Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 27 June 29 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Doctor Who characters. Star Mississippi 02:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Edward Travers[edit]

Professor Edward Travers (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 minor recurring character from Doctor Who. Relies almost entirely on primary sources, and does not meet the GNG. Pokelego999 (talk) 23:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect per Piotrus. Without third-party sources, there isn't enough WP:SIGCOV to support this article. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:20, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teteringen Girl[edit]

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

Not meeting GNG, the only sources found are used in the article. One brief mention here [1]. Missing persons case gone cold it seems. Sourcing found in Interpol, then straight to the various websites and podcasts that deal with such things. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! This article is available in the Dutch wiki, and is not an article for deletion there - that's one of the reasons I created an English one, in addition to her being one of the 22 women listed in Identify Me (which does have its own page.) Is there anything I would need to do to make this page not recommended for deletion? If not, that's okay - but I did want to say my piece about why I made the article and why I thought it was notable enough. Thanks! Cincosechzehn (talk) 12:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have Dutch language sources that mention it at length? Newspapers, magazines, books? Oaktree b (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
News article: https://www.omroepbrabant.nl/nieuws/3410804/meisje-van-teteringen-na-30-jaar-opnieuw-aandacht-voor-onopgeloste-moord
Book published in Dutch: https://www.bibliotheek.nl/catalogus/titel.430036604.html/het-meisje-van-teteringen-en-andere-naamloos-begraven-personen/
Newspaper article in Dutch: https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?coll=ddd&identifier=KBPERS01:003091021:mpeg21:a00033
Let me know if you need more. Thanks for the follow up! Cincosechzehn (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I used Google translate to understand the articles, but the first source listed above is a 2021 report of an announcement by the mayor of Breda about the installation of a sign with a QR code for the public to use to learn more about the unsolved crime, with quotes from the former journalist Theo Jongedijk about his doubts related to the adequacy of the previous investigation (also noting he wrote a book the previous year and has advocated to the mayor to request further investigation from the Public Prosecution Service) and quotes from the mayor. The second link is a listing for the book by Jongedijk. The third link is a brief 1990 news article with a headline that translates to "Walkers find murdered woman." I am considering these sources in the context of policy such as WP:NOTADVOCACY as well as the WP:NCRIME, WP:CRIME and WP:BIO1E guidelines, without access to the book or secondary coverage about the book, but my sense is regardless of how in-depth the book may be, the other sources are brief coverage, not the multiple sources needed to help support a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Beccaynr! This nomination is an obvious BEFORE failure. There is not even the beginning of a case for deletion, redirecting, or merger. See three LISTS of sources below. gidonb (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi gidonb, lists of WP:GHITS are generally not considered strong support for notability, and my spotcheck of lists you added indicates top Google results are corpse photos, and at least some results are not about the case, e.g. [2], [3], or are brief announcements, e.g. [4], including about the journalist who wrote the book [5], [6], [7]. But I have reviewed specific sources produced in this discussion, and I would be happy to review further sources that could help develop this article, and/or an article about the journalist's book.
From my view, determining whether and when a topic should have a standalone article involves more than than WP:GNG, and includes consideration of WP:NOT policy, as discussed in the notability guideline. The WP:NCRIME section of the event guideline indicates sources should show an WP:EFFECT, e.g. a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance; and per WP:GEOSCOPE, not just national or international coverage but also a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group. As to the WP:INDEPTH section, there is a book written by a former journalist, but so far, multiple in-depth sources do not appear to have been identified in this discussion. So WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy seem to apply to what mostly appears to be a collection of brief news reports, churnalism, and government sources, without much context beyond Operation Identify Me, which is why a redirect and adding the best sources to that article seems appropriate at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 20:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Becca, actually only the first of the three source lists that I provided was from Google News and it includes independent sources. The other two are from the Algemeen Dagblad, NL's second largest daily newspaper in readership, and Reformatisch Dagblad, one of the smallest national newspapers in readership. Since I used the Dutch term for the victim, these lists will include for the most part independent Dutch sources. Similar searches can be conducted for different lnaguages. More impact is in the Netherlands but the interest is international and raised and tied into debates on "honor killings" (a terrible concept but this is where our article is) within Muslim and North African societies in Europe. Finally, I will cast the insinuation that I engaged in Google Tests far from me. gidonb (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I did not find the three lists helpful for finding sources to support a standalone article according to relevant policies and guidelines; I spotchecked all three lists without finding what I think would be further support, and I think it would be helpful to identify specific sources here that could help support a standalone article. I am open to changing my !vote, have tried to find sources, and I am willing to continue to review specific sources if they are identified here. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A notable murder case in the Netherlands. Moondragon21 (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Operation Identify Me - available sources do not appear to support WP:GNG or WP:NCRIME notability guidelines at this time, and available coverage tends to report on her in the context of Operation Identify Me, e.g. the government sources in the article, Corriere del Ticino [8], and a solid paragraph of coverage in this Dutch source cited several times in the article. At the Operation Identify Me article, this 2023 source is cited, mentioning Operation Identify Me with a limited summary of the operation's activities; this appears to be a questionable source based on its about page. The limited coverage, both in the number of independent and reliable sources, as well as the depth of information available about this subject, seem to support directing readers to the larger police operation article, where the best sources can be added to her entry. Beccaynr (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given the huge amount of sources,list 1list 2list 3 delete is not an option. Redirect and merge (I am big on these!) are irrelevant as this is a proper spinoff. Remains keep per WP:GNG and WP:NCRIME. gidonb (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable case and coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found about the murder case. It's a notable crime. Noneate (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are arguments to Keep this article, other editors are advocating a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Easily Keep: meets WP:GNG. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources identified above, which seem ample to meet the GNG. I do not read WP:NEVENTS as restricting the scope of notability even further beyond the GNG; rather, it provides some rough rules of thumb to guide in evaluation. In particular, contrary to some arguments above, it must be noted that a conditional statement such as Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable does not imply the inverse. -- Visviva (talk) 02:13, 30 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. Although there is some basis for an WP:NEXIST keep argument in the arguments pointing out that RS have described Landstreicher as important, this failed to sway most respondents who presented a thorough analysis of the provided sources. In keeping with the merge arguments, I am happy to restore this in draftspace in order to rescue the assembled bibliography of anarchoprimitivism that the article has become and merge it to broader articles. signed, Rosguill talk 03:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfi Landstreicher[edit]

