Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 22 June 24 >

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 merge‎ to Party or an appropriate section thereof Star Mississippi 03:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet party[edit]

Quiet party (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 and apparent orphan page. Seems non-notable and perhaps obscure commerical events without any wider social impact. Seaweed (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the best source I can find is [1], but I'm not entirely convinced this source is entirely unprompted by the company that is the main subject of the article. Every other relevant Google hit seemed non-independent, web-pages of companies who host quiet discos. If we can't find genuine unconnected secondary sources, perhaps it's WP:TOOSOON? Elemimele (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It looks like this article had this other article merged into it. On that revision there are several links to reliable sources covering quiet parties, including non-trivial coverage in The New York Times and SFGATE. Those references should be edited into this article. I do agree that the concept seems not to have caught on, so a merge into a new "variants" section on Silent disco could work too. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Party. The concept doesn't have the traction in sources or popular media for a standalone article. There are plenty of niche parties discussed at the parent article. Desertarun (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets GNG per above sources from old redirect. Including additionally from that same redirect a USA TODAY article—siroχo 00:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Party#Types as a new L3 section, I guess. I don't think silent disco works as a target; the parties discussed there all involve some form of performance entertainment experienced through headphones, which seems like a pretty distinct concept. On review of the sources mentioned above, while I can't deny that this formally satisfies the GNG, from a practical standpoint I just don't see much in them to build an article out of. They are mostly about first- and second-hand experiences of attending a Quiet Party. (And what citable facts these articles contain relate mostly to what seems to have been a business/hustle run by Rebhan and Noe -- note mention of "franchising" in one article -- which raises a different set of issues.) We are, I think, missing several levels of coverage around both silence and parties that would have provided better merge targets -- wouldn't it be lovely if we had Partying in the 2000s? -- but Party is already eclectic enough that this is probably fine there. -- Visviva (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to party per Visviva as a more appropriate location for this content. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Party#types per above. - Indefensible (talk) 01:51, 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. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 03:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Ramos[edit]

Leon Ramos (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)

Made 52 appearances for four teams in the Eerste Divisie across four seasons. A web search finds an article about his suspension ([2]) but no WP:SIGCOV. The article fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I couldn't find any sources that met WP:SIGCOV either. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 02:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Long-term professional soccer player. gidonb (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a matter of definition. It's not my job to bore those who react after me with yes-no arguments. The important distinction is that we sometimes remove the article of a player who played a chance game or a just few games in the Eerste Divisie. Not players who were long run professionals like Leon Ramos. gidonb (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two points: [1.] As you opened your own intro, it all circles around addition. You now fall into irrelevant subtraction. You dropped under my opinion already your second reaction-distraction in a row. Supposedly, if we put Omniworld (Almere City FC) aside, then it is 11, 7, and 5. But there is absolutely no reason to put Omniworld aside. And even 11, 7, and 5 makes 23. A large number. The relevant numbers are 52 games and 4 years in the Eerste Divisie. Not some salami version thereof. [2.] We know the importance of Leon Ramos. It is crystal clear. We also know that he played in the 2000s. These are lull years. Years for which we do not have most of the newspaper articles as the items have moved and the main archives do not hold the articles yet. We know for a fact that he was covered in the main Dutch football magazine (Voetbal International) and a regional radio station (Omroep Flevoland) covered him. These articles are shorter than your typical newspaper article. We know for a fact that a lot of AfDs focus on these years. Gotcha AfDs. For example, other people blow a hole in the middle of a tournament after not enough SIGCOV was found for the editions in 2004, 2005, 2006. Next they claim that we need to delete all annual editions even though the SIGCOV is clearly there. Per previous results. My approach is that we need to concentrate more on the big picture. To be less of an information clerk and more of an information manager. We should stop searching for the hole in the bagel and then, when people do not buy into this, start arguing with LITERALLY EACH PERSON who disagrees with you. As Visviva correctly points out, there is enough bread here for a good article. The application of true information governance principles and reduction of AfDs and arguments leads to the increment of time spent in the article space, where we can make much more difference. It will also lead to AfD results being less random since no longer dictated by the decade in which a professional footballer happened to play. gidonb (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I feel that some participants above may be overinterpreting WP:SIGCOV, which states Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. As explained there, the point of the SIGCOV requirement is to avoid original research (which might apply if e.g. this article were attempting to reconstruct his career from incidental mentions in match reports). That doesn't really seem to be the case here, and while the article about his suspension or this squib about his transfer to Cambuur don't really give much material, they are not trivial mentions and interpreting them requires no OR. The NL article shows IMO that a reasonably comprehensive and encyclopedic treatment of his career is possible. -- Visviva (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Omroep Flevoland "article" (a short paragraph long) is a routine transfer announcement, that is a trivial mention. The article about his suspension is two short paragraphs long, it's clearly not SIGCOV. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I explained that above. That the items (more than mentioned) are short and why they are short. It's obviously because of the years he played. There is no situation that a footballer is covered by the regional radio and the main football magazine yet not in the newspapers that cover more at length. Never happened. We can do in such cases with what we have. Counting words does not replace operating our brains. gidonb (talk) 10:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer reports are by wide consensus considered trivial and non-contributory to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the NL article is based almost entirely on non-independent and/or primary sources (with the exception of the VI web transactional report). An article cannot be based on such sources. JoelleJay (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. The sourcing included in the NL Wiki article is insufficient (just routine transfer news). Jogurney (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreed that the above source is obviously routine transfer coverage, and nothing else approaches SIGCOV. It's irrelevant whether he played professionally or not as that reasoning has been rejected as a factor in determining notability. JoelleJay (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per gidonb and Visviva. Article needs improvement,t not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. While transfer coverage can be significant, the coverage shown here are just routine and short announcements that are woefully short on being significant. Also, being a professional footballer has long been a poor indicator of notability. Alvaldi (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails GNG and SIGCOV. No evidence of significant coverage despite being a professional soccer player, but this fact alone is not enough to demonstrate notability. CycloneYoris talk! 01:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 04:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Carvalho (rower)[edit]

