish in Lago International in 2015 which comes under the category of International Challenge. Majority of the references are to prove that the person has taken part in the tournaments he played from primary, secondary and tertiary sources which can support each sentences i have writtern.
    Coming to your 2nd point - The player was primarily active from 2009 - 2015. So, i am not quite sure with the old guidelines since i have joined this place in 2022. Now, i asked a professional badminton player before 2017 the top tournaments in badmintons - The Olympics, World Championships, International Challenge (In which he had a Podium Finish) Grand Prix Gold, Grand Prix, Super Series, International Series and Future Series. I am not sure which tournament is bigger expect the Olympics and world championship. Since, the WP:NBAD guidelines hasn't measure about the ranking system of the badminton tournaments so, assumed that a podium finish in International Challenge will work. He did participated in Super series, Grand Prix and Grand Prix Gold. But i am not sure about his podium finish in any of these .. more amount of research will be required. have and as you know BWF announced a new tournament structure in March 2017 so, that add more to the confusion.
    i made this article on the basis of Notability guidelines. since no original research was required, it has verification from independent verifiable sources like The Hindu, Gulf News, Indian Express , BWF Official tournaments data, etc...the article that i have created alot of secondary source) with regards to the match he played. Now, as you know Wikipedia is a free open-source encyclopedia which contents alot of complex guidelines. one has to follow but sometimes situation gets complex which confuse people.
    Also, If you read the 3rd Question's Answer in WP:NSPORT It says -
    Q3 - If a sports figure does not meet the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean they do not meet Wikipedia's notability standards?
    A3: No, it does not mean this—if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then they meet Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if they do not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist.
    Q4: What is considered a "reasonable amount of time" to uncover appropriate sources?
    A4: There is no fixed rule, as it may differ in each specific case. Generally, though, since there is no fixed schedule to complete Wikipedia articles, given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found, Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English-language sources are difficult to find. For a contemporary sports figure in a sport that is regularly covered by national media in English, less leeway may be given.
    Lastly, my article basically was reviewed and checked by a senior editor and literally just after 1 day it straight away was nominated for deletion. Like, I think an info notice would have been good so, that i could have done some more research about the person and if would have failed than i would have accepted my terms but anyways it fine. Because Here we are! Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum : why did you create an article of the subject, the draft of whom was rejected on 19th April 2023 dear Syed Sadique Hussain? As an extended confirmed member, you should've checked thoroughly before you created this article. Did Baddyzone told you to help him with this article, the result of which you created the page for this subject on 27th May 2023? That's concerning, really! zoglophie 14:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I created this article after checking the number of reliable sources i could find. due to that i saw a potential for creating a Wikipedia article for this subject. yes, it is true that the draft was rejected and i knew about that. Now, if you check the draft, it had lack of information and it had only 5 references that's it and obviously it got rejected because of that. Now, if you compare it with the article i have created.... it has 25 references with evidence for each sentence and it was checked and reviewed by the senior editor who didn't find any problem. But yes, except the WP:NBAD that too for which i was not clear. since, i didn't knew the order of the tournaments which ranks higher and lower since, most of them got discontinued after 2017 and according to the 3rd and 4th Question's Answer in WP:NSPORT i thought i could have done this thing later... but faith has something else for me.
    I also like to mention that the reason why i choose this specific article is because of the media coverage it got since, both the badminton player that is Balasubramaniam and Dilshad was part of the controversy with regards to 2-year ban for the alleged ill treatments they got from Kerala badminton association. As you know about the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) President Brij Bhushan case that has recently been alot in controversy recently with regards to alleged sexual harassment case by wrestlers.
    Now, i would like to tell you that i didn't know about User: Buddy zone in Wikipedia and didn't notice that he was the one who drafted the page honestly, until you told me. (Sorry for that) ...Also, this is my only Wikipedia account. and i don't operate any other account in Wikipedia. I was surfing through the rejected draft article in Wikipedia and got into it while searching the name about this article in google where the Kerala badminton Assocation ban controversy pop up and based on my previous experience controversy topics are covered extensively in news articles that can act as secondary source. additionally, the person also had a good number of references so, i thought i can create a good article for this ... Since, the page has nominated for deletion i am trying to connect with Dilshad through LinkedIn so, that i can ask him whether he had a podium finish in BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix or not. Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Syed Sadique Hussain you don't need to ask him. I'll tell you why. Just go to his BWF profile you yourself linked below the infobox. :-)) zoglophie 07:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, i did. it was posted by me after this article got nominated for deletion lol... :') That is on 14th June and i was inactive for 3 days since i was travelling. Honestly, i wasn't able to check it properly since, i got the profile on that day, if i would have got it before thinks would have been different Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Funny thing is the creator Syed Sadique Hussain is not himself sure if this subject actually passes the guidelines and still he made this article. This adds up to the concern I expressed above if he was told to create such a non notable page in Wikipedia. What SSH just did is copy-pasting of the guidelines yet you fail to prove that the article you created is fit for inclusion in Wikipedia and actually pass those guidelines. I reviewed each and every source and I will tell you again that they are all passing mentions and do not pass the criteria set out at WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. It doesn't matter who reviewed or not, if it comes in sight that such an article exists in Wikipedia, it will automatically be nominated for deletion. zoglophie 07:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Alright, zoglophie. Next time if i get a chance i will put a whole book as a reference for the above Wikipedia article Haha... i think that might satisfy you lol Also, with regards to passing mentions what exact reference do you want? as i mention before Majority of the references are based on the tournaments he played. it depicts only the Information that is needed to support the sentence that is been written in the above Wikipedia article see -WP:BLPSTYLE and i don't think the verifiable news outlet would like to mention the personal life or what he had for lunch before playing the match and all haha. i have written article for news organization personally and i will only mention those things which is valid for the news with regards to him while he is playing the tournament. I would be glad if you can tell me which WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV criteria its violates like in detail.... is it the independent sources? is it the reliable sources? or is it all of them? i do agree on that there is less dedicated article on the person, but you know we can't put self - published article in Wikipedia. since, it's against the guidelines. it will also help me to be pre - cautious next time since, we have to take alot of guidelines together. I would like to tell you that this was my first article i created for a sport person. i have created article before but for people of completely different domain.
    Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an apparent disagreement over the quality of the sources. Please keep your suspicions to yourself, it you have evidence of sockpuppetry or any misconduct, then take it to the appropriate noticeboard and out of deletion discussions. The focus here is on the article subject and not contributors to the page or participants in the discussion. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - he is a medalist, former team captain, and several of his opponents and teammates have their own articles. Sufficiently notable and with good ref coverage. - Indefensible (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Medalist in old guidelines meant at least a silver medal. So which guideline you are talking about? What piece of prose you found to be considered sufficiently notable? Strange seeing this coming from such an old contributor of Wikipedia. zoglophie 05:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Analysis, *1 is just a database, no sigcov, 2 is only passing mention with match result, 3 is a repetition of 1, 4 again a database, 5 repetition of the 4th, 6 is match result, 7 is list of players, 8 does not even mention him, 9 again passing mention, 10 match result again, 11 list of winners hence a database, 12 match result yet again, 13 same instance of match result passing mention, 14 says he got banned from participation, yet again only a passing mention, 15 again passing, 16 a database entry, not sure how did it came here, but it did. There is no instance of indepth in sourcing, no significant coverage, keep votes fail to address the bad sources available for him. Moreover he does not even touch WP:NBAD from a long long way. Clear cut deletion candidate. zoglophie 05:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject won a national-level university championship for a major country and then a state-level tournament for a jurisdiction which by itself would be comparable to a fairly major country. That is probably good enough in my opinion. What is the harm in keeping the article if the content is factual and supported by references? Keeping this article helps expand coverage and diversifies Wikipedia. Also I believe 8 does mention the subject. - Indefensible (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    you don't understand WP:GNG , WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBAD. Your keep vote is like yes, they have some passing mentions in references and they won a non notable competition, so keep. Yep, they do no harm to me or any Wikipedia editor. zoglophie 07:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Glasson[edit]

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

Seems to mostly receive passing mentions as a supporting player on other musicians' works rather than getting significant coverage individually. Present sources -- aside from the obviously unreliable IMDb pages -- consist of an interview, an article about another musician which gives Glasson a sentence of praise (which is apparently student-run/looks bloglike so may be unreliable itself), and an article from The Stage which I can't access but is the only promising piece I've seen. An extensive discography without any coverage or other signs of notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Working backwards, The Waeve were recently on the BBC and Charlotte has been acknowledged as a member of the band, along with Tom White.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001mfpb/later-with-jools-holland-series-62-episode-2
The work on the soundtrack for Raw, A Field in England and Possessor have all been award nominated (including a César) and her continued collaboration with Jim Williams is documented in Wikipedia. Recent recorded work has been reviewed and discussed in Jazzwise,
https://www.jazzwise.com/review/charlotte-glasson-bonito
Which reference do you believe to be student-run? Is this the UK Parliamentary Jazz society? I would agree with you that they need a web-designer but this is an official body.
Material that has not been cited include the following:
https://breconjazz.org/artist/charlotte-glasson-band/
https://www.restormelarts.co.uk/the-charlotte-glasson-band/
https://buxtonfestival.co.uk/whats-on/charlotte-glasson-band
She is an award winning jazz musician and member of Stornaway and The Weave. Both band are current, considered important in their respective genre, and on tour at the moment. She was a member of The Divine Comedy and has played on tour and on film with Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds. This is before we mention her work as a composer and arranger. Ruse1966 (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The potentially student-run/bloglike source is Cardiffstudentmedia.co.uk QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:02, 1 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! 23:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Although the current sourcing is weak we shouldn't discount the thestage.co.uk article that we can't see. The Quench article is from a student publications but Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources doesn't exclude them. From their website: "Quench is Cardiff University’s award-winning lifestyle magazine, published five times a year, both physically and online." With the additional sources identified there seems to be sufficient coverage to warrant an article. In addition I found this The Daily Journal article. Gab4gab (talk) 16:47, 9 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! 22:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 02:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Waimora[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after article additions (for review)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The "Change Maker" Sol Star piece is mostly a low-quality interview, with ~8 sentences by the interviewer that are arguably independent. It's better than the other sources, but still hardly substantial. Every single other source is either trivial or non-independent. That is nowhere close to meeting GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @GiantSnowman:, Per above. Clearly significant figure in Solomon football. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As Joelle says, one decent source is not enough. GiantSnowman 07:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Frank Sinatra. The history remains under the redirect if someone wants to merge. Star Mississippi 02:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Make a Beggar of Me[edit]