Wolfi Landstreicher (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:NACADEMIC. Long, D'Amato, and Kinna only mention Landstreicher in passing, failing SIGCOV. The translation of Stirner does not in itself confer notability, and it is not clear that Landstreicher is "known for" this translation.

While I could find some coverage of Landstreicher, none of it is in sufficiently reliable publications to establish notability. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As far as I can tell, Landstreicher's amateur translation of Stirner is the only recent one, so it manages to pick up a handful of citations, but it doesn't seem to meet WP:NBOOK; WP:SCHOLARSHIP seems to largely rely on revised versions of Byington's translation. - car chasm (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    fwiw, google scholar gives about 40 citations (and the first bunch I checked are indeed not false positives), which is more than I was expecting. I found an example scholarly cite here [9] (Ch6 uses Landstreicher's translation). -- asilvering (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject is an important voice in contemporary anarchism and is clearly covered in multiple independent, scholarly sources. Schenkstroop (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While there is coverage, it is not sufficiently significant to meet WP:SIGCOV, in my opinion. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Last deleted in 2017 with this rationale: "Not the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Works not widely held. Not enough depth of reliable, secondary biographical/career coverage to do justice to the topic. Only mentions in other WP articles use primary sources and should be removed—no secondary source discussion of works." This holds true six years later. Long 2021 is a passing mention with no context. Kinna 2021 (Kinna is the editor so the chapter should be credited to Sara Motta) is an extended quote from Landstreicher without analysis. Casper 2020 is not more than a citation. D'Amato describes Landstreicher's critique of civilization, but by no means says that he is "known for" it. The author does not analyze this critique apart from quoting it. King 2016 similarly only lists Landstreicher and does not analyze his work beyond this broad grouping. Altogether these sources are not sufficient to write a biography worthy of the subject, e.g., significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) czar 04:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into contemporary anarchism. Per my comments elsewhere, none of these sources imply the notability of the author specifically, although it does appear that his work is of some relevance to post-left anarchism. Anything worth saving should be moved to the PLA section of contemporary anarchism. I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect to there either. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: fyi to searchers that the subject also goes by Apio Ludd and Feral Faun. I've got a hit I can't access on this source, in case anyone can get it: Sakolsky, Ron.  Social Anarchism; Baltimore Iss. 35, (Jan 31, 2004): 60. -- asilvering (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well, having just spent a little while looking, I think it is indeed possible to do as czar asks and write a biography worthy of the subject, using coverage from reliable, independent sources. In my search, I did also find a scholarly source that called Landstreicher "an important figure in [anarchism in] the USA", which I think is the sort of thing Grnrchst was looking for. He's namechecked in Routledge handbooks, etc - which, I would argue, is a certain statement of notability, even if the reference itself isn't significant coverage. There is some sigcov though - that Robinson and Tormey chapter has a section of several pages in which his work is contextualised, two pages of which are almost entirely about him. I think this is indicative enough of notability that I stopped here, after adding six references to the article. I didn't check newspapers, or either of the two other names (Apio Ludd and Feral Faun). -- asilvering (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reviewing those additions: Kinna 2019 (p. 102) is an extended quote, which is why there's nothing more to add about it in the biography. Rodgers 2014 has no analysis of the translator. Rossdale and Marone similarly are quotes/passing mentions, i.e., there is no expansion to be made here as it's standard academic citation. So the only source for discussion is Robinson & Tormey. I don't see where he is discussed for two pages? Page 159 describes "From Politics to Life" for a sentence (maybe two—unclear?) but quickly becomes a discussion about post-left anarchism, not Landstreicher nevertheless his work. The next page summarizes "Feral Revolution" for two sentences in context of post-left anarchism. What part of this supports a full description of his work, nevertheless a biography? I could see a single-sentence mention in (and a redirect to) the post-left anarchism section if a source describes him as important to that current (what is the source you quoted?) But if this is the best we've got, I don't see how it's enough for the general notability guideline or a dedicated article. czar 20:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The one that calls him "an important figure" is Marone. That article is just glancing coverage though - it's where I got the "his influences include" sentence and there isn't much else there. So, an indication of the subject's notability, but