Paulo Carvalho (rower) (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:NOLY and WP:BIO. Searches in gnews only yields namesakes. LibStar (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't have access to any older Spanish-language sources, and internet-based news sites aren't likely to have much on an athlete from the mid-twentieth century. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:59, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Appreciate your work on the other AfD. —siroχo 02:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he medaled in two competitions at the 1959 Pan American Games (bronze in single-scull, silver in double). While NSPORTS has no rowing-specific criteria, several other sport criteria provide either specifically for Pan-American medalists or generally for medalists in "elite international" competitions. In view of that, it seems reasonable to grant a Pan-Am medalist in rowing a presumption of notability. The antiquity of these competitions is likely making it artificially difficult to find sources. But given that his name comes up quite a bit in US coverage of the games, I have a hard time imagining that SIGCOV doesn't exist in Uruguayan sources. -- Visviva (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Visviva made a compelling case for keep. It would be great if someone could add this information to the article. gidonb (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly add Visviva's findings to the article. CycloneYoris talk! 01:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to 313 Presents. Star Mississippi 03:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Handler[edit]

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

Appears non-notable, with sourcing consisting of trivial mentions of the subject. Could perhaps redirect to the 313 Presidents article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 313 Presents by @Oaktree b is a good option, but does not account for marketing experience & campaigns created for NFL, Virgin Mobile, SNL, MTV or the MLS. Sources have been updated in effort to meet suggestions. Some deleted portions of original contained citations in NYT, Forbes & other page links. Keep as example of marketing/advertising executive history. S2Squared (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't seem like there's enough sources to demonstrate individual notability. Sure there's a lot that could be said about his "marketing experience" but that's not a good enough reason to keep a Wikipedia page. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 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. ✗plicit 23:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yohan Lainesse[edit]

Yohan Lainesse (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, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NMMA. Only one win in the UFC currently over someone who was only a handful bouts into their career and went 0-3 in the UFC. Currently the #216 WW in the world, highest ever was #119, nowhere close to even the top 25 HeinzMaster (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passes WP:TOOSOON ans WP:MMABIO, the only thing that really matters for MMA biography pages. It requires at least 3 fight under top promotion (UFC) which subject has and he will continue to compete there. Unfortunately if this one is invalid then there are several others that need to be deleted as well. ExNhilo87 (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also read through WP:NMMA it is just a redirect, not only does it not mention MMA in it at all. I used the find on page function and most of the "MMA" are part of the word su"mma"ries.. so yeah kinda confused about that one.. ExNhilo87 (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MMA notability, also known as WP:MMANOT, is an essay to give some guidance on points to consider when discussing the notability of the subjects of mixed martial arts (MMA) articles. Which article also passes. ExNhilo87 (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article also passes basic guidelines for Wikipedia:Notability (people) People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6](article subject has multiple primary references)

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.[7] Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.(depth of coverage by sources is substantial) ExNhilo87 (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete We had similar cases lately and they end up getting deleting no reason for this one to be different.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what about all the other notability guidelines that it passes as mentioned above, this must be from recent rule changes. This article meets standards. One of the things that was quoted is just a redirect. Article passes basic guideline notability for Wikipedia as well as MMA notability. ExNhilo87 (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thought this was supposed to be a discussion.. you guys ain't responding to me much just condemning the article even though it has multiple legitimate primary and secondary references and it meets several guidelines that you guys are not even willing to acknowledge for some reason. ExNhilo87 (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ExNhilo87 be careful not to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. It's easy to fall into that trap - I've done it before myself! Lethweimaster (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probably will deserve a page if he continues with the UFC, but as of right now it's clearly too soon, as the subject fails WP:MMABIO. Sourcing is bad; zero significant independent coverage, does not meet WP:GNG:
  1. Tapology profile Red XN
  2. Mma junkie From interview, usually not considered independent Red XN
  3. ufc.com non-independent Red XN
  4. Mma junkie Event results are not sufficient to meet GNG Red XN
  5. "tsn.ca" routine fight coverage Red XN
  6. Sherdog profile Red XN Lethweimaster (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some coverage in Quebec sources, [3]. I'll keep looking. Oaktree b (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly he's not close to meeting WP:NMMA. Fight announcements, results, interviews, and database entries are all I see. That's not enough to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:49, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Fisher[edit]

Junior Fisher (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. 4 international caps for the Cayman Islands national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason, the two sources cited are databases and textbook examples of "trivial" sources as per WP:SPORTCRIT Bwmdjeff (talk) 23:43, 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! 19:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Ebanks[edit]

Nicholas Ebanks (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)

Five official international caps for the Cayman Islands national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This was all I was able to find, if it's the same person. JTtheOG (talk) 20:08, 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! 19:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Streaming Audio Server[edit]

Rocket Streaming Audio Server (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 software. No coverage in reliable sources that I can see, and most of the citations go to the official website. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why this specific article, and why now? Should we also consider proposing Icecast and SHOUTcast for deletion as part of this cleanup, as they also have the same notability issues? GameGod (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to nominate those pages if you believe they have notability issues. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW Shoutcast does seem to have better sourcing than this one. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not this article, if it has poor sourcing, we can't keep it. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. Not finding independent reliable sources that discuss the software, nor does there appear to be anything particularly notable about the software. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I didn't see much of anything in the way of sources after a Google search. If this were a niche topic maybe there would be print sources, but I would expect a streaming service to be mentioned in online publications if it was mentioned anywhere. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no RS found. Also note that article submitted the day after that software released its 1.0.0 version, suggesting a bit of WP:RECENT —siroχo 23:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per others. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails notability guidelines. Maliner (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom and @Siroxo. Can't find RS either. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 16:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hardly any mentions of this software, most hits are on SpaceX and rockets. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 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 no consensus‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of special schools in Hong Kong[edit]