Don't Make a Beggar of Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing much on the page to suggest notability - i don't see anything else which would appear to meet WP:NSONG JMWt (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music. JMWt (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - As a song from 1953, online sources are slim but it does have a song-specific review at AllMusic (already cited) which is unusual. A Google Books search reveals that Sinatra biographers have discussed this song often, which is noteworthy for a guy who recorded several hundred songs. This one is discussed in biographies as either emblematic of tough times that Sinatra was going through that year, or as a distinct example of his work with various collaborators of the period. These matters are discussed in the books Sinatra! The Song Is You: A Singer's Art, September in the Rain: The Life of Nelson Riddle, Frank Sinatra: An Extraordinary Life, Frank: The Voice, Sessions with Sinatra: Frank Sinatra and the Art of Recording. With all that being said, I will admit that the article is unlikely to be much more than a stub, even with expansion from those book sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My opinion - fwiw - is that we can't really take bios as strong indications of the notability of works of the person under discussion. It wouldn't be surprising if a book of this type mentioned say 50+ of the songs they'd written, and I'm not sure that means all 50 are then notable enough to have a WP page. Again just my opinion. JMWt (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The song is mentioned in several discographies for Sinatra, this is about the most review-ish one I could find [13]. I can't see that it charted, so it may not have had much critical attention. Oaktree b (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge might be a better fit if we merge it to the Sinatra article, seems to be an early song with some discussions about it in books, but not really enough for it's own article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If merging, consider the results. His biography and life story would be sidetracked by an incongruously detailed discussion of this one song, which could raise an issue with WP:UNDUE. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Arguments came down on whether given sources satisfied the significance/depth requirements of SIGCOV/NCORP criteria; there's a consensus that the sources provided do not meet those requirements. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CharterUP[edit]

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

Paid-for corporate puff piece about a bus-related company that is so blatantly an advert for a non-notable company that even the bus enthusiasts are ignoring the article. We cannot allow paid-for promotional articles to go unchallenged. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not strictly accurate to say notability is the only that an article may be deleted. Notability is only one of the 14 reasons listed in WP:DELREASON, and it is explicitly not an exhaustive list. That said, the Axios article does not appear satisfactory, I do intend to look through the available sourcing before a bolded !vote. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha3031, I'm curious - any particular reason the Axios article doesn't count? Also, which of the 14 reasons in WP:DELREASON do you think apply? --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's routine coverage @A. B.? Is there any reason why you think it counts towards ORGCRIT or even GNG despite that? Even beyond the ORGIND issues that their practices raise, which I'm frankly not going to evaluate because failing CORPDEPTH is already enough, "standard notices" have been explicitly treated in CORP for quite a while now (since 2011 at least). I'm not going to write a full rationale until I'm back at my desk, I just thought I'd mention that DELPOL explicitly includes (but does not limit itself to) 13 other reasons. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for carefully considering sources before adding a bolded vote, Alpha3031. I replied to a vote to delete below with the same sources, but two I believe establish WP:SIGCOV are the Austin American Statesman piece[1] and the Forbes article (written by a senior contributor, but a subject matter expert)[2]. Michellecharterup (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Austin American Statesman piece is just a re-wording of a corporate press release - https://www.tritiumpartners.com/news-article/real-time-charter-bus-marketplace-charterup-raises-60m-series-a-led-by-tritium-partners 10mmsocket (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The byline on the article shows that Lori Hawkins, a trusted business reporter, considered the information to be trustworthy. Michellecharterup (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As required per WP:AVOIDCOI, I am disclosing my interest in this article as an employee of the subject of this article. I also disclosed the conflict of interest in my personal profile before submitting any content or edits.
I acknowledge and appreciate the concerns raised by 10mmsocket regarding the potential conflict of interest, and agree that promotional language has no place in Wikipedia. However, I would also like to stress the importance of assessing the potential notability of the subject independently of my own conflict of interest.
The CharterUP article may have been initially composed by a paid editor (myself), but we must remember that the essence of Wikipedia is to foster collaborative editing. Instead of outright deletion, it would be more productive to encourage edits that remove promotional language and add neutrality to the article. This is an open invitation to all editors, including 10mmsocket, to participate in further refining the article.
On the topic of notability, CharterUP's relevance has been validated by coverage in multiple established media sources, as A._B. previously mentioned.
A fair bit of content that establishes CharterUP's notability, including the company's role in helping the charter bus industry recover from the pandemic, appears to have been removed in an attempt to eliminate the potential promotional tone of the article. It would be beneficial to the article and to Wikipedia's readers to consider reinstating and rephrasing these sections in a neutral tone, to adequately represent the company's significance in the industry.
The core argument here seems to be against promotional language rather than against the inherent notability of CharterUP. This indicates a need for revision and neutral editing, rather than outright deletion. My history will show that I have submitted edits based on recommendations for improvement, and I would be glad to continue this effort – however, given this discussion, I think those edits would be more meaningful from a Wikipedia user with no connection to the subject. --Michellecharterup (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United States of America. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources fail to provide WP:SIGCOV so fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    UtherSRG, could you explain why the sources cited in the article fail to provide WP:SIGCOV? The Austin American Statesman article is a bylined article that speaks about CharterUP's Fortune 500 clients and recent Series A investment.[3] The Forbes article details the pandemic's impact on the motorcoach industry and how CharterUP is helping operators recover.[4]. While the Forbes piece is written by a senior contributor (WP:FORBESCON), I would argue that author Ed Garsten is a subject matter expert and the piece would therefore be considered a reliable source as suggested in WP:RS/P. Garsten has been covering the auto industry since 1989, first as CNN Detroit Bureau Chief, then as the National Auto Writer for the Associated Press, General Motors beat writer at the Detroit News and video reporter at Automotive News.[5] Michellecharterup (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both articles include a significant portion of their facts directly from Harris, who is inherently not independent of the subject, being the company's CEO. Discounting that info, there isn't much left to call significant coverage. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your time and the explanation you provided. I understand the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including WP:SIGCOV.
    Although the news articles rely heavily on quotes and facts from Armir Harris, these outlets have been determined as reliable sources because of their "reputation for fact-checking, accuracy, and error-correction, often in the form of a strong editorial team." Having been privy to the publishing process of these pieces, I can share that the reporters involved in the creation of these articles carried out an extensive fact-checking process with industry associations, federal data sets, and financial reports. That said, I do recognize that Wikipedia's policy is to focus on the content that is directly present within the sources.
    Would it bolster the subject's notability to cite sources such as Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration data? Please accept my apologies if this is not the appropriate platform to pose these questions. I am more than willing to continue this discussion on the talk page or any other recommended venue. Michellecharterup (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely any bus operator will have such data? All that would confirm is that the company exists, not that it is notable. There are dozens of ways to confirm existence. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    10mmsocket: This discussion may be a sign that I've done a poor job describing the role of CharterUP in the industry. Much of the data that the cited articles attribute to Armir Harris (as pointed out by UtherSRG) can be verified by independent federal data sources. That discussion seems to be straying from your original question of CharterUP's notability.
    More than 600 independent bus operators participate in CharterUP's marketplace by offering automatic bids for trip requests placed through the self-serve quote feature.[6][7][8][9] According to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration data, there are 2,014 bus operators registered as of May 23, 2023 [10]. I'm surprised that the notability of a marketplace connecting ~30% of the nation's motorcoach operators with groups in need of transportation is being questioned, but I look forward to learning how to better describe the platform within Wikipedia's guidelines. Michellecharterup (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Austin American Statesman article is heavily based on the same press release by Tritium Partners,[11] that is used by Metro Atlanta CEO article you quote, and also by Yahoo. So two sources you assert to be notable are nothing more than company press releases. Again, I assert that this article is a paid-for corporate puff piece that has no place on Wikipedia. You should consider whether it is worth an employee of the company continuing to push a discredited article, or just gracefully withdrawing. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The CharterUP article has not been discredited until an admin makes that decision. Michellecharterup (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Admins don't delete articles - unless they qualify for speedy deletion of course. It is the peer group of editors who determine, based on discussion, whether an article should be deleted. I'm saying it's a paid-for corporate puff piece based on sources that are predominantly derived from press-releases. It is discredited. It has no place on Wikipedia. You should withdraw it. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am truly attempting to understand and honor Wikipedia guidelines and procedures. If it is not an admin that makes the ultimate decision after a discussion such as this, perhaps the WP:INTROTODELETE page referenced in the infobox at the top of this page should be revised. I will not be withdrawing this article, but I will withdraw from further discussion here unless there is a specific question or information I can provide. Michellecharterup (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's nice that almost all the google results are about the company, but it does also make it fairly easy to see that most coverage falls under the standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage of WP:CORPDEPTH. The fact that they're also fairly obviously derived from press kits means that they also fail WP:ORGIND, but depth alone is enough to remove them from consideration. As a personal observation, I believe the company unlikely to achieve notability by our standards in the near future, even if it does meet the standard of significance. The issue of potential content leads into the issue of actual content, which we do also look at in deletion discussions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
collapsed own comments on PROMO and advice Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is, of course, the oft cited TNT. Yet, also, contrast PRESERVE. The difference is, of course, whether we might find use for the existing content: were the appropriate sources to exist, that we could write an encyclopedic article, would we write anything the same or substantially similar in tone or content. That is the difference between what is edited in place, stubified or deleted. I don't believe we could, meaning that's a delete or draftify (I would lean delete, but it was not and would not be deleted in draftspace). It's not G11, no, but AfD operates on different standards. Just as we don't have db-nn, conversely, at AfD we may decide for an article substantively but not blatantly promotional — the about-us-page copy that leaves the first impression of "uh, is this G12?" but is not an ad — that it not be retained. There are other relevant essays, for example SERIESA, and also an overall disinclination towards cleaning up after COI and (especially) paid editors.
For better or for worse Michelle, you're likely going to be on your own until you get the article most if not all the way there. After all, you're paid to do this, and we're not. Though there is the possibility that the topic organically attracts editors in the future, that's not something that happens just because it's in mainspace. If you or your bosses are set on having a Wikipedia page, then have patience. Wikipedia's Notability is a lagging indicator. Alpha3031 (t • c)
Appreciate your thoughtful consideration, Alpha3031. I did put some work into the article yesterday to better demonstrate the notability of CharterUP in the context of the charter bus industry. If your response was written after considering the additional context and sources, I can accept that vote. Otherwise, I would request you revisit the article once more and let me know if your decision still stands.
FWIW, have not taken on this project for myself or my bosses – a few of our operating partners mentioned in anonymous surveys that a Wikipedia article would be helpful in giving their customers & communities a more neutral overview of the marketplace they participate in.
I do plan on making contributions to the more general bus transportation Wikipedia articles with information about the pandemic impact and recovery, as that context is notable with or without CharterUP's involvement. Michellecharterup (talk) 14:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria requires requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *about the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company. I agree with the analysis above, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, none contain "Independent Content" and in-depth information. Perhaps Dr vulpes can throw some light on which sources met the criteria for establishing notability when it was moved from Drafts, especially seeing as how other commentators requested WP:THREE and pointed out the paucity of references? HighKing++ 16:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wanted to note that I saw this. I’m at work right now but will be off around 1:30pm PST. I’ll take a deeper look at this then. Thanks for the ping. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 17:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok @HighKing here are some sources about this topic which pass for WP:GNG. I'm going to assume that I was pinged here in good faith and that this wasn't some attempt to drag me into this AfD or question my competency as an editor or reviewer for AfC or NPP. I'm not saying the article is good but it does appear to pass WP:GNG and the sources are pretty clear. Hence why I'm a bit confused why I'm here at all. We started this AfD off with @10mmsocket calling it a "Paid-for corporate puff piece...We cannot allow paid-for promotional articles to go unchallenged.". That may be true, but let's not bite to newbies here. It appears that @Michellecharterup has updated their userpage and is figuring things out. The article needs some serious work, I'm not claiming otherwise. If this article upsets anyone this much then just go fix it, it's a lot easier to complain at AfD about an article then it is to address the concerns.
     