hardly sigcov. Regarding R&T, the coverage includes descriptions of his work and its context, rather more than is given in a typical Kirkus/PW review, which are routinely used to demonstrate notability for authors, so yes, I'd call it significant. -- asilvering (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Kirkus/PW are trade publications that review with little discrimination so they shouldn't be used for notability but that's a different story. czar 23:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I think. I think there's a fair argument to be made that these sources satisfy the GNG. But setting the formalities of policy aside, I have to agree with those who have said above that there just isn't enough in them to build a satisfactory article out of. A merge to contemporary anarchism per Grnrchst could be fine,but the fact that he isn't currently mentioned in that seemingly well-maintained article gives me some pause about that. (And in the absence of such a mention, a redirect would violate the principle of least astonishment.) There seems to possibly be some history behind his non-presence there -- which is not to say that he shouldn't be there, but does suggest to me that this might not be a good situation for simply merging for merging's sake. -- Visviva (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that you believe that there isn't enough in the sources "to build a satisfactory article out of" is not a valid reason for deletion, see WP:DEL-REASON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schenkstroop (talk • contribs) 18:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schenkstroop it's coming from #8 in a sort of roundabout way, along with a general aversion to WP:PERMASTUBs, an aversion I do not personally share. There's nothing wrong with a good stub; paper encyclopedias are full of them. -- asilvering (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    7, 9, and 14 could also be construed this way. Not that I'd necessarily agree, but they could be. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Lacking sources to build a "satisfactory article" is just a kinder phrasing of "it doesn't meet the general notability guideline", i.e., it relies on passing mentions czar 11:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article now has 12 sources cited, and it's only served to reinforce the argument that it doesn't meet GNG. Seriously, a dozen sources, and yet none of them actually provide significant coverage of the subject. To go over them:
  1. Casper 2020, p. 343 references Landstreicher as the translator of Stirner's book, in a footnote about Stirner, with no extra detail on Landstreicher;
  2. D'Amato 2021, p. 147 has a paragraph about Landstreicher's critique of anarcho-primitivism;
  3. King 2016, p. 37 briefly mentions Landstreicher in a list of individualist authors, largely describing their work collectively and only going into further depth on Hakim Bey;
  4. Motta 2012, p. 261 (cited as the editor Kinna) has a paragraph on Landstreicher's book From Politics to Life, in a larger section about post-left anarchism that cites half a dozen other authors;
  5. Kinna 2019, p. 102 has a paragraph of Landstreicher's anti-science views, as part of a larger section on anarchism's relationship with science;
  6. Long 2021, p. 29 briefly mentions Landstreicher in a list of individualists;
  7. Marone 2015, p. 197 has a short paragraph on Landstreicher, describing him as an "important figure in the USA" and listing his influences as Stirner, Bonanno and anti-civ, but without going into any further depth;
  8. Pike 2018, p. 149 briefly mentions Landstreicher's advocacy of rewilding, as part of a larger section about rewilding;
  9. Rodgers 2014, pp. 32-33 is a review of a book that Landstreicher translated and never actually discusses Landstreicher;
  10. Robinson 2009, pp. 159-162 briefly mentions Landstreicher's definition of post-left anarchy, mentions Feral Faun among a long list of post-left authors, and briefly quotes Faun's anti-domestication views;
  11. Rossdale 2019, pp. 69-73 quotes Landstreicher as part of a larger section on miltarism and anti-militarism.
So these largely consist of brief mentions without any depth, or paragraph-length references within larger subject overviews. None of them focus on Landstreicher specifically, so this is clearly still lacking in significant coverage. Of the reliable sources that do go into some level of depth, they are better utilised within articles about other subjects, including anarcho-primitivism, rewilding, post-left anarchy and individualist anarchism. I'm still of the opinion that relevant information in this article should be merged into those articles and this one be deleted, unless somebody can find literally any significant coverage of this author that lasts longer than a paragraph. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was my original point, and as you point out, nobody has addressed it in a meaningful way. Lack of notability cannot be WP:OVERCOME with tenacious editing. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What makes this person known is the fact they ran a Zine (a self published magazine) from 1996 to 2006 called "Willful Disobedience". I got that off a user-submitted site, not a reliable source. I'm calling a "bluff" on the idea that the sources are in depth if we don't even get that detail out of them. The ones I reviewed were trivial mentions. Denaar (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 15:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cornish geologists and explorers[edit]