List of special schools in Hong Kong (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:NOTDIRECTORY. The list is almost entirely comprised of plain text of names of schools, without further context. 33ABGirl (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Special Schools" [4] is what the Hong Kong Government calls schools catering to special education, which is a very generic category of schools used in many countries, similar in nature to a classification like "secondary" or "primary" school, and thus non-notable. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would not say a "special" school is always non-notable. It depends on whether Wikipedia:Reliable sources have written non-directory significant coverage on the school, in either English or Chinese. My experience is that a media outlet is more likely to cover a school if it is novel or unusual in some way. Unfortunately many databases don't carry pre-1993 coverage of the South China Morning Post, so one has to make special queries at WP:RX. Its possible Hong Kong Wikipedians would also have to check databases of Chinese papers to see if more of these schools have coverage (and in other words, be notable) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per User:WhisperToMe . Special school is a category of schools in Hong Kong, see Education Bureau, HKSAR, Overview of Special Schools (in Chinese). I would want to use the term positive discrimination if anyone insists it is a discrimination. Also the list is verifiable and is of clear definition and contextual information (§1 of WP:DIRECTORY) -✉ Hello World! 01:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, majority of these schools are non notable. Category:Special schools in Hong Kong only shows one unique school. Ajf773 (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am aware that the burden of proof of whether something is notable is with the users trying to add or restore content. With that in mind, it would be nice to ask users to check Hong Kong media to see if any have covered these schools (in English or Chinese). One complicating factor is that many databases don't have access to pre-1993 coverage of the South China Morning Post. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The question, per WP:NLIST is whether the schools are covered as a group by independent sources. This topic is regularly studied, and reported on in mainstream and scholarly sources. Not sure if this needs to be incorporated into the article, but this list of English language sources should satisfy your curiosity:
      • sports participation in special schools in HK (paywall) [5]
      • HK schools for emotional disability (7 schools) discussed as a group (full text)[6]
      • lack of support for non-Chinese speakers in HK special schools [7] (non-paywall [8]); see also[9]
      Oblivy (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You cannot just use the number of articles appeared in Wikipedia, as the only standard to decide whether it is notable.--✉ Hello World! 02:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well there nothing else obvious that establishes notability of this list. Ajf773 (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this list is more curated than a general list of schools (see the kindergarten list nominated today by same editor), and thus encyclopedic. Not sure about the positive discrimination rationale above, but this isn't indiscriminate. It could use some category descriptions rather than just headers. Oblivy (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:45, 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 speedy keep‎ in accordance with the guidelines set forth in WP:NPOL (Wikipedia: Notability of Politicians). These guidelines establish that politicians who have served in legislative bodies at the international, national, or state/province-wide level are generally considered to be notable. The subject under consideration has held significant positions, having served as both the Home Secretary and Governor of Sikkim Province. (non-admin closure) AmusingWeasel (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balmiki Prasad Singh[edit]

Balmiki Prasad Singh (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 article fails WP:GNG as only two sources are there and most of the stuff it contains is not backed by any source. Also it seems that author had close connection with the subject as the image added in the infobox also shows the subject himself as author.-Admantine123 (talk) 18:04, 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 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! 18:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Deterville[edit]

Giovanni Deterville (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, thus failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:03, 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! 18:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shofur[edit]

Shofur (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 is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria 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 - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified or reworded.

While there's lots of "coverage", most of it is derived from PR and announcements (fails ORGIND). Others lack in-depth information about the company. None of the references listed meet the criteria and I'm unable to locate anything that does. HighKing++ 16:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Its like its written for 2008. Its unbelievable. I can see about 8 press-release in the first two blocks of 20 refs without opening them. Its unbelievable. The references are absolute junk. We can go through the references if need be, but its heading for the out door. scope_creepTalk 10:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE as with CharterUP, which was had involvement by the same COI/paid-for editor, and is about a very similar business, it is a corporate puff piece that doesn't establish the notability of the subject. Pieces like these are a cancer on Wikipedia that need to be brutally excised 10mmsocket (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please check your facts @10mmsocket. The edit log on this article will very clearly show that I have had 0 involvement in the creation or edits on this article. Michellecharterup (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cleary, Mr. 10mm is referring to Mlevy1010 (talk · contribs), who was operating with an undisclosed COI for both companies. Quite a bit of problematic editing and advocacy there. Sam Kuru (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My mixup I'm afraid - I thought that paid-for editor Michellecharterup was the same person as paid-for editor Mlevy1010 and that the former had done more paid-for work that she had admitted to. I am happy to admit I was wrong. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:02, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 18:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roddy Lenga[edit]

Roddy Lenga (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 and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:17, 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! 18:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alphonse Bongnaim[edit]

Alphonse Bongnaim (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 and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:13, 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 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! 18:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Fred[edit]

Dominique Fred (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 and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:11, 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. ✗plicit 14:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ACW American Joshi Championship[edit]

ACW American Joshi Championship (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 notable pro wrestling championship. The promotion doesn't even have an article HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:17, 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 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! 04:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Pekaruk[edit]

Ilya Pekaruk (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 GNG with no significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://dartsnews.com/pdc/northern-ireland-ease-past-ukraine-at-world-cup-of-darts-hungary-whitewash-india Yes Yes No passing reference ✘ No
https://energodar.city/articles/46510/illya-pekaruk-ta-andrij-lagutin-posili-prizovi-miscya-na-turniri-z-dartsu-v-melitopoli Yes Yes ~ Pekaruk gets a photograph and a paragraph of prose, but is not the subject of the article ~ Partial
https://skeptik.com.ua/ykrayinec-vpershe-zigraye-na-chempionati-svity-z-dartsy/ Yes ? No passing reference ✘ 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}}.
All the best, Akakievich (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 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 keep‎. Complex/Rational 14:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John McIntyre (copy editor)[edit]

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

Procedural AfD nomination as the page was PROD'd but was ineligible for such as there was a previous AfD on this page back in 2008. The PROD rationale was: "Doesn't look notable. The sources given are basically his employer, and people trying to sell books." TartarTorte 13:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In addition to the article found by @Oaktree b: I also found this in CSM, and these minor articles [11], [12]. He may also meet WP:NAUTHOR as I found at least one scholarly review of his book [13]. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep I think with all the new sources found, the individual is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Incidentally, I arrived at this AfD by way of Bus Plunge. I noticed that this individual had a long-running column in the Baltimore Sun, which alone might or might not not fulfill WP:JOURNALIST (haven't dived in too much), but it certainly adds to the currently established notability. —siroχo 23:21, 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 merge‎ to Homelessness. ✗plicit 14:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Homelessness in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Homelessness in popular culture (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 is likely an important social topic that could be written up in prose. What we get is poorly referenced list of random works featuring homelessness. This fails MOS:TRIVIA, WP:IPC, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTTVTROPES, and so on. While this could be redirected to Homelessness#Popular_culture, that subsection has the same problems and should likely disappear in its current form anyway. The only salvageable part of the aricle is the short prose section "Depictions of homelessness", which I'd suggest is used to replace the current content at Homelessness#Popular_culture. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Give the soon-to-be homeless prose shelter in the Popular culture section per nom and delete the random sampling of depictions as well as such profound nuggets of wisdom as "The homeless are frequently divided as either protagonists or antagonists." Clarityfiend (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the prose portion to Homelessness per nom. No objection to recreation if enough sourced prose content can be added to make a WP:SIZESPLIT necessary. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the first two paragraphs to main article. Otherwise we are not an exhaustive list database of depictions of common thing that appears a lot in popular media. And no, not even Wikipedia:TVTROPES is that either (see their page “people sit on chairs”). Dronebogus (talk) 23:26, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cadet College Rawalpindi[edit]