    Hawkins, Lori (May 2, 2023). "CharterUp bus-booking platform moves HQ to Austin, plans to add 100 jobs". Austin American-Statesman. Retrieved 2023-06-24.
    DeVine, Blake (2023-05-23). "Transportation tech startup opens headquarters in Austin". KXAN Austin. Retrieved 2023-06-24.
    Skores, Alexandra (2022-11-30). "Atlanta-based startup launches over 100 charter buses for booking in Dallas-Fort Worth". Dallas News. Retrieved 2023-06-24.
     
    I know I talked a big game about being bold and telling everyone to just "go fix the problems" but I just got the new Final Fantasy game so I'm going to go do that now. Feel free to ping me if there's anything I can clear up for anyone. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 03:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Dr_vulpes, I was very curious as to why you moved this article from Draft to Mainspace, mostly because I searched and was unable to identify for myself any reference that in my opinion came close to meeting notability criteria. I was especially curious as this had been flagged by other editors, so for you to essentially overrule those queries, I hoped you had seen something. I note you say those references meet GNG - this is a company therefore we examine references against GNG/NCORP. NCORP provides more detailed examples and explanations to help editors correctly identify whether references for companies meet the criteria. None of those references meet GNG/NCORP as they all rely on information provided by the company and/or execs and have no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. Mistakes happen, no biggie. HighKing++ 19:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Michellecharterup has said that her company - the subject of the article and the ones paying her to write the article - are under pressure from other partners to do something positive by writing a wikipedia article. It's clear when you read the company's reviews at Better Business Bureau that they are desperate to get something positive out there because they must be hurting really badly from all the negative feedback. Their motivation is clearly "keep the article at any price" and their desperation is showing. 10mmsocket (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no evidence of any notability, The entire article is a puff-piece/advert and the sources aren't worth the paper they're written on (they all seem promotional), Fails NCORP and GNG. –Davey2010Talk 18:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete That is a terrible article. Its a puff piece. Massively WP:PROMO. I don't know what game they're playing but its not our game. scope_creepTalk 10:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources as provided by Dr vulpes establish notability. Neutrality and paid editing issues can be fixed by cleanup. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Like several other editors, I don't find that the sources presented meet CORPDEPTH. Beyond that, however, I strongly feel that not only should the closing admin ignore Michellecharterup's comments here, they should be stricken entirely. Not only has she been indeffed for editing an article for a subject that paid her to do it, but it should be bloody axiomatic that anything she's said in this AfD was tainted by the partisan association, and cannot be trusted to have had the good of the encyclopedia over her employer in mind. Ravenswing 11:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.statesman.com/story/business/2023/05/02/charterup-moving-headquarters-atlanta-to-austin-with-job-openings/70168402007/
  2. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/edgarsten/?sh=6f3155a6603b
  3. ^ https://www.statesman.com/story/business/2023/05/02/charterup-moving-headquarters-atlanta-to-austin-with-job-openings/70168402007/
  4. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/edgarsten/2023/02/15/charterup-looks-to-revive-pandemic-pummeled-motorcoach-industry/?sh=35eec885dd6c
  5. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/edgarsten/?sh=6f3155a6603b
  6. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/edgarsten/2023/02/15/charterup-looks-to-revive-pandemic-pummeled-motorcoach-industry/?sh=51a40b215dd6
  7. ^ https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2023/04/28/pacesetter-awards-fast-growth-atlanta.html
  8. ^ https://www.siliconhillsnews.com/2023/05/04/charterup-opens-its-second-headquarters-in-austin-and-plans-to-hire-over-100-employees/
  9. ^ https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/inno/stories/inno-insights/2023/05/02/charterup-makes-austin-its-second-home.html
  10. ^ https://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/RegistrationStatistics/CustomReports
  11. ^ https://www.tritiumpartners.com/news-article/real-time-charter-bus-marketplace-charterup-raises-60m-series-a-led-by-tritium-partners
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Kirwan[edit]

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

No indication that this person is more significant than the many other people killed in the Irish War of Independence. PatGallacher (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Ireland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NVICTIM and WP:1E. Before my own PROD tagging, I found (and subsequently added) a number of sources to support parts of the text. These are the only modern sources, however, I could find and they all deal with the subject's death (somewhat in passing) as part of the reprisals/aftermath of the Headford ambush. Not amounting to significant biographical coverage. The only contemporary (1921) sources I could find only deal with the subject's death - also reported as a matter of fact in the broader context. (For example the Irish Independent of Tue 25 Jan 1921 which refers to "Kirwan (22), of Ballinastack" as "the second victim. His father states that lorries, carrying about 10 men, entered the village at 2.30 p.m., having a machine-gun mounted on one of the cars. Kirwan, who was on the road, was asked where his son, Jim, was....). While there are therefore some contemporary short/news sources which deal with the subject's appalling/sad death, I can find NO sources which deal with the subject's life. So no significant biographical coverage there either. As I can/could not consider any alternatives to deletion (Draftify - to what end? Redirect - to where?) I am left with deletion as the only recommendation. On NVICTIM/SIGCOV/1E grounds. Guliolopez (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. 900 civilians were killed in the Irish War of Independence alone; how many civilians were killed in conflicts around the world in the same period? The article creator is User:Fergananim, who was notorious for creating stubs on non-notable people of all sorts. Scolaire (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non notable death. Spleodrach (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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! 20:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanatonic nihilism[edit]

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

Contested PROD This is a term which is not used in philosophy sources as far as I have seen, certainly the sources cited don't use it. It seems to be original research or at least synth, and I think it was a very interesting read but probably the wrong forum. I found one use of it in a psychoanalysis journal- I don't have the full text to link to, but the name of the article is 'Anal sexuality and male subcultures online: The politics of self-deprecation in the deep vernacular web'. Overall, this is not a term used in reliable sources and this article is synthesis, drawing from poetry and philosophy to introduce this term. An IP editor also noted this in the page history. JohnmgKing (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP - This is very clearly nothing, even accounting for the misspelling in the typo, "thanatotic nihilism" gets no results from jstor and only two in google scholar. It's unclear why anyone would WP:RFUD this, it shows a complete lack of judgement. - car chasm (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable neologism (t · c) buidhe 07:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Complete junk with no redeeming features. Neologism. scope_creepTalk 05:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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! 19:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thirumagal (TV series)[edit]

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

I had already nominated this article, was soft-deleted, and another user refunded this article. I stated that this fails WP:GNG and in my opinion nothing has changed from the refund. Here's my source analysis:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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! 19:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Shindler[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:PROF and lacks WP:RS. Conducted WP:BEFORE, but it's not that more sources will inherently push the article to keep; the subject is not notable as an academic. Longhornsg (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added twelve published reviews of four of his books to the article. It already contained one review of one. I think that's enough for WP:AUTHOR, and his work as the screenwriter for a notable movie also counts toward WP:CREATIVE (although it might not be enough by itself). The nomination argument is flawed: it is irrelevant whether a subject passes WP:PROF if we can find other criteria they pass. (Incidentally, I think the other Colin Shindler who writes about Israel may also be notable based on my finding many reviews of his books while looking for reviews of the subject.) —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough there from what I see for WP:BASIC and WP:NAUTHOR for me. Govvy (talk) 10:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a well-written, well-referenced 8000-byte article with more than 20 articles linked to it, an average of 14 views per day over the last 90 days, and it also has a disambiguation line that distinguishes this Colin Shindler from the other one, something unique to Wikipedia. Sammyrice (talk) 07:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable. I also took the liberty of moving the disamb phrase from Life and career section to the lead. Suitskvarts (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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! 19:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahari Cortijo[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. G5 by Ponyo. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bùi Quốc Huy[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Inaccurate information is found in the article which cannot be verified by reliable sources, such as being signed by Creative Artists Agency or being nominated as a Top New Artist by NME Magazine. Article has been sent back to draft space several times but keeps reappearing in article space with the issues unaddressed. ... discospinster talk 15:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Youmi Kimura[edit]

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

Subject likely fails WP:MN; she has worked on a couple of Studio Ghibli films and most sources discuss that, not Kimura herself. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The song from Spirited Away should also have been certified platinum in Japan, since it sold over 400,000 units in 2001 according to Oricon, which would mean she also meets WP:MN #3. I don't think Oricon puts those figures online itself anymore, but the number can be seen here or here. Dekimasuよ! 02:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Willing to withdraw, and these sources can be incorporated in some way. The article really needs some cleaning up, though. It should probably also be moved to Yumi Kimura; I'm not sure why this article is even at this title to begin with. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Bania[edit]

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

Not seeing notability, most references are trivial, more about him in relation to a legal case or another rather than about him as an individual. Oaktree b (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject fails WP:ANYBIO. He's mentioned in the cited articles, but not for his contribution to the field or inherent notability, instead it's for him performing his run-of-the-mill duties. Longhornsg (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Totally non-notable, regardless of whether paid editing was involved or not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lilophoto[edit]

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

Promo for a non-notable photography system. Only links I find are PR items. From what I can see, the Russian language ones appear promo as well. Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iniya (TV series)[edit]