List of Cornish geologists and explorers (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)

Sparsely populated category-list with weird scope (geologists are people in a very specific scientific discipline, explorers are anyone who travels to places that are poorly known in their native land— what is the connection here?) Dronebogus (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. Dronebogus (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 16 notable people with their own Wikipedia articles, makes is a valid list. The article for Cornish people shows how they are considered distinct from others. Dream Focus 15:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn’t answer my question of why “geologist” and “explorer” are considered related. We don’t need to keep every list with 3+ blue links if there’s no evidence of notability. Dronebogus (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are only two explorers listed here. They can be removed and the article renamed. When there aren't enough explorers to fill their own article, they are just kept at List of explorers. One of them is there already, I'll add the other to that list. Dream Focus 14:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Explorers from Cornwall has ten entries. They can be put on a separate list though, no reason to include them on this one. An article listing all the Category:People from Cornwall by occupation would be too long. Dream Focus 14:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into two separate lists, possibly merge the resulting content into broader scope articles like List of Cornish scientists or List of explorers if the resulting lists would be too short to have their onw pages. "This should be a category" isn't a valid reason to delete a list per WP:NOTDUPE, but this covers two separate topics (explorers and geologists) with little relationship to each other and little reason for them to be combined into one page. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Cornwall nowadays is just a region at the southwest corner of England. Briefly skim our constitutional status of Cornwall article for an overview why administratively it's been just another part of England for centuries and how the Cornish language faded from common usage in the 18th century. Attempts to gain autonomy for Cornwall like Scotland or Wales have fizzled due to lack of local support.
We don't have lists like this for other regions or counties of England and there's no reason to believe a Cornish geologist, philanthropist or architect is going to be different from their other English counterparts. The list serves no purpose.
In short, this list fails WP:NOT, specifically WP:CROSSCAT. In other words, Wikipedia is not "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations". (Technically, this is a list, not a category but the notability discussion at WP:LISTN references WP:CROSSCAT and suggests the same rationale for deleting similar lists.)
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per A. B. Does not appear to be a grouping recognized in reliable sources -- or even two separate recognized groupings. One caveat: I note that a couple of items have recently been merged into List of Cornish scientists (the others were already there) -- I don't think the descriptions have sufficient originality to require preserving their edit history, but the closer may want to take a closer look. If there is a need for preservation, a redirect would do no harm. -- Visviva (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The other issue is that this is an incomplete list that could be accomplished with a tag, and given WP:CROSSCAT and WP:DIRECTORY's primary message, "Wikipedia is not a directory," this would fail the test.
Editchecker123 (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cornish philanthropists[edit]