Cadet College Rawalpindi (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)

Prod was challenged by Jack4576. Still fails notability criteria. BookishReader (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:54, 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. ✗plicit 14:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin Kotov (footballer)[edit]

Konstantin Kotov (footballer) (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 and WP:SPORTCRIT. No independent or significant coverage. For example [14] is a routine transfer namecheck, this and similar articles are routine match reports, and this local news article just repeats information from databases. Kges1901 (talk) 13:48, 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. ✗plicit 14:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Barsukov[edit]

Sergei Barsukov (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. No significant coverage in RS and sourced only to databases. Outside of routine transfer announcements like this, only able to find this non-independent press release and a namecheck in a local news article. Kges1901 (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Kges1901 (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article about footballer who only played a few seasons in the Russian second level; and only one season where he played more than half of the matches. I agree with the nominator's source anaylsis; I checked the local newspapers where Barsukov played the most at the second level (Samarskaya Gazeta and Samarskoe Obozrenie - FC Lada; Tikhookeanskaya Gazeta - SKA Khabarovsk) and found nothing (I don't know any local newspapers for Orenburg or Saratov oblasts). More general searches of Russian-language turned up only routine coverage. Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 02:46, 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 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 14:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Around the Blockade[edit]

Rock Around the Blockade (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 organization. Unsourced article and no reliable sources online. Apmh 13:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Cuba. Apmh 13:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Some coverage in what look like Cuban expat websites for advocacy against the blockade, nothing we'd use for RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:45, 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 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 14:25, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mehdi Tehrani[edit]

Mehdi Tehrani (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)

Likely promotional or self-written. References are not reliable (I couldn't check the Hebrew reference but it definitely need a double check that it actually mentions his name). Written by one user in twenty different languages. Ladsgroupoverleg 13:12, 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 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 14:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ziad Al-Khatib[edit]

Ziad Al-Khatib (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:SPORTBASIC Vyvagaba (talk) 11:57, 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 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 14:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamad Al-Harbi[edit]

Hamad Al-Harbi (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:SPORTBASIC Vyvagaba (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article uses a single source, which is the player profile on a blog. Vyvagaba (talk) 14:05, 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 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 14:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bader Al-Hagbani[edit]

Bader Al-Hagbani (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:SPORTBASIC Vyvagaba (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article uses a single source, which is the player profile on a blog. Vyvagaba (talk) 14:04, 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 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 14:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hatem Abdulrahman[edit]

Hatem Abdulrahman (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:SPORTBASIC Vyvagaba (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article uses a player profile on a football league website, and the rest of the sources are sports blogs. Vyvagaba (talk) 14:06, 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 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 14:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Najr[edit]

Abdulrahman Najr (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:SPORTBASIC Vyvagaba (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article uses only sports blogs for sources. Vyvagaba (talk) 14:06, 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 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 14:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al Huwail[edit]

Abdullah Al Huwail (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:SPORTBASIC Vyvagaba (talk) 11:53, 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 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 14:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Safwan Al-Mowallad[edit]

Safwan Al-Mowallad (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:SPORTBASIC Vyvagaba (talk) 11:52, 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. ✗plicit 14:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulellah Hawsawi[edit]

Abdulellah Hawsawi (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:SPORTBASIC Vyvagaba (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are ten sources used in the stub, in Arabic - are none of them suitable for notability? You need to do a better job with your nomination statement. SportingFlyer T·C 13:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks essential requirements for general notability guidelines. Noneate (talk) 09:51, 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 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 14:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhannad Yousuf Ozair[edit]

Muhannad Yousuf Ozair (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)

Notability Vyvagaba (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article uses only sports blogs and a player profile page as sources. Vyvagaba (talk) 14:10, 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 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 14:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Malallah (footballer, born 1990)[edit]

Ahmed Malallah (footballer, born 1990) (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)

Notability Vyvagaba (talk) 11:48, 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 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 14:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adel Saqr[edit]

Adel Saqr (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)

Notability Vyvagaba (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why, is there something wrong with the eleven sources currently in the article? You have to write more than just "notability." SportingFlyer T·C 13:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the sources are about the player specifically, they all cite matches. None of them really meet the criteria for notability. Vyvagaba (talk) 14:09, 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.

Mike Woessner[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Actualcpscm (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Mike Woessner (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 article subject is not notable; fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. None of the sources in the article provide significant coverage. The coaching positions themselves do not confer notability; there needs to be at least one reliable source providing significant coverage (see SPORTBASIC). Actualcpscm (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that seems reasonable. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:24, 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 no consensus‎. Editors are encouraged to work on improving this article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ferratum[edit]

Ferratum (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)

Ferratum should be deleted or reduced to a stub. Almost all of the content contained in this article is not sourced or inappropriately sourced, and a proper cleanup based on available information from reliable sources would reduce it to a stub.

(1) This article contains many unreliable sources (WP:RS).

  • Reference 1: Broken
  • Reference 2: A press release from the company itself, breaking WP:RS
  • Reference 3: A press release from the company itself, breaking WP:RS
  • Reference 5: Not a source, breaking WP:RS
  • Reference 6: Broken

(2) There are very few reliable sources that could potentially be added to clean this up.

  • Further searches on Google, Google News, and Google Scholar showed little additional information from reliable sources with the exception of a Maltese lawsuit.

(3) This article is written like an advertisement and has struggled with populating sections with anything but promotional content since 2017. See Mean as custard's 16 and 24 July 2017 edits and Kimsey's 12 April 2019 edit. While WP:NPOV issues shouldn't be enough to warrant deletion, this article has very little room for improvement and has had the same unresolved issues for six years.

(4) The company does not qualify for WP:N because it seems to lack significant sources independent of the subject. This might be a product of this being a Finnish (...or Maltese, depending on the source?) company.