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The show is still airing. WP:GNG have added references from Maalai Malar [14] and [15], Zee News (Zee Tamil News) [16], The Times of India [17], and Sun TV Website [18] and more coverage in Tamil language. There may be important updates in the future.--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how 'important updates in the future' establishes the source's current notability, this article heavily relies on routine promotional updates as sources. I've posed my opinion of a source eval below:
    • Source 1 is mainly interview quotes about the serial reaching 100 episodes (link 24)
    • Source 2 is self-published with reliability and the expertise of the author unestablished and has various spelling mistakes
    • Source 3 is self-published with reliability and the expertise of the author unestablished
    • Source 4 is about the actress
    • Source 5 probably looks like the original version of a machine-translated source 3, removing source 3's credibility. This source mainly promotional news on the serial's release (link 21)
    • Source 6 is also about the lead actress (link 23)
    • Source 7 is once again about the actress, also seems to be a tabloid source that's just a routine update
    • Source 8 is from the same website, and the main topic seems to be the lead actors, I don't think this source is reliable
    • Source 9 is a paragraph on the lead actor (link 22)
    • Source 10 is once again routine promotional news on the lead actress, with a small snippet of the story plot with no further information
    • Source 11 is a TV schedule that has one paragraph on the plot summary
    • Source 12 is routine update on TV schedule and lead - this serial replacing another. Does not have any useful information other than a link to the serial's promo. States that timing info's going to released soon
    • Link 25 is from the channel airing this serial, therefore not independent of the subject.
    Like @DreamRimmer has stated, there are a lot of sources. However, none explain its notability as a subject on Wikipedia. Karnataka (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus, please add your thoughts on the IRS
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Coverage is routine, extremely brief, or as noted by Karnataka, buzz about the lead actress. -- asilvering (talk) 09:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with Karnataka's source evaluation here. They are reliable sources, but the coverage of the show itself is generally glancing or just promotional news republished. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Haile Quarry site. Liz Read! Talk! 19:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haile, Florida[edit]

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

This appears to be a rail point serving a group of quarries, not a community of any kind. Mangoe (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Florida. North America1000 04:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:GEOLAND. There is no good evidence the place exists, the only source cited isn't reliable and is probably just repeating data from GNIS, which isn't reliable for these purposes. GEOLAND only gives near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places, an unincorporated community would have to pass the general notability guideline, and this one clearly doesn't. Hut 8.5 17:59, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well hang on here - there are two pictures in the article of people clearly at a Haile station. Have we done any sort of historical research to see if there was a little community next to the mine? The information can probably be merged into Newberry, Florida, but the difference between this and all of the other junk GNIS articles are the two photos clearly showing people at the place. SportingFlyer T·C 20:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We've deleted articles before with pictures of stations, because they don't imply that there is anything there but a station. And there were many, many such p\laces back in the day, for reasons that had to do with rail operations. Mangoe (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't actually my question, but that's fine. The quarries appear relatively significant geologically - is there any place this can be merged for historical reasons? Maybe Newberry? SportingFlyer T·C 22:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the photos could be moved to Brooker Subdivision. It seems to be the best fit. – The Grid (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's currently no commons category for the Brooker Subdivision. I can create one, but more people will have to add images to it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Newberry - There is visual evidence it exists. Click on the coordinates under the Geography section. Haile pulls up on Google maps, Bing maps, etc. It's a real place. On the maps, it's on the other side of the highway from Newberry. Close enough to be merged, I think. — Maile (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We have no evidence that this was ever anything more than a train station, no SIGCOV to justify a standalone article and I'm not finding anything in my searches. I considered merging as an ATD but we don't even have reliable sourcing to say what this place even was. –dlthewave ☎ 15:30, 8 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! 04:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Haile,_Florida and @A. B.:'s note introducing a third potential target, I'm reopening this to see if a consensus can form among those options for a target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I was writing to post as Star Mississippi was closing this AfD. Because of the edit conflict, I added it to the talk page:
The quarry is located where the town supposedly exists or existed. The quarry is notable because of the significant fossil finds made there.[20][21]. Using the coordinates from the article, Google Earth put the location of the town at the quarry's main entrance. There is nothing else there - no homes, stores, etc. I suspect that the Haile railroad stop was for the quarry. The only reference is hometownlocator.com which looks very low quality - probably a machine-created page based on scraping some database. The article was created in 2008 by User:Averette, a talented, prolific Florida content-creator and Florida man who was sadly later indeff'd following a fight over a Cuban sandwich in 2019.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

)

  • Just to be clear, I showed evidence in the form of maps and train schedules of the past proving the existence of Haile, Florida as more than just a small train platform, and yet the primary reason you're dismissing it is because the creator of the article got in a fight over Cuban sandwiches? On the other hand, many of the maps I've seen of Newberry show their territory as being expanded into Haile, so I can go with redirecting until more details can be found. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect, per above. Existing as a locatable named object on a map is not a notability criterion, else we would have articles on millions of "places". Having a train station or any other business is also not sufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Haile Quarry site per A.B. and JoelleJay. No need to delete first, just a redirect is appropriate. Frank Anchor 02:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Haile Quarry site, but I urge more research on the existence of Haile as a community. Those who reject the idea that a map is evidence should know that there are maps indicating the existence of the community dating back to at least 1902 *(two of them actually). The quarries that have existed there throughout the 20th Century have changed sizes and locations, which anybody can find if they look up the place on the Historic Aerials website, though not many are old enough to show evidence of a community. The place could've been a genuine community, or it could've been a turpentine village before all the quarries. We don't know. I also reject the prevailing idea that "it's just a train station" that so many users keep throwing around. No railroad builds a train station anywhere unless they either want to start something around it, or they want a community of any kind to be able to use it. Just because the only photographs we have are of the train station, doesn't mean it was just a train station. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Principality of Hutt River. Content remains on the redirected page in case there is interest in Merging any of it. Liz Read! Talk! 19:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Casley[edit]

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

No notability independent of the micronation, all the sources I found just mention him in conjunction with Hutt River deciding to "rejoin" Australia. Should just be mentioned in the article about Hutt River. AryKun (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Fourth Industrial Revolution. Ordinarily, I'd relist this discussion as I don't see a strong consensus for any one closing outcome. But I'm going to be bold and close this as Redirect to the most often mentioned target article. If you are dissatisfied with this outcome, come to my talk page or Deletion review if you are genuinely upset. Liz Read! Talk! 19:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth Industrial Revolution[edit]

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

An RfC held at this article's talk page raised concerns about the claims that the Fourth Industrial Revolution are "failing", but then it was discovered that the entire article is resting on flimsy sourcing, and its topic is probably just a meaningless buzzword that should either be deleted outright or redirected to coiner Klaus Schwab. The discussion has been copied verbatim to the talk page of this AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Technology. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Obvious redirect to Fourth industrial revolution or delete entirely. Everywhere, manufacturing, warehousing, logistics, the industry is abuzz with the fourth. The fifth, if any, is crystalballery at its finest. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete "Hypothetical xyz used by bloggers" is non-notable. Til the term is used by academics in peer-reviewed journals, it's not ready for prime time. Oaktree b (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some reason I thought the term was coined by Klaus Schwab, but he might only be responsible for 4.0. If someone can provide a citation to demonstrate that he promotes 5.0 too, then we should redirect to Klaus Schwab, but if not then I think it’s just being used by non-notable hype merchants, and so we should delete. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • For Klaus Schwab I found that he is responsible for the term concerning the 4th as here in the introduction and here. Still, to my surprise, I found that the concept of the 5th is already being used, too, however... even the article has a link indicating that it was described by the European Commission. In addition, follow me here:
      • In this we find Industry 5.0 describes direct coopeation between humans and robots or intelligent machines. It would be an extension of Industry 4.0. We already have examples of this and this is part of the 4th, see for instance cobot.
      • In this we find The future of digitalisation will in less than 20 years, according to the scenario that is already today being described as Industry 5.0, bring about transhumanist and cyberphysical systems. This is taking things way beyond what we currently have described in the article on the 5th.
      • In this one we have It is rather greatly possible that Industry 5.0 will emerge earlier than we expect; and when it does, we could assume that this time will see the full implementation of everything that the Industry 4.0 only dreamed about!. Again, looking into the future, so some crystalballery.
      • In this one we have an entire chapter devoted to Industry 5.0 (the 5th), starting p. 26. A lot of nice definitions and concepts, however, turning to p. 36 we find mostly buzzwords, and further down the road concepts that are kind of already around as agile leadership or resource fluidity. Reading farther is not really worth it, and imho the authors allowed the document to sort of break down after that, see for yourselves.
    • To conclude this analysis I would say that the article rather needs a pruning and some good editing than deletion. If the concept is already being used by the EC/ EU then the article is bound to get recreated sooner or later. I think I stand by my earlier suggestion to redirect to a section entitled something like Possible future developments at the end of the article on the 4th. I don't know whether the term is notable in and of itself, but it's certainly there. --Ouro (blah blah) 00:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and also consider redirect to ChatGPT assuming the first edit summary was true. My impression is Fourth IR may also be beyond fixing, and should be trimmed and merged into Klaus Schwab, if it makes sense. Disclaimer: I have not carefully reviewed the general topic or all the sources, but I've seen nothing to change my first impression at the RfC. -- Yae4 (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If ChatGPT was involved, we wouldn’t redirect the article to ChatGPT but it might be a very good reason to delete, per emerging consensus at WP:LLM. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect - possibly moving anything salvageable to Fourth Industrial Revolution, but there's not much that can be saved here. I made some effort to clean this up, but the sources are mostly heavily promotional and low-quality. The only really useful one is this, which is more of an article on how terms spread rather than something that treats it seriously in its own right, and which specifically says that the term lacks a well-defined definition: Yet, in recent years, the expression Industry 5.0 (I5.0) has emerged in blogs [2], social networks [3], institutional research and innovation programs [4], and academic works [5–9]. At first glance, this term may lead us to think that it is associated with a new industrial revolution. This raises some questions: “Will we be facing two revolutions simultaneously?” and “If it is a new revolution, what is the associated disruptive technology?”. The search for an answer in the literature revealed that the term “Industry 5.0” is associated with different concepts. This lack of agreement was the motivation for this work, that is, to understand the arising of the concept of I5.0. That's enough for a brief mention on another article, but not really enough to support an independent article. --Aquillion (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! --Ouro (blah blah) 11:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Disambiguate - Gentlemen, I have noted the various points of view. Please allow me a few hours. I shall join the discussion later in the day and provide my thoughts. Regards, Jean Julius Vernal 13:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete, per what I said on the talk page. It is basically impossible to extract any meaning from these sources, because there is no actual thing to talk about. The idea of a "fourth industrial revolution" is already completely conjectural and isn't (and can't) be supported by historical scholarship because it either hasn't happened yet or is currently happening. With that in mind, what could we possibly say about a fifth? "Some day people will invent some really wild future technology, and it'll be like, WOW, I mean, we'll be all ZWWWWWWEEEEEEOOOOOOUUUUWWW and the stuff will be like BOOM POW BAJOOOOOOOOFFFFFF and there will be lasers and AI and stuff probably"? Are we just going to call it an "industrial revolution" every time technology progresses by fifteen years? Why don't we just create Seventh Industrial Revolution with the text "idfk when but some crazy shizz is gonna happen for sure"? jp×g 08:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything useful to Fourth industrial revolution, by way of a tail piece. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, no such thing, and sources tell almost nothing. Artem.G (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seri Wati Iku[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. No effective sources for what is a WP:BLP. scope_creepTalk 15:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the coverage to support WP:NPOL. This a WP:BLP so real WP:SECONDARY references are needed to prove notabilty, not mickey mouse blogs or self-written profiles. That is an absolute and is emphasised in the opening paragraph of the policy.. On the article there is currently 1 non-rs and 2 WP:PRIMARY and one passing mention. The primary sources read like blog entries. At best they prove the person is verifiable and that is about it. WP:THREE is the standard best practice for proving notability. Where is the coverage? Put up three secondary sources that prove she is notability and we can close this. scope_creepTalk 16:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the Cocos (Keeling) Islands is a federal territory, the Shire of Cocos is constituted under Western Australia's local government laws. The territory is non-self-governing so I don't think we can draw equivalence between the shire council and e.g. the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. ITBF (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: My opinion stands that members of the council of the Shire of Cocos (Keeling) Islands are not awarded WP:NPOL. The council is akin to a county council, with actual judicial and legislative powers residing with the Western Australian government, and with the council only retaining local administrative powers. This is different from, for example, the old Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly, which was an autonomous/devolved body within Australia with self-governing powers. A search with both provided names did not provide WP:SIGCOV demonstrating a WP:GNG pass either. Curbon7 (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A bit unfortunate because I'd love to see more content on Australia's external territories, but there's just no coverage to justify an article. The body of which she is a member has limited powers and she doesn't appear to have attained any particular prominence outside of holding office to attract WP:SIGCOV. There's a reason all other entries at List of leaders of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Shire Council are red links (and that article should probably be merged to Shire of Cocos). ITBF (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Although I agree this is a borderline case, it seems to me useful to maintain the article for encyclopedic reasons, as proposed by Innisfree987. If the conclusion is deletion, then key items from the article should be merged into Shire of Cocos, maintaining the blue link with a redirect.--Ipigott (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: for a combination of factors, inc. an oral history in a national collection, leadership (as discussed above). I'd also like to see more awareness of the context within which her achievements are gained - as a woman from a small territory in Australia, from a specific minority background, that has been historically marginalised, means that sources and coverage will be less likely to feature her at length. Within the context of the Cocos Islands, she is undoubtedly notable Lajmmoore (talk) 09:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets examine the new references. The rationale for delete are accurate. A WP:BEFORE was done and nothing was found that was in-depth, secondary and independent. Looking at the refs:
  • Ref 1 Facebook non-rs.
  • Ref 2 [www.shire.cc/en/your-council/meet-the-council.html] WP:PRIMARY. Not independent.
  • Ref 3 [22] WP:PRIMARY Not independent.
  • Ref 4 [23] Profile and passing mention. Not independent.
  • Ref 5 [24] WP:PRIMARY. Business directory. Not independent.
  • Ref 6 [25] Profile. Not independent. Why put a profile reference in BLP article? Profiles are non-RS. They are often written by the person themselves. They are WP:SPS sources and WP:PRIMARY at best. It not indepth and its not independent.
  • Ref 7 [26] Oral history interview. WP:PRIMARY. Not independent.
  • Ref 8 [27] Passing mention. Not independent.
  • Ref 9 [parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Fcommjnt%2F54bb371d-6a22-4bf5-8caa-4760be68ece2%2F0001;orderBy=priority,doc_date-rev;query=Dataset%3AcomJoint;rec=13;resCount=Default] Government document. WP:PRIMARY. Not independent.