List of Cornish philanthropists (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)

Skeletal list with vague scope and dubious notability Dronebogus (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Show me where Cornish is a nationality. Maybe a couple of thousand years ago, but not recently. Do we really want lists of philanthropists by county? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for the category, I'm going to nominate it for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Cornwall nowadays is just a region at the southwest corner of England. Briefly skim our constitutional status of Cornwall article for an overview why administratively it's been just another part of England for centuries and how the Cornish language faded from common usage in the 18th century. Attempts to gain autonomy for Cornwall like Scotland or Wales have fizzled due to lack of local support.
We don't have lists like this for other regions or counties of England and there's no reason to believe a Cornish geologist, philanthropist or architect is going to be different from their other English counterparts. The list serves no purpose.
In short, this list fails WP:NOT, specifically WP:CROSSCAT. In other words, Wikipedia is not "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations". (Technically, this is a list, not a category but the notability discussion at WP:LISTN references WP:CROSSCAT and suggests the same rationale for deleting similar lists.)
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:00, 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 23:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bautista Stavile[edit]

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

Contested PROD, fails WP:NRU and WP:GNG. De-prodder has stated sources he believes pass GNG, however I believe all of these to be WP:ROUTINE coverage, and I've not seen anything in a WP:BEFORE to suggest a GNG pass. Given he may well make his debut for Zebre Parma in the 2023/24 season, I wouldn't be against draftyfying as more coverage will likely exist within the next 6 months. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 23:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brady Daniel[edit]

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

Contested PROD, fails WP:NRU and more importantly WP:GNG. Creator has stated that he has played for multiple teams and is the brother of someone with notability, however notability isn't inherited and none of this is pointing to significant coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 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! 07:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suditi Global Academy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Suditi Global Academy (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)

Unreferenced for 9 years. Created by a single purpose editor and fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no references to support quality or notability standards. - Indefensible (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Did a quick search and can't seem to find anything independent that covers subject significantly. Keep in mind article has been deleted before. - Imcdc Contact 05:52, 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 keep‎. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pit (Kid Icarus)[edit]