Ethamn (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stubify: It should just clean it up. CastJared (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add lots of details about allegations of misconduct in Australia and New Zealand. I added some references. Regulators in Australia and New Zealand have accused their local Ferratum companies of various types of misconduct. Perhaps similar misconduct has happened in other countries as well. 04:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastmain (talk • contribs)
  • Good catch Ethamn. I've remove the content copied from the company about page which was the most blatantly promotional part IMO. To be honest I think the NOTPROMO aspect is already enough to blow it up, but I'd agree it's not quite enough for G11, and the rest of the article I can't confirm as infringing so G12 may not be possible either. I'll be reviewing in a bit more detail later today but I'm leaning delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be writing my full rationale later but I've reviewed the available news coverage and am now fairly solidly supporting delete. The available coverage is routine and not of sufficient depth to establish corporate notability. Ethamn, I've also taken the liberty of unbolding the delete in your response, that's generally considered redundant as you are the person who nominated the article for deletion (that counts as a implicit delete opinion unless stated otherwise) Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, it's ILLCON and related, coverage expected for day-to-day operations, etc Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elaborating more about routineness. I know a lot of people don't like it being cited, but routineness of the coverage is one of the factors determining whether coverage is significant or not. This applies to all topics, but is also explicitly called out in CORPDEPTH for organisations and companies (partially because of high risk wrt PROMO). Routine coverage is trivial coverage. Significant coverage is about whether we can write an encyclopedic article from the available sources, and we cannot write an encyclopedia article about a subject that merely covers characteristics that it shares with every single other example of the same thing. To determine notability, (and I know people hate this essay even more) we need to determine whether the topic is MILL or SNOWFLAKE.
Beyond the illegal conduct (WP:ILLCON) which do not themselves appear to be notable, there is certainly news coverage that can be said to be significant were we measuring things solely on quantity of text. Stuff.co.nz has quite conveniently linked their coverage together in a series, the earliest of which is probably the closest to not being eliminated under ORGDEPTH out of any english language source I've seen. They actually published it three times, slightly rewritten, within about half a week (I'm not really sure what to think of that, but it did give me a slightly disturbing sense of déjà vu before I realised), as Text-a-loan rings alarm bells and defends rates, and "Banks of last resort for needy and naive". What can we take from those articles? They offer (or offered) a loan via text service. That's new. But what else? They charge ridiculously high interest rates? So does every other payday lender. They say they're justified in doing so? So does every other payday lender. Collections? Every other payday lender. This later article does note that they're "one of the more prominent" payday lenders, but what we should say about them it does not. And of course, they do also have two articles about the start and finish of the investigation. I did manage to find another Norwegian source, "Tilbyr lån til 115 prosent rente: – Det er helt hinsides" or "Offering loans at 115 per cent interest: - It is completely beyond the pale" (google translated), but again, the coverage is more appropriate to extract for a general "payday lending" article. It doesn't really offer anything substantive on Ferratum specifically. (Which, to be honest kinda seems like it may apply to our coverage on payday lenders in general. It's... not great, and probably half of them can be deleted)
Of course, there's room to disagree about this and while I have more I could probably say I'm not sure I have the time and I've already rambled on for probably too much (don't really have the time to edit this down either, so if anyone wants to hat this with a summary that sets expectations witout being OMGWTFBBQ feel free to do so without asking me). So yeah, basically routine news coverage isn't what we're here to write. Even if it were, the current article text doesn't help us write it. We are, and should be, especially strict re sourcing given the PROMO concerns. And while we could maybe write a "this is a payday lender" with 90% of the article then being "this is what payday lenders do" CORG, the coverage doesn't really seem to support it being about Ferratum specifically. Maybe this can be mentioned on an article on payday lending or history thereof and redirected there, but any specific redirect destination seems speculative at this point, and on the TNT to PRESERVE scale, I'm definitely on the TNT side here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Finland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; I don't see why this is at AfD when the nomination statement itself concedes that stubification is a valid alternative. It's on the cusp of passing GNG for me. Iseult Δx parlez moi 23:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't take my word for it I have no idea the policy behind reducing something to a stub. I still support a delete because I feel that the article is hopelessly in violation of NOTPROMO and there is essentially no content available to fix it. This was not notable enough to warrant creation in the first place. Ethamn (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's some Finnish-language coverage in e.g. Helsingin Sanomat, but it all looks like stuff that either falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH or is otherwise non-independent (e.g. news articles based on press releases, interviews of the CEO etc.). I'm not too familiar with how WP:NCORP is usually interpreted, so I'll refrain from officially !voting for now, but if I had to !vote, I think I'd lean a weak delete. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, generally, we want to exhaust non-deletion options unless the subject of the article just can't pass deletion criteria. Iseult Δx parlez moi 14:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point, and there are still a couple of foreign language publications that I may need to review. This is one such article I found, though not really the most promising (it also seems to be syndicated but should be mostly independent). Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No responses after 2 relists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 07:37, 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. The wildfire smoke is hiding the snow Star Mississippi 00:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subhash Dhankar[edit]

Subhash Dhankar (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)

Draft was declined then moved to mainspace by conflicted user, fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Theroadislong (talk) 07:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Played minor roles in several films and a recent web series, but WP:NACTOR requires significant roles. Sources provided don't meet GNG threshold, cursory search does not help. —siroχo 08:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to the nomination. RPSkokie (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Vyvagaba (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And per user Unitedmotionpictures sent me an email to approve their article which I denied. Twinkle1990 (talk) 10:20, 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 no consensus‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Government First Grade College, Carstreet[edit]

Government First Grade College, Carstreet (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)