There is not a single WP:SECONDARY source amongst the lot of it. In the WP:BLP it states Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. This is a complete crock. scope_creepTalk 10:28, 6 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! 20:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That article is non-sourced and is a list of red links. There is no encyclopeadic information in it. I will prod it today. I have sent it to Afd as somebody stupidly removed the prod. scope_creepTalk 04:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m withdrawing my participation here and unwatching due to recurrent incivility 1 2 from the nominator. Not worth it. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Lajmmoore, borderline case but appropriate for keeping in the context of a smaller territory. There are likely to be more offline sources not available from a quick Google search. Deus et lex (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Deus et lex: It is a WP:BLP. Where is evidence for such a such a statement? Do you have three secondary sources that prove the subject notable? scope_creepTalk 21:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know anything about the Cocos Islands? The sources are likely to be offline and difficult to get hold of. Stop being rude and actually engage with the subject matter rather than just nominating things without checking. Deus et lex (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The first reference, although posted on Facebook, is from Australia's national broadcaster. It therefore seems to meet WP:IS. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:45, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its hardly in-depth though and its another routine report the candidate syle ref. A good attempt has been made updating the article per WP:HEYMANN, but this is a WP:BLP. Its states in the policy Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. I'm not still not seeing it here. The refs are a mishmash of routine news of appointments, position documents, profiles and other salient tangenital links. It seems very poor. Meet the team and election guide?? scope_creepTalk 05:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - agree with MrsSnoozyturtle. Let's not extend the BLP policy beyond what it says. Deus et lex (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says exactly that. Its was copied directly from the policy. I forgot I'd posted it previously. I think you should probably read the policy, since you have provided no envidence to prove your !vote entry. The facebook ref is non-rs. You may consider it potentially independent, but its only five lines long and looks as though it comes from a press-release. Its not in-depth and is an extemely poor reference. I wouldn't use it any article I wrote myself, particularly if it was a WP:BLP. If that was all the coverage I could found (the refs in the article), prior to writing the article, I wouldn't have written the article in the first place. It is an extremely poor quality article. At best, it verifies the person exists but that is all. scope_creepTalk 13:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that the WP:BASIC isn't met here just yet. It would make sense to either delete this or -- as some have smartly suggested -- redirect to another relevant article until the source material can satisfy notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkinspyce (talk • contribs) 05:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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! 20:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Favi[edit]

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

While trying to promote this individual, the talent manager OVO just makes it all about himself. The sources available are not independent and thus this individual does not meet the general notability guidelines. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nominator. Doesn't pass GNG either also not notable singer. Doesn't have independent sources.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Note that draft articles for this singer have already been rejected three times due to attempted promotion (see here), while someone created the mainspace version here anyway. Upon reading the sources, I suggest that young Favi break all ties with his attention-hungry manager OVO. Said manager has gotten announcements about Favi's songs all over the Nigerian gossip media, but those sources are entirely unreliable sites that repeat promo announcements. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Good day Editors, I consider everyone here as unbiased Wikipedia editors I understand Favi was listed on Articles for deletion but the article was not written on any personal connection. In fact, Favi has been featured in multiple news, newspapers, and magazine publications that meet up with Nigerian Wikipedia standards for notability and importance or are we forgetting what WP:NGRS [1] said for Nigerian sources all the citations used were all following Guidelines for Nigerian notability and many of these newspapers featured him because he is among the pioneers of Afro-trap in Nigeria anyone can make research on that. That said I do not see any reason the article should be deleted if it meets up with Wikipedia standards for notability according to WP:NGRS. Regards Digitalageohio (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nigeria/Nigerian_sources
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 12:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PGP (paintball marker)[edit]