repeatedly moved from draft by COI editor bypassing AFC, topic fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:NCORP and is just advertising. Theroadislong (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Sources used are WP:RS, A grade accreditation by National Assessment and Accreditation Council itself makes it a notable, surely follows WP:GNG. Drat8sub (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please point to the notability guideline which states that "A grade accreditation" makes an institution notable? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Grade accreditation count as WP:ROUTINE and not enough to pass notability guideline. The National Assessment and Accreditation Council has assessed 655 universities and 13,316 colleges, that doesn't really make all the 13,971 institutions notable enough for each of them to have an Wikipedia article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please say when will be the AfD tag remove from the article?If this article is need an improvement then give me suggestions.Thank you Ardo27 (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When will the AfD tag be removed depends on what other editors think of this article in this AfD. If we reached a "keep" or "draftify", or no census was reached, then the article can stay. Admin would give a week of time for debate, and at the end of the week they will decide whether to close the AfD based on the current state of discussion. In the meantime you can still improve the article by adding adequate sources.
    Under Wikipedia policy, the sources would need to pass all the criteria in WP:GNG. In short, they need to be 1) independent from the subject; 2) talked about the subject in depth; 3) be reliable sources; 4) not WP:ROUTINE; and 5) not primary sources. If the sources can satisfy other editors reviewing this AfD, then they will vote for keep. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Working on this. Needs unsupported promo narrative removing. Being opened by the State Minister for Higher Education suggests it's notable. The State of Karnataka has a population of 61 million. The first state government evening college for the district of Dakshina Kannada (population over 2 million) was set up here, see https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mangaluru/dakshina-kannada-gets-its-first-govt-evening-college/articleshow/86463146.cms. After careful consideration, I believe there's enough coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG for this particular college. I understand there's over 30,000 of these colleges in India, so recognise the need for selectivity. Rupples (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The arguments suggesting keep don't actually use our policies or guidelines to establish notability. However, they offer circumstantial evidence that such notability might exist so rather than down weighting them (and given the limited support for deletion) let's try relisting one more time to see if actual sources showing notability can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having a gov't official show up to open your school is what they do, it's called a photo op. Rest is routine coverage or trivial mentions of the school. Scoring a high grade isn't notable either, the schools all get graded, so one is no more important than another when this happens. There are no sources discussing the history or architecture of the school, simply mentions of things happening at it, all of it routine coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That grading article also uses flowery language and basically says it was graded B before, the staff worked hard and it got an A. Oaktree b (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Editors dismiss the coverage as "routine" and invoke WP:ROUTINE, yet I don't see "routine" mentioned anywhere in the WP:GNG or for that matter in WP:NORG, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't agree that the Minister of State is your typical government official opening the college. Architecture of school buildings doesn't appear in most of the school, college, university articles I've looked at and doesn't necessarily support notability of the institution. There are already elements of history in the article; history is ongoing and can be added when significant events are reported. Further, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) states in its opening paragraph The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions . . . . This college is a non-profit educational institution run by the state and therefore falls outside the scope of the guideline, hence "fails WP:NCORP" in the nomination is not relevant. Rupples (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rechecking my last statement is correct re 'non-profit' - don't want to mislead anyone and I'm not familiar with the system. Students do pay tuition fees, but my understanding is that the Government Colleges are part-financed by the State. Rupples (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on whether the coverage is routine or not, but the part of WP:N that covers routineness is WP:SBST. Nonprofit educational institutions could indeed be retained under GNG. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 08:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this article relisted more than 2 times (according to Wikipedia policy article not relisted more than 2 times). we didn't get any new comments till today. 1 week ago. Thank you Ardo27 (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC) sockmaster 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 07:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mistakenly closed it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 06:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete according to the nomination and the ongoing conversation. In any case, it does not meet the criteria of WP:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. RPSkokie (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AFD is a mess. And the article has been moved and the AFD tag has been removed. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion - Merge with Mangalore University? It's a pretty short article, the University has an official "Association" with 5 other "colleges" - which makes it sound like they are satellite locations of the main college? This specific location/school is only in it's second year of accreditation, so it doesn't have much history yet. Denaar (talk) 08:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing further reading - there are thousands of these small local schools that are "Affiliated" with a bigger University, to expand educational opportunities. This is an article about it:
    "Andhra University has 405 affiliated undergrad colleges; Bangalore University 400; Osmania 390 and Bombay University 300. Quite clearly supervising the operations, conducting examinations and awarding degrees to students of such large numbers of affiliated colleges stretches the resources of parent universities to the limit, leaving little time for them to supervise postgrad education and undertake research studies which should be their first priorities."
    "The affiliating system of colleges was originally designed when their number in a university was small. The university could then effectively oversee the working of the colleges, act as an examining body and award degrees on their behalf."[18]
    So - Merge seems appropriate unless there is a lot of notability about a specific affiliate, should be case-by-case, but this one has only been accreddited two years and hasn't generated much coverage yet.
    Denaar (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now based on existing referencing support, the article can be improved and/or renominated for deletion again in the future. - Indefensible (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep — there are several noteworthy points about this particular college, especially after removing ad-like text. Several sources note specific emphasis on improving education rates in the area, there are actions taken by the government to advocate and support education for women, and the institution has been around for 15+ years now (looks to have been founded in 2007).
    If it becomes ad-like again, it would seem reasonable to delete after another AfD if it ends up deteriorating. The article could use some additional content to support what I mentioned above, but it otherwise reads better with only a little bit of extra care. Pedantical (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Garodia International Centre for Learning. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garodia School (icse)[edit]

Garodia School (icse) (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)

Previously prodded 10 years ago. No sources to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep There appears to be coverage , this source from Mid-Day has a write up about the school's lack of registration with the authorities [19], there is more at the Mumbai Mirror about a fee hike and protest from parents [20] this is covered by The Mumbai Mirror as well [21] and a passing mention again in (this one doesn't count for GNG) [22], these sources have write ups about the school defending a handball title [23] and [24]. The school's "parent organization" Garodia International Centre for Learning also appears to have some coverage [25]. Perhaps we could merge the two and add all available sources to the "primary topic". Bingobro (Chat) 08:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:59, 11 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! 06:34, 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! 06:39, 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.

Afsar Ali Ahmed[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎PARVAGE talk! 06:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Afsar Ali Ahmed (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 WP:GNG PARVAGE talk! 06:34, 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 keep‎. There is a consensus to Keep this article because the subject itself is notable. But there is concern about the current state of the article. Luckily, User:Ancheta Wis has been active on this article and I encourage other interested editor to contribute to improving it. Liz Read! Talk! 06:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Systems thinking[edit]

Systems thinking (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:SYNTH, this is a generic term, the only citation supporting the existence of this concept is a random government civil service exam study guide. - car chasm (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Previously added another citation from 1997. Therefore it's not OR. Also, why doesn't Newton's System of the World 1687 qualify? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be honest here - I have absolutely no idea why you think a primary source from the 17th century is an acceptable WP:RS for a page discussing a topic that originates in the 20th century. - car chasm (talk) 07:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a superficial article prepared by someone whose knowledge is restricted to one sub-field. There is no mention of Systems Biology, for example, a very active field of research for at least 30 years, and no mention of Henrik Kacser, Robert Rosen, Humberto Maturana, Walter Pitts, etc. There is also no mention of Systems chemistry, a topic I know little about, but which exists. Athel cb (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite: there is an extensive literature about systems thinking, but many of the article's references are not relevant to this subject. Jarble (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This paper from scholar looks promising, but it also says that that "However, as yet there is no commonly accepted definition or understanding of it." - so it seems that an article drawn from sources like this would discuss the use of the term, which appears to fall afoul of WP:NOTDICT. I'm unaware of any other policy that discusses what to do when various sources all use the same term to refer to different topics. - car chasm (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's from a predatory publisher. Not promising at all. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete. This really seems like a "blue trucks" article: the fact that a bunch of people have used the phrase "systems thinking" to describe something doesn't mean that they were describing the same thing, or that there is a single thing for us to write an article about. Taking it at face value, the definition is so broad as to be vacuous: "looking at [the world] in terms of wholes and relationships"? Gee whiz.. as opposed to what? "Yesterday I went to a place where there was a grain of sand. There was also a second grain of sand. There was also a third grain of sand. There was also a fourth..." jp×g 18:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but fix. There is a thing (or set of things) that people refer to as "Systems thinking" (as with (and perhaps not entirely opposed to) "Design Thinking"). There is an entire domain of Systems Engineering, and General Systems Theory that can be drawn from. Wikipedia is a work in progress. dml (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist but are those editors advocating Keeping and fixing offering to do this themselves? And if you support the idea of Redirection, you have to supply a target article to consider redirecting to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: systems thinking is clearly a topic worthy of a Wikipedia article with a large number of citations on the topic. For example, Systems Thinking, edited by Gerald Midgley, SAGE Publications; Systems Thinking Basics by Virginia Anderson and Lauren Johnson, Pegasus Communications; Monat & Gannon (2015), doi:10.5923/j.ajss.20150401.02; Systems thinking: Concepts and Notions by NJTA Kramer & J de Smit, Springer. Bondegezou (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree: an article under the title "Systems thinking" needs to be retained. Regardless of some ambiguity in the use of the term, there are important references to 'systems thinking' with explicitly described meaning. Peter Senge's book The Fifth Discipline is another example. See also Arnold and Wade A Definition of Systems Thinking: A Systems Approach. Matthew C. Clarke 04:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Poorly-written mess of an article, but systems thinking is a valid academic concept with influential and highly-cited papers in reliable journals (example, example). Clean up but don't delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Systems engineering relies a lot on systems thinking and action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 02:18, 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 delete‎. If an editor wants to add names to a protected page, I suggest you follow the advice given here and make an edit request on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rajput Sportspersons[edit]

List of Rajput Sportspersons (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 is nothing but a replication of List of Rajputs#Sports. Almost all name listed here are mentioned there in a seperate heading called "Sports".Hence it's undue to keep a seperate article for it.-Admantine123 (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the original page List of Rajputs is already overloaded and no new names are being added despite repeated requests. Therefore, it is better if it is section-wise moved to a separate page for easier addition of names and better presentation (more details and images).
I propose that the names under Sports section can be removed from that page and a redirect to List of Rajput Sportspersons be added.
In future, similar things can be done for other sections as and when required. Kshatriya Yoddha (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another point is that few people are mentioned in just one category, although they have significant contributions in other as well which makes it difficult to get all relevant names at a place.
Example, Ranjitsinhji is mentioned in Sports section but his name should also have been in Indian Royalty section as well due to his immense contributions as a Maharaja of Nawanagar state.
Another example is Paan Singh Tomar who should be mentioned in 2 sections, Sports and Criminals.
Also addition of new names like Roop Singh, brother of Dhyan Chand.
The biggest concern is the no response to previous recommendations of new name additions. Kshatriya Yoddha (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another new addition of Ashok Kumar, a famous hockey world cup winning player and son of Dhyan Chand. Kshatriya Yoddha (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this isn’t very long. No need for a length split. Dronebogus (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, the primary purpose to shift the page is to make it longer with new additions which are not happening on the original page.
This might not be much long right now but atleast new names are being added here, 3 have already been added, 10-12 are in queue, just confirming the citations.
If you don't allow for a length split right now because the length doesn't seems long, the very purpose is defeated which is to make it more exhaustive, detailed (proper explanation & images) and arranged properly (in alphabetical order) for easier navigation; all of which is not possible in the older list. Kshatriya Yoddha (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Original article is currently locked due to persistent inappropriate additions made without reliable sources regarding the Rajput status. As a result, you may not have the ability to edit it. However, you can place your editing request on the article's talk page, and a reviewer will assess your request and incorporate the necessary changes on your behalf.AmusingWeasel (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteIt appears that this list is primarily a copy-and-paste of an existing article, with only a few new names added. Instead of creating a separate article, it would be more appropriate to edit the existing one to include these additional names. Without significant content changes and substantial additions, the creation of a standalone article does not seem justified.AmusingWeasel (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but then kindly lower the editing status of List of Rajputs page as no new additions are being done in it inspite of repeated messages on talk page. Kshatriya Yoddha (talk) 17:39, 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 or at least no consensus to delete. Merging may be done at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Trade Center in popular culture[edit]

World Trade Center in popular culture (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)