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

Promotional and notability not established for this particular piece of sporting/gaming equipment ... sources provided aren't sufficient enough Ajf773 (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very little information exists on the PGP or Sheridan in general; this information should not be lost. 122.60.233.84 (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC) — 122.60.233.84 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Very little information exists on the PGP or Sheridan in general. That isn't a reason to keep this article, in fact it's evidence that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Firearms, and Technology. Ajf773 (talk)
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. Glad people are clearing up all this non-notable paintball fandom, as this is an encylopedia, not a Fandom site. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The PGP essentially invented the entire concept of pump-class / stock-class paintball play, being the first mass-produced pump paintball marker. You cannot tell the history of the sport without mentioning this marker. (The history of pump is a notable omission from the Paintball article too.) People are still playing pump tournaments and companies are still producing pump markers today. GameGod (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC) — GameGod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please see the "World And Regional Paintball Information Guide" homepage at http://www.warpig.com/. It would appear to be self-published - "Copyright © 1992-2019 Corinthian Media Services"... "As such, Corinthian Media Services makes no claims to the trustworthiness or reliability of said information." The "Corinthian Media Services" homepage is at http://www.mediaconspiracy.com/ - that domain name would appear to me not to inspire confidence in its reliability and impartiality. --Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The PGP was the 3rd paintball gun ever produced. Deleting it would be like deleting the Buick Model B because it wasn't a Ford Model T. It is also the model every stacked tube pump and Autococker is based on.
History
https://www.vintagerex.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=viewmarker&marker=PGP&man=PMI%20-%20Sheridan
https://paintballhistory.com/pioneering-the-sport-of-paintball-the-history-of-pmi-with-jeff-perlmutter/
https://www.paintballaward.com/history-paintball/
https://paintballhistory.com/sheridan/
https://baccipaintball.com/guns/gun-manufacturers/sheridan.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4rJqyygOB4
PGPs and variants are still being made by artisan airsmiths. Most of these are from the old-school paintball forum MCarterBrown.com I don't believe the manufacturers bother with a website because they only sell them here.
https://paintballhistory.com/walz/
https://www.mcarterbrown.com/forum/paintball-news-aa/the-armory/sheridan/229-custom-sheridan-picture-thread
https://www.mcarterbrown.com/forum/custom/custom-projects-custom-questions/383748-diy-sheridan
https://www.mcarterbrown.com/forum/paintball-news-aa/the-armory/sheridan/360367-riots-pirate
https://www.mcarterbrown.com/forum/paintball-news-aa/the-armory/sheridan/57556-myrkul-s-pgp-makeover-freak-style VTsolar (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC) — VTsolar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • You cannot possible make any similarities between a pioneering automobile and a piece of equipment in a fringe sport. Looking at those sources there is a considerable amount of user-generated content there. Also the editor VTsolar has not made any edits prior to this one. Ajf773 (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There just isn't enough reference in what we consider RS to keep this (or most other articles on the subject). I've also been tagged (see below as being biased), but in matter of fact or to be correct, I'm pro-paintball. That said, I hang up my paintball hat and put on my editor's hat when in AfD. We have to be objective here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please check the two quotes I pulled from "The Complete Guide to Paintball" below? If we were to work those into the article and add it as a reference, would that establish enough notability to justify keeping the page? GameGod (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment looks like there's been some WP:CANVASSING on Reddit: [28]. Probably explains why we have one new account and 2 IP users with 0 other edits on Wikipedia except on this and the other article mentioned on that thread. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and they tagged me as biased against the article on a talk page, even though I've played paintball and have two Spyder markers with extra barrels, gear and many welts to prove it. Oaktree b (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Finding zero evidence of meeting WP:GNG, WP:NPRODUCT, or any chance this article could be expanded to encompassing all of Sheridan due to total lack of WP:NCORP. IceBergYYC (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Unfortunately, apparently, for people interested in paintball information, since paintball's media has declined since the sport's heyday passed in the early 2000s, reliable sources are mostly out of print and not available as easily found and linked web references. But make no mistake, there is a LOT of information out there and a lot of reliable source media offline that explains the importance and relevance of iconic products like the PGP and the history of how a 100-year-old company came to create products for this brand new sport in the 1980s, which is and has been played by millions of people around the world.
I have started making some hopefully substantive edits and references so maybe folks can call off the apparent crusade against paintball history articles. They may be in poor shape but they absolutely can be salvaged and are certainly knowledge worth preserving. KRS Quan (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC) — KRS Quan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You can quote paper magazines, so long as you have the article title, page and issue/month date. We can easily enough locate them if needed. Problem is we don't have any information available to us. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
you may have missed the additions with print media citations that have been added. Really just the tip of the iceberg as the vast majority of what would be considered reliable source record and journalism is offline. KRS Quan (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find a full scan of the article in the December 1990 issue cited, but if its anything like the November 1992 article, I'd say its really not applicable for building any sort of notability. The text of the November '92 article [29] doesn't even mention the PGP, there is simply a captioned picture of the gun, while the article is 50% advertisement for a different brand of guns. This feels like a desperate attempt at WP:SYNTH and trying to find articles to fit your already chosen narrative, rather than writing articles based on existing sources, which would be nearly impossible to do based on the lack of WP:VERIFIABLE sources. IceBergYYC (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is NO advertisement in that article, and it's honestly dangerous that you feel qualified to judge an article based on that very disingenuous interpretation, speaking of desperate. It's not a difficult article to read through and understand. It clearly establishes that the Sheridan marker in question was a well-known exemplar of the stock class style. And your challenge to the 1990 article is simply bad faith.KRS Quan (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you... read the article? Nowhere in the text of the article does it say anything meaningful about the PGP. There is a single captioned image of the PGP (albeit under a different name), and the marker is never mentioned again. 50% of the article is promotional material for a "Those Guys (And that Gal) Mercenary Service". And once again, nothing about that article demonstrates any real notability of the PGP as a standalone product. As I said in a later reply further down this thread, I think with the information uncovered, there may be enough information for a page on Stock Class markers as a whole, but certainly this particular product does not meet any of Wikipedias many notability criteria. IceBergYYC (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reference supports the statement, literally. It doesn't matter how long it is or how many photos there are. Nor does it matter if you falsely claim it is an advertisement when it isn't ... "Service" doesn't mean a business, it's a team. And again there are many more references, but I'm not going to waste my time jumping like a monkey if this is how you treat legitimate citations. This is all very bad faith. Sad. KRS Quan (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to "It doesn't matter how long it is or how many photos there are." Please see WP:SIGCOV, simply untrue. As for my previous statement, the article still reads as promotional in nature, and regardless, the point of my statement is that most of the article is talking about something (or in this case someone) else. A passing mention of something does not display notability. IceBergYYC (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the bad faith and disingenuousness continues. Each and every reference is NOT required to prove the notability of the topic of the article. That's simply ludicrous. The fact that you continue to assert that the content of one reference, which you continue to mischaracterize, PROVES lack of notability is absolute hogwash. KRS Quan (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reality is, one of the two references you've declared as making the article meet notability requirememts is useless for actually demonstrating WP:GNG or WP:NPRODUCT. So even if we assume the other article is absolutely perfect, one good article in one publication absolutely does not demonstrate notability. Unfortunately for all of us, just because someone disagrees with us doesn't mean they're acting in bad faith. IceBergYYC (talk) 05:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've been looking for reliable sources for the last few nights with limited success. I checked the "Official Survival Game Manual" book by Lionel Atwill and, unfortunately, it only mentions the Nel-Spot 007, not the Sheridan PGP. (The book was too early.) I also checked patents and Action Pursuit Games, with no luck. There could be references in other paintball magazines, which I did not check. However, there is a quote on page 117 of the book, "The Complete Guide to Paintball" by Jerry Braun (1999 edition), which states "Back in 1981 and 1982, when this great game was just getting started, there were really only two gun choices: the side-cocking Nelspot, remembered by its users for the calluses it left on their fingers, and the rear-cocking Sheridan PGP". The book then goes on to explain how the pump reduced frustration and combined with the introduction of the gravity feed, lead to a "paintball technological revolution". There's a couple editions of book available on the Internet Archive here. I think this source could be considered reliable because the book is by an established publisher, it's not a vendor publication, it's not trying to sell you the marker, etc. Thoughts? GameGod (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To add more to that, in a chapter called "The Evolution of the Marker", the 2007 edition of the same book writes on page 60, "Paintball markers evolved from two basic designs. The "Nelson" design, which is the Nelspot 007 pistol, and the Sheridan design, seen in the PGP pistol" Both are good designs, and both spawned a lot of clones.". I think this puts the Sheridan PGP at the same level of importance as the Nelspot and makes it notable because it explains that it is from the design of these two markers that all other markers came from.GameGod (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still think from the sources described, we're not looking at enough WP:VERIFIABLE information to write a meaningful article. Nobody is saying the things in the article arent true, but wikipedia's bar is set higher than "it's true" everything written in an article has to be verifiable. Not every sentence needs a citation, but a citation must feasibly exist for any assertation, and based on how the search is going, I'm not confident enough information exists to warrant a standalone article for this paintball marker. I think from the information uncovered so far, and what I can find myself, I would support the creation of a new article on Stock Class markers as a whole, which could feasibly include a section on this marker, but this marker still doesn't pass the bar of WP:NPRODUCT to be notable on its own. IceBergYYC (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is more suitable for a fandom wiki Very Average Editor (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 12:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per others. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Just plain fails the GNG, no matter the blather from sock/meatpuppets to the contrary. If they truly believe this information needs preservation, they are free to create PaintballPedia or another such fansite, and fill it with such minutiae to their liking. Ravenswing 21:56, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since there is very clear consensus and reason to delete this (ignoring the canvassing). Clearly fails GNG. @122.60.233.84, your argument completely contradicts your vote, as stated by @Joseph2302. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 12:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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! 07:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trap (carriage)[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDICT. This page only defines the term Trap (as a carriage). The only reference is to a phrase finder. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you added six sources to verify the dictionary definition in the article, but the deletion proposal is not based on any doubt that a pony-trap is a type of carriage. The problem with this article is it is very clearly just a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is the wrong wikiproject for that. I also note that your sources include two glossaries of terms (just reinforcing WP:NOTDICT arguments), a for-sale listing of a trap, and a stock photo of a trap. I suppose these were all added to reinforce the fact that such carriages are called traps, but they are not WP:RS (clearly) and they are reinforcing something over which there is no doubt. The article still fails per WP:NOTDICT. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is more than just a dictionary definition. Consider Coupe or Pickup truck. Both are types of motor vehicle, but there are many variations of both. The same is true of Trap (carriage). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems to be a nomination based purely on a current thin state of a stub article and that is not the point of DICDEF. The word is widely used, at least in "pony and trap" as both vehicle and propulsion. Yet what is a "trap"? Does it have 2 wheels or 4? How does it differ from other types of cart? What was it used for? We may not be there as yet, but there is certainly scope here for an encyclopedic article more than a DICDEF, just as we've done for other cart and carriage types. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:HEY. The article now passes WP:GNG per the included sources. There is probably scope for a general reorganisation of all of the articles on similar types of carriages, but there is no particular reason to delete this page. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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! 07:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Muradyan[edit]

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

Non notable, can't find any info except football player profiles. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://fc-zenit.ru/zenit/players/muradyan/ No His employer at the time No No Contains no prose ✘ No
https://fc-zenit.ru/news/2021-05-01-zenit-razgromil-lokomotiv-v-yufl-2-blagodarya-pyati-golam-belokhonova.htm No His employer at the time No No ✘ No
https://yflrussia.ru/player/3098605?season_id=1006258 ? ? No Just stats ✘ No
https://fc-zenit.ru/news/2023-02-17-zenit-i-sergey-muradyan-dostigli-dogovorennosti-o-dosrochnom-rastorzhenii-kontrakta.htm No His employer at the time No No ✘ No
https://yflrussia.ru/posts/1087390 ? ? No Basic transfer announcement ✘ No
https://www.facebook.com/noah.footballclub/posts/716810170091572 No Facebook post by his employer No No ✘ No
https://sport.news.am/rus/news/127593/hayastani-m-18-havaqakany-och-oqi-khaxac-belarusneri-het.html Yes Yes No Passing mention ✘ No
https://sport.news.am/rus/news/132005/sbornaya-armenii-do-19-i-let-provedet-dva-matcha-v-gruzii.html Yes Yes No Passing mention in squad list ✘ No
https://armedia.am/rus/news/114561/petrakov-opublikoval-spisok-futbolistov-priglashenniykh-v-nacionalnuyu-sbornuyu-armenii.html Yes Yes No Passing mention in squad list ✘ No
https://vahesport.ru/post/sergej-muradyan-ne-ozhidal-vyzova-v-sbornuyu-armenii/ Yes Yes ~ This is the best source on him with a very brief overview of his career and a long quote from him. Quotes don't constitute significant coverage. ~ Partial
https://sport.news.am/rus/news/141264/sbornaya-armenii-do-21-go-goda-pribiyla-v-severnuyu-makedoniyu.html Yes Yes No Passing mention in squad list ✘ No
https://www.ffa.am/en/news/NorthMacedoniaArmeniaU-21Friendly No FA sources are generally considered not to be independent of their players No No Passing mention in squad list ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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! 07:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Kadlec[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:SPORTBASIC. He finished his career at the age of 22 with only 8 top-tier matches and 40 in the 2nd tier. Do not confuse occasional mentions with a footballer of the same name. FromCzech (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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! 07:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rakeem Joseph[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Moped Army#Swarm and Destroy (2002). Liz Read! Talk! 05:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm and Destroy[edit]

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

Lacking required notability (see WP:N) as well as lacking reliable sources/too many self-published sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireandflames2 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Wells[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:BIO. No significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this article has one reference. The fact that it managed to stay live for 16 years is an incredible feat. One that looks like it's coming to an end.
Fireandflames2 (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per sources below which show notability. GiantSnowman 11:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Macosal (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman, @Fireandflames2 and @LibStar it's probably wort taking a look at these additional sources. I'm still assessing them. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources provided above by Macosal which do show that the subject is notable enough. CycloneYoris talk! 04:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Aruba international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Tromp[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Aruba international footballers. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from independent sources, thus failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per nom, most helpful outcome for the reader. Also the best outcome for the project: it's highly likely that Aruban sources exist that just aren't readily accessible, so we'll be doing future editors a favor by preserving the content for future restoration. Notability is about whether we should have an article on a subject, not about whether we should have any coverage at all, so where a reasonable target exists it isn't a sufficient basis for deletion. -- Visviva (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Aruba international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 05:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Germain Dirksz[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Aruba international footballers. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from independent sources, thus failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per nom, most helpful outcome for the reader. Also the best outcome for the project: it's highly likely that Aruban sources exist that just aren't readily accessible, so we'll be doing future editors a favor by preserving the content for future restoration. Notability is about whether we should have an article on a subject, not about whether we should have any coverage at all, so where a reasonable target exists it isn't a sufficient basis for deletion. -- Visviva (talk) 03:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Aruba international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Germain Cabrera[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Aruba international footballers. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from independent sources, thus failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect - plausible search term. As far as I can tell, someone searching 'Germain Cabrera' would be looking for this footballer so a redirect would help. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Aruba international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick Lampe[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Aruba international footballers. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from independent sources, thus failing WP:GNG. Passing mentions like this seem to indicate he's a youth coach in Aruba. JTtheOG (talk) 00:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @JTtheOG: Could you not have WP:BLAR'd it, and then taken it to AfD if someone objected, or is there something I'm missing? This also applies to all of the other Aruban footballers that you've nominated recently. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 10:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • JML1148 I suppose I could have. I don't feel comfortable doing that without AfD though, no matter how likely to fail GNG they might be. JTtheOG (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Football articles don't seem to be easily redirected or PROD'd right now, some editors revert on sight. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with both of the above. BLAR and PROD can both be reverted without even providing evidence of notability. At least an AfD encourages people to provide at least some evidence of notability if they oppose deletion or redirecting. I'd only ask that we don't send too many to AfD in one go, though. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Aruba international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Poppen[edit]