Trivial list of appearances and what-have-yous. Maybe refine to “impact of 9/11 on popular culture (or redirect if that already exists)” but even then a comic in 2004 featuring the attacks is getting into “historical event” territory, not contemporary impact. Dronebogus (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 13:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Popular culture, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There also exist separate articles entitled List of cultural references to the September 11 attacks and List of entertainment affected by the September 11 attacks. TompaDompa (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d merge the former into the latter and reformat the resulting fusion into a prose article. We have a very good collection of 9/11 articles and it’s a little disappointing and embarrassing our coverage of the popular culture impact is still in “list of minor appearances this or that” format Dronebogus (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it seems the majority of World Trade Center in popular culture is pre-9/11 and there is a hatnote mentioning this is for popular culture references unaffected by that. And there was a lot of significant pop culture usages and references pre-9/11 so I think it is likely that this is a notable, encyclopedic topic that is deserving of its own coverage even if this article has excessive cruft currently. Skynxnex (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable subject, as described in books like this and this, and to a lesser extent books like this. The book Icons of American Architecture: From the Alamo to the World Trade Center also devotes some text to the WTC in pop culture. While this article's current condition is downright awful, reliable sources do exist for the topic of the WTC in popular culture, both before and after 9/11.
    In all honesty, this article should be rewritten to look like World Trade Center (1973–2001)#As an icon of popular culture. I wrote that section in the WTC (1973-2001) article, so I'm a little biased, but it actually analyzes the WTC in popular culture without getting bogged down in references to the WTC in pop culture. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:TNT exists for these cases. If it’s “awful” why not just rewrite it from scratch? Dronebogus (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, I'm agreeing with you that the article currently consists mostly of "trivial list[s] of appearances and what-have-yous". However, I also do not think that rewriting the article is within AFD's scope, and keeping the contents of the current page would be at least marginally helpful to someone who wishes to revamp the article in the future. The current maintenance tags on the page, "This article is in list format but may read better as prose", "This article contains a list of miscellaneous information", and "This article needs additional citations for verification", already detail some of the page's myriad problems. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I lean towards WP:TNT. This may be a notable topic, but WP:NOTTVTROPES. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. If this AFD closes with a consensus to keep, I think the current text of this article should be replaced with what's in the WTC (1973-2001) article, then expanded upon. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. "In popular culture" is often a valid aspect of a given subject, but it should look like this rather than a list of examples. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Probably TNT, but the merge sounds better. Oaktree b (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or selective merge to World Trade Center. This is a notable topic, but most of the content here is virtually unusable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is very clearly a notable topic, and the principal objection to keeping this is article quality. However, WP:DEL-CONTENT notes that If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page; I see no need for us to ignore the deletion policy's guidance here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentIt's a pretty big article. There is a lot of problematic work. But is it significant without an updated article about the building for the encyclopedia? --Wyndhan Han (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The way it's written, it's pushing people to add every trivial instance of "someone used a photo of New York in their work" which is not what I'm reading the purpose of Lists on Wikipedia generally should be. I think the paragraph about the Simpsons is interesting, but it is Original Research? The item below it "Desperately Xeeking Xena" is a good example of a non-notable mention of the tower in pop culture. If we keep it, will it constantly be a target of that kind of padding? Denaar (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Keeping based on the notability of winning two awards since no one has contested that they are significant for publishers in Bangladesh. Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agamee Prakashani[edit]

Agamee Prakashani (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 WP:GNG M.parvage (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Bangladesh. M.parvage (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No coverage of this article. CastJared (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a premier publisher in Bangladesh. Has a WP:BEFORE been done on it. The current references are very poor, but I think this is probably notable as its on the same footing as similar premier publishers in any country like for example, Penguin in the UK. scope_creepTalk 13:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes wp before done. But probably your example is not suitable for this. M.parvage (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first mention that I found of it, mentioned that it was one of the premier publisher's in Bangladesh. It had published more than 3000 books. That is a major publisher. Its been going for 37 years which means its publishing on average, more than 80 books a year. That is a major publisher in anybody's book, making it notable. scope_creepTalk 17:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is some coverage of the firm in relation to book fairs [26], I don't think it's extensive. Oaktree b (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Has received Bangla Academy Literary Award, the most significant literary awarded by Bangla Academy. The award is almost always given to individuals so an award to a publication house indicates it has some significant contribution to Bengali literature.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has received Chittaranjan Saha Smriti Award in 2013 and 2022 for publishing the highest number of books on subject and quality. The award given by Bangla Academy. ~Moheen (keep talking) 20:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:m.parvage
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Source 1 ? No No Some words from an interview ✘ No
Source 2 No No No ✘ No
Source 3 ~ Yes A recognized newspaper No just a summary ✘ 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}}.

M.parvage (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:49, 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! 05:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Byles[edit]

Justin Byles (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 independent sources, thus failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Vyvagaba (talk) 12:02, 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! 05:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olamide Toyin Adebayo[edit]

Olamide Toyin Adebayo (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 and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no good refs. Fails WP:NBADMINTON --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator and A. B. Not notable badminton player who fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBADMINTON DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep continental championships winner therefore notable enough Bearas (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid rationale. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an accomplished player but with zero WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC #5 which is the bare minimum requirement for an article. Arguments for keeping not linked to any notability guideline should be given less weight. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:20, 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. ✗plicit 06:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Barman[edit]

Raj Barman (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 singer, with references from here to tomorrow. Gsearch goes straight to his website, then social media. Oaktree b (talk) 02:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Existing sources are not SIGCOV, nothing else helpful turns up on a quick search. —siroχo 06:06, 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 List of programs aired by TV5 (Philippine TV network)#Newscast. czar 02:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Live on 5[edit]

Live on 5 (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)

Restored article without WP:BURDEN. A WP:BEFORE shows nothing to pass GNG. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 02:17, 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 keep‎. Thanks for the work you did, User:Reading Beans. Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Muhammad Ketso[edit]

Ahmed Muhammad Ketso (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 a one sentence political biography can provide some general notability, the article lacks WP:SIGCOV. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources; is missing information about Early life, more Career, Personal life, Achievements and honours. JoeNMLC (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — unless the notability guidelines for politicians has changed, this subject is notable as the deputy governor of Niger State. I wanted to close this discussion myself but I’m hasitating in doing so. I have improved the article to something readable but I guess I should advise this user that deletion is not cleanup. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 18:40, 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 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! 04:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Averell Spicer[edit]

Averell Spicer (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 more broadly WP:BIO for lack of coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first Los Angeles Times piece from 2004 (here) has depth of coverage, but it's an article written when he was in high school, part of a series on "the Southland's top high school football players". It appears he showed great promise in high school and was a top recruit, but he sustained injuries in college and never quite made the grade at USC. Per WP:YOUNGATH, an in-depth profile from his high school playing career doesn't support a stand-alone article -- particularly where he didn't fulfill the promise when he got to the next level. Cbl62 (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second Los Angeles Times piece is an article seeking to answer the question of who would replace Sedrick Ellis, USC's star nose tackle (headline: "Trojans look for stopgap measures" to fill the hole at nose tackle). Spicer was one of the "stopgap" measures to replace Ellis and thus received some coverage. USC during the Pete Carroll years was one of the super-programs where even a backup (or "stopgap") nose tackle received some coverage, but the fact remains that Averell never made the cut (whether due to injury or whatever) and doesn't IMO warrant a stand-alone article. Cbl62 (talk) 16:38, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Full Throttle Theatre Company[edit]

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

A search for sources in gnews yields almost all local sources failing WP:AUD. No significant coverage found in gbooks or Australian search engine Trove. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 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! 00:18, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_June_23&oldid=1163036439"