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

Redirect to List of Aruba international footballers. Unable to find sufficient coverage from independent sources, if it even exists. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omotoso Oluwabukunmi[edit]

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

Non-notable subject who fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. He has not been discussed in reliable sources. Majority of the sources cited in the article are about his clothing line and not about him. Since the subject's clothing line already has a stand-alone aritcle, this BLP article should be redirected to that article.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 02:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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! 04:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kaushik Izardar[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a film and television producer, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for film and television producers. As always, every producer is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it's possible to verify that he exists, and instead must be shown to pass WP:GNG on properly sourced evidence of his significance -- but this amounts to "he exists", and is referenced almost entirely to glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things (most commonly as a provider of soundbite in sources that read like press releases from his own employers) rather than reliable source coverage which represents other people writing about him as a subject, and the only source that offers anything more than a brief glance off his existence is a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of third party coverage and analysis. Bearcat (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteThe reliability of the majority of sources is dubious, lacking proper oversight from their staff or editors. Some sources merely consist of namechecks or interviews. Furthermore, the produced shows by the individual in question did not appear to possess the level of notability required.AmusingWeasel (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Simply no consensus either way. Suggest that concerns about the scope of the articles be taken to the talk pages. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of dirt track ovals in the United States[edit]

List of dirt track ovals in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are substantially similar in construction/style and subject matter:

List of dirt track ovals in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of dirt track ovals in South Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of dirt track ovals in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of dirt track ovals in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominating 5 related list-articles. Each fails NLIST, NOTCATALOG/NOTDIRECTORY. The lists are almost entirely comprised of non-cited entries, some have external links to their own website. Few entries are even bluelinks. The only sources are a few non-independent online directories ([30] [31] [32]) from which these lists were compiled (WP:NOTMIRROR). Grorp (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Grorp (talk) 04:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport, South Africa, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and United States of America. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • How exactly does this fail LISTN and NOTDIRECTORY? It seems like a valid way to display information about tracks which are not notable enough for their own article, even if the article can be cleaned up. SportingFlyer T·C 13:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep perfectly valid lists under our notability guideline. Deletion is not cleanup.
    SportingFlyer T·C 11:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Most of the nominator's concerns can be fixed by actually working on the article. AfD is not cleanup. The Speedways Online source mentioned by nominator appears to be both independent and has a journalistic structure. I was also able to find an article from Motor Trend which satisfies LISTN. [33]. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most. With the exception List of dirt track ovals in the United States per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Keep the United States article but truncate it to the list of notable ones (with articles). Or consider renaming it to List of dirt track ovals and including notable ones from other countries. Ajf773 (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would be treat the United States differently considering the content is similar across these pages? These are all valid lists of non-bluelinked tracks per LISTN, no one has accurately stated why NOTDIRECTORY implies instead considering contextual information exists for all these tracks. SportingFlyer T·C 20:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The United States list has a section of notable entries that fit the definition of a Dirt Track Oval, I've scrolled through the lists and for most cannot conclude they fit the definition of a dirt track oval. The large amount of unsourced material as well as the use of external links supports the claim of NOTDIRECTORY. Since there are probably at least 10-20 that are indeed notable, there is no harm including only those in a one-off article. Ajf773 (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ajf773, I was drafting my long reply (below) when your above comment came in. I would suggest putting a short list of any real dirt track ovals with bluelinks into its main article, for example into Dirt track racing in the United States rather than creating a List of dirt track ovals (for the whole world). However, each entry in a list still needs a citation (which might be hard to get, or even lead to yet more articles being AfD'd because they don't have any citations.) Grorp (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a cleanup issue, though, not a notability issue. SportingFlyer T·C 11:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Ghost of Daniel Gurney. The articles presented by this user appear to pass NLIST as the topics listed receive coverage as a group. Carson Wentz (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (from nominator): These lists are purely directories — a compiled mirror site of other online directories. None of the commenters above have explained how the subject has been "discussed as a group" in any way that isn't merely a directory itself.
GhostOfDanGurney suggested the link Bucket List of Short Tracks to Visit which has a brief few-sentence blurb of just 10 tracks in the USA. That barely scratches the surface of contributing towards notability for a standalone list. And it is a single source. Where is the significant coverage which addresses the topic directly and in detail where significant coverage is more than a trivial mention that we're so familiar with from general notability guidelines? Where are the sources which are independent of the subject? There aren't any! All 5 of these list-articles were created in 2005, 18 years ago, and to this day lack any such citations we ordinarily consider reliable/independent/significant. In fact, none of the 5 list-articles have any citations; all they have are external links to the websites of entries in the lists (primary), and a few external links to top-level domain names of websites which contain directories themselves. That makes these list-articles not only directories/catalogs themselves, but a mirror site of directories. See WP:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. GhostOfDanGurney says the articles should be improved, not deleted. However, Ghost hasn't ever edited these articles to improve them (xtools0), though he has participated in 256 AfD discussions (xtools4). Idealistic policy is all well and good, but if no one is willing to fix an article's problems, how long do we wait for someone to magically appear to do it? Meanwhile every wiki-mirror site is copying this OR.
@Ajf773:'s suggestion above is the best alternative suggested so far. And I considered it, however I would like to remind that per Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists § Lists of companies and organizations, there is the requirement If the company or organization does not have an existing article in Wikipedia, a citation to an independent, reliable source should be provided to establish its membership in the list's group and not one of the blue linked entries in these 5 articles had any citations. So let's look at just the first three blue link entries in the USA article; oops, not one of those articles contains any citation that supports them being in the list. The first blue link has a single citation (checking for an archived version) which says this: "Over the years the track has generated some complaints about noise and dust, especially when the racing was conducted on a dirt track. The races are currently held on an asphalt surface." That means it isn't even a dirt track! Oh no! You see the problem, Ajf773?
The related article Dirt track racing probably has been well-discussed in reliable sources although that article is mainly OR, lacks citations, and needs serious help. Its related geographic breakout subtopics are questionable: United States (start-class, lacks citations), Australia (it's trying), Canada (was turned into a redirect), New Zealand (arguable), South Africa (worthless stub), and United Kingdom (worthless stub). It's like the entire series of articles was created as cruft, without anyone going back through them and straightening them out — for well over a decade! The deeper I dig into the "dirt track" collection of articles, the more uncited cruft I find.
In 18 years these 5 list-articles haven't morphed into citation-ed lists, but instead have attracted additional directory entries. When do we draw the line? If I were to set my mind to "improving" the articles, I would rightfully gut them because there are no citations! But chainsaw-editing tends to lead to edit wars, defensiveness, and not discussion — which is one reason why I suggested a deletion discussion. Grorp (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, my editing patterns are absolutely irrelevant here and should be struck per Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. Oh wow I spend my free time when I'm not working !voting in AfDs a lot therefore delete this article!
Secondly, throughout this tirade you're apparently ignoring WP:NEXIST, which very clearly states "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article.".
Thirdly, please tell me exactly what it is about Motor Trend that is not independent of the subject? I find your dismissal of it followed by that line to be very off-base.
Fourth, if you want to merge them all and then actually clean it up, cool, fine. I'm not disagreeing that WP:WikiProject Motorsports is crufty in general. But you acknowledge that you went to AfD because of preconceived notions that cleaning up would lead to an edit war, then this discussion could have taken place at a more appropriate venue than AfD, a place where defensiveness is quite common since you're proposing that the edit/attribution history be nuked too, which would not be the case in a merge. As well, the "mass nomination" style encourages WP:ALLORNOTHING !votes, which should be avoided.
Fifth, "@Ajf773:'s suggestion above is the best alternative suggested so far. And I considered it, however I would like to remind that per...there is the requirement...and not one of the blue linked entries in these 5 articles had any citations." (bolding mine). This is a gross misrepresentation of fact. Numerous blue-linked entries including Port Royal Speedway, Eldora Speedway, and DuQuoin State Fairgrounds Racetrack have citations in their articles. Some, like DuQuoin may not be the best, but but a citation is a citation.
Sixth, "wiki-mirror sites" are not Wikipedia's problem. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Your edit history reflects on the value of your argument/contribution. My comment was no different than tagging someone's AfD comment as SPA, or referring to someone as a new—or a veteran—editor. (2) That is idealism. In 18 years of the article's edit history it hasn't been shown. (3) That one Motor Trend link is not significant coverage. (4) I stand by my nomination. (5) The citations belong in the list-article per WP:LISTCOMPANY and WP:V. (6) Disingenuous. Your argument suggests WP:V and WP:OR are irrelevant, and that the spreading of any resulting false information is "not our problem". Grorp (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the comment about my edit history was entirely out of line and I maintain that it should be struck. I will not respond to the other points (and I have responses) until that is done. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, scratch that. You are the one who claims to want "discussion", but by your own admission, instead of choosing a venue in which a lasting discussion can be had, you choose a high-stress, time-limited one, choose to include it in "lists" deletion discussion but not "motorsport" deletion discussion (see: WP:INAPPNOTE), and when pointed out that a better discussion could have been held on the article talk page, dig in your heels, accuse me of "idealism" then become an idealist yourself in points 5 and 6. I firmly believe this AfD should be closed based on this information. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor, including you, is allowed to add notices on talk pages and wikiprojects to bring other editors to an AfD. If there are/were any notices or calls to action to work on the articles or come to this AfD, I'm not aware of any. It looks like Spiderone added 'motorsport' delsort just 8 hours after AfD nomination. I tagged each of the five articles on May 10, 2023, and the only changes anyone made in the intervening month were to add more uncited entries! ([34] [35]) I think 18 years of waiting, 1-month warning, and a 1-week AfD should be enough time for someone to rally and do something about it if they wanted to keep the articles. Here we are 7 days in and no one has made any changes to the articles. Grorp (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Do something within 5 weeks or your work gets deleted from history" is not the way to go about getting your desired outcome, unless your desired outcome is the work being deleted from history. You realize that tags get left on articles for years, right? You're aware of WP:NORUSH and WP:VOLUNTEER, right? Also, WP:PRODding the articles allows for any editor to restore the history if they want to work on it in the future via WP:REFUND, which a consensus deletion via AfD doesn't allow.
You've already admitted that you bypassed WP:BRD editing (which both a merge discussion and a gutting of the article would fall under) when that was an option to you. I have no need to continue going in circles about how long the article has existed or how IPs do what IPs do on the regular and add unsourced content to Wikipedia. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeletePer nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close per my reply to the nominator's comment; we have varying degrees of notability for the various lists and AfD is the wrong venue as standard WP:BRD editing procedures could have sufficed and were intentionally not attempted before coming here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You already voted. Perhaps you meant 'comment'. Grorp (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a !vote. My !vote above stands, but I do also believe this AfD should be closed based on information made available after my !vote was published. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you think that your vote is ''good one'' that doesn't mean that AFD should be immediately closed. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further input (not rehashing the already addressed issue) would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I feel that the nom is overinterpreting WP:LISTN a bit. As that guideline says in several different ways, The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Dirt track ovals (the principal form of racetrack for dirt track racing) seem to have attracted ample coverage as a general topic. Accordingly it seems that LISTN is met and, as the objectors above have observed, this is otherwise more of a cleanup issue. (But from a quick look I'd have to say these articles need a lot of cleanup, and with an eye toward that, I wonder if consolidating these lists as sections of a hypothetical Dirt track oval article might help contain the sprawl.) -- Visviva (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SportingFlyer and Visviva Glman99 (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. We have our G5. Thanks @Ingenuity: for saving us seven days. Star Mississippi 02:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GP Records[edit]

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

Not a G4, but neither have any of the factors in the prior AfDs changed. Suggesting SALT if this closes as delete as it has been re-created by the same editor. Star Mississippi 01:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Spirit Phone. ✗plicit 00:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet Man[edit]

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

Shows very little notability; all sources are either primary sources or unreliable ones wizzito | say hello! 00:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spirit Phone per nom. Found no coverage myself. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spirit Phone. A bunch of Lemon Demon articles got created since the last time I checked, and I was hoping there was some new coverage or something, but no dice. casualdejekyll 00:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of official languages by country and territory. Several target articles were mentioned in this discussion but I think this one had the most support. If you disagree, it would be worth your time to start a discussion on the article talk page and maybe ping the editors who participated in this deletion discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of languages by the number of countries in which they are recognized as an official language[edit]

List of languages by the number of countries in which they are recognized as an official language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:UNSOURCED, WP:OR, Template:Cleanup reorganize, WP:Vagueness for over 10 years ever since now-blocked User:Novonium created it in June 2012. And it fails WP:LSC (as noted since last August). It's just one big mess that hasn't been fixed for over a decade, and may not be fixable. The "number of countries' where language X is official just doesn't seem that relevant in the first place. It's not some "competition". I see no use for this list whatsoever. Edit: The best solution might be WP:TNT because of WP:NOW, and wait for someone to start over properly and show with WP:RS that there is a purpose for this list, rather than us struggling to find a purpose amongst this (seemingly useless) mess. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Law. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment List of countries by the number of recognized official languages seems like a closely related list which is properly supported by WP:RS, but its scope and added value are equally dubious. It may be worth comparing the two. If the sheer number of languages is regarded as irrelevant, then I suppose that list should be AfD'd next. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: can't see any reason to delete this, and the reasons given are a confused mess. On sources, I've added a couple of citations; obviously, it'd be nice to have more, but there is no doubt that sources exist. The charge of OR appears entirely misplaced. Cleanup is never a reason for deletion. On the supposed "vagueness", the list selection criterion is razor-sharp: it is quite clear from the text what belongs here; and the purpose seems entirely encyclopedic, these are on one view the world's major languages. If we deleted all poorly-cited lists from Wikipedia ... the encyclopedia would be a lot smaller and less informative. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    there is no doubt that sources exist WP:MUSTBESOURCES
    The charge of OR appears entirely misplaced Why? E.g. the fact that Partially recognized or de facto independent countries like Artsakh, which is recognised by zero UN member states, are presented here as sovereign countries in the lead section, is a massive WP:OR/WP:SYNTH problem.
    Cleanup is never a reason for deletion True, not in itself; I guess I should have said WP:NOW or WP:TNT instead. It's been a mess towards our readers for over a decade and nobody has fixed it, so it's better delete and allow for the possibility to start over, if at all.
    list selection criterion is razor-sharp then what does "recognized" and "official language" mean? Is "Greek" "recognized" as an "official language" in "Italy", for example? Depends on your definitions of those four variables. I could make an argument either way. The fact that it says de jure or de facto official is already a major stumbling block.
    the world's major languages since when is that the scope of the list? It just says "languages". And what makes you think the current list is representative? I can name a couple of languages which, depending on definitions, are "recognized" as "official languages" in more than 2 "countries", but are not in this list.
    If we deleted all poorly-cited lists from Wikipedia WP:OTHERSTUFF. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This belongs in an encyclopedia. If you sincerely doubt any of the information, you can click on any nation and see what official languages it has. Dream Focus 15:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This belongs in an encyclopedia WP:BELONG. If you sincerely doubt any of the information, you can click on any nation and see Articles should normally be able to provide references for their own claims and not rely on other articles to do the work (WP:CIRC). An exception could be made for easily verifiable list memberships per WP:CSC #1, but in this case it's more complicated than that. The example I gave above illustrates that: Is "Greek" "recognized" as an "official language" in "Italy"? Depends on your definitions of those four variables. I could make an argument either way. Without clear criteria, anyone could reach opposite conclusions. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Chiswick. --Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of official languages by country and territory, and for the love of the gods, rename to something more sensible (just plain List of official languages would make more sense -- that list can also be subsumed in the "by country" one). This specific cross-categorization doesn't seem to be particularly notable on its own, and this is essentially just a re-collating of the information already present in the main article, simply ordered by the number of occurrences. It's a fairly small table that can comfortably fit in the main article, and we don't need separate lists for every single possible "by Y" , especially when the "by Y" doesn't seem to be a particularly notable categorization. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm open to merging, but we'll have to come up with a sustainable way of doing that. More here if you're interested: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#List of official languages and List of official languages by country and territory. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's an odd list, some countries aren't recognized by others, yet are in the list (South Ossetia), so I'm not sure we can keep the list without some clear guidelines. Oaktree b (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of official languages by country and territory. Aggregating this information by number doesn't really add any significant information. Also, there's a lot of potential apples and oranges here:
    1. What is the criterion for inclusion of countries with minimal recognition by UN countries?
    2. Is the same definition of "official language" applied for every entry? (not an academic question; the OP and I are currently discussing the status of Dutch based on differing definitions of "official language")
    3. What does "recognized" mean here? If an official language is only de facto official (which according to some definitions is a contradictio eo ipso, s. point 2), where does its "recognition" come from if not by some kind of legal regulation, which would turn it de jure official?
    4. What about pluricentric languages that are single language from a descriptive linguistic viewpoint, but are distinct by the very criterion that we use here, i.e. official status? E.g. Hindustani (aka Hindi–Urdu) is not an official language anywhere in the world: it's Hindi in India and Urdu in Pakistan. When used for offcial purposes, they are very distinct from each other. The same holds for Malay: the Standard Malay of Malaysia, Brunei and Singapore is quite different from the Standard Malay-based national language of Indonesia in the official context; in Indonesia, the term "Malay" is only used for vernacular varieties of Malay which are considered regional languages.
While AFD is not about cleanup, I consider this list per se unmaintainable as it requires universally accepted criteria that simply don't exist. In a non-aggregated form (e.g. the proposed merge target), we can at least add notes to specify the details about how a language X is considered official in country Y, or use parentheses for problematic cases. –Austronesier (talk) 11:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier completely agree with all points you made. As I said above, I'm open to merging, but we'll have to come up with a sustainable way of doing that. I've made a point about that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#List of official languages and List of official languages by country and territory. I'd love your input. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
We'd have a consensus if "keep or merge" was an option for a close.Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is still unclear…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Boldly relisting for a 3rd time to come to consensus on keep or merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or just redirect, per Austronesier and others above, without prejudice to any future general RfC on our official-languages-list coverage. While this seems like a naturally interesting topic and some sources have been added, the lack of cited sources about the topic (i.e. about ranking languages in this particular manner) raises considerable LISTN and maintainability questions. There are a lot of thorny problems around "what is a country", "what is a language", and "what is official" that would need to be grappled with in a coherent way for the totals in the list to be meaningful. And the fact that the list hasn't been maintained for lo these many years is a pretty strong indication that it isn't suddenly going to be maintained. Merging seems a bit suboptimal here given the size and unwieldiness of the lists, but perhaps there is a sensible way to whittle it down. -- Visviva (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge I lean keep per Reywas92. I'd also note that this AfD shouldn't apply to any RfCs regarding language information per Visviva.
SportingFlyer T·C 11:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Visviva I agree with pretty much everything you say. Did you see that I am making preparations for an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Official languages lists? Because I hadn't mentioned it here so far, and you haven't commented on it (yet), but you seem to be aware of it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I must have followed the link you posted to WT:WikiProject Lists and read your pre-RfC discussion there. I didn't realize you hadn't mentioned it here. (Regarding your question just below, what I think both SportingFlyer and I are saying is that whatever the outcome of this AFD might be, it shouldn't constrain the possible outcomes of the RfC. At least that's what I meant.)-- Visviva (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, now I understand, thanks!! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer What do you mean by this AfD shouldn't apply to any RfCs regarding language information per Visviva? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a subsequent RfC saying this shouldn't be on the site, this AfD's result could be ignored if kept. SportingFlyer T·C 22:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I cannot tell exactly which article to merge it to, but I’m supportive of Nederlandse Leeuw’s efforts to rationalise this cluster of related articles. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

California Republican Assembly[edit]

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

Unsourced, possible OR, fails NORG. UtherSRG (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR. Completely un-sourced, and may have been one person's viewpoint of this organization. No way of telling. — Maile (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral comment This organization does not have any direct affiliation with the GOP Assembly Caucus and organizes the state party in general. Nate • (chatter) 18:08, 5 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! 20:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments since last relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I found numerous references in newspapers going back to the 1930s, but the ones I checked had limited depth. Allegedly there’s a book on the subject ([36]) but it’s not online. There’s a copy of Ronald Reagan’s speech to it, but arguably that’s not independent. Overall I couldn’t prove or disprove notability. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_June_20&oldid=1162302372"