Pit (Kid Icarus) (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 littile bit iffy about this article. Most of the content are listicles, nothing else. I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV per WP:BEFORE about Pit somehow. (Update:There's a single IGN SIGCOV, but that alone isnt enough.) GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Skynxnex (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kid Icarus (series)#Characters. I disagree that there is no SIGCOV out there, as the IGN source in the article is quite significant, but only one SIGCOV is insufficient to make a subject notable. I could not find anything else, so if someone does (and it's real SIGCOV), notify me and I may amend my !vote. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I've done my WP:BEFORE, and I found two possibly viable sources.
    • Aplicaciones didácticas de los videojuegos en el ámbito del mundo clásico has about two pages' worth of material covering Pit role in the story. The discussion mainly talked about the allusions to how Pit is a syncretic blend of multiple mythological figures and religious figures. To summarize: the setting Angel Land invokes the angels of the Judeo-Christian tradition, a way of justifying the fact that Pit the hero is an angel, and therefore a flying being; his main weapon is a bow and arrow, which links him to Eros or Cupid; and Pit use a magical hammer at one point in the storyline to undo the petrification of Medusa's victims, which led to the author deciding that it is a veiled allusion to Mjolnir.
    • The book Women in Classical Video Games has about 4 pages worth. Pages 16-17 and pages 26-27. The preview I can see talks about Pit's presentation and how he is a deity reimagined with a new storyline, and also echoes the theme of the syncretism of real-world mythological elements, remixed into a new context.
By themselves, there may not be enough WP:SIGCOV to justify a standalone article. Read together with the other sources present on the article, and the fact that the nominator has acknowledged that there is in fact one substantial article with good content, there may be enough aggregate content to indicate that there is significant coverage. In any event, I disagree with the seemingly widespread practice in recent times of the deliberate misuse of the AFD process to force the improvement of content issues or the discovery of viable sources that may not be cited in the article at the time of the nomination. Because there is clearly no prospect of deletion with articles like this one.
Haleth (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the Women in Classical Video Games source, it is largely about female characters and only cites Pit as a brief example of one who isn't. I don't consider it SIGCOV, my opinion is not changed in this regard. Do think a Merge discussion would have been more appropriate of course as there is a VERY obvious WP:ATD/ ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - with the sources provided by Haleth, alongside the IGN source. I say this passes WP:GNG. (Oinkers42) (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Looking over the sources provided by Haleth I'm not particularly agreeing they can offer SIGCOV: the book seems to examine him briefly, while the paper is more discussing events and examines Medusa more closely by comparison.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes GNG. I agree that the article should be expanded somewhat. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 18:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as participants are divided between those arguing to Keep this article and those who believe a Merge would be best. Besides the nominator, I don't see support for Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Merge. While I feel as though Pit does meet GNG, the article's lack of SIGCOV leaves much to be desired. Many of the citations in the Reception section feel lackluster overall, and it feels like stretching to make something work. I feel Pit can likely be remade into an article in the future if a few more good sources are added, but with the current state of the article, I feel merging is the best option. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NEXIST. As long as sufficient sources are found (which you seen to agree on, since you think it passes GNG), they don't necessarily need to be in the article right away when determining if they should be deleted or merged. MoonJet (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely forgot about NEXIST. Given that clause, I'm unopposed to Keeping the article for the time being, though it should definitely be considered for merging again should there not be enough sources in a future AfD. Pokelego999 (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I think Haleth's finds are borderline useful. More constructive than a keep or merge !vote, I'd like to see if the reception can be expanded or retooled with those sources. It might make it more clear if this has passed the WP:SIGCOV threshold. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm going to have to echo (Oinkers42) on this. I agree that Pit passes the minimum standards on what Wikipedia expects on articles. Nice job on uncovering those sources, Haleth. MoonJet (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Haleth. Sourcing is thin but usable. SnowFire (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have tidied up the discuss a bit as it was getting to look messy and I agree with the comment above, that this has thin sourcing but it is usable. --Bduke (talk) 07:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Hook[edit]

Lisa Hook (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)

Pretty obviously a COI creation, most recently edited by a now-blocked paid user, but even before that latest editor this was already just a resume, padded with board memberships and whatnot (all with primary sources). The subject worked in technology, sure, and had a high position, but nothing in here suggests inherent notability, and there are mentions in only two or three newspaper articles, which aren't even about the subject (look how she's mentioned only once in this). Drmies (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete With the lack of reporting or description of the subject from reliable secondary sources (to the best of my research), this article, at this point, is a glorified LinkedIn page. Since this article doesn't meet this most basic principle of the Wikipedia notability guidelines, then there's no reason to keep this page at this moment in time.
Panian513 01:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would have to agree with Panian513 that there are no secondary sources and does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Untamed1910 (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Technology, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable per se by position and there is no other assertion of notability. This article looks like it was created and nursed by several single-purpose accounts in its early days. May be a vanity page. Not a controversial deletion. 128.252.172.12 (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG, no secondary sources, and does not meet any other notability guidelines. What else is there to say?
User:Let'srun 18:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fintan Coleman[edit]

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

Contested PROD, fails WP:NRU and more importantly WP:GNG. Creator has stated that he is notable as he has played for teams with Wikipedia pages, and makes claim to a connection to a team he plays for, however this does not make him notable, and while there is some coverage, it is WP:ROUTINE and does not constitute significant coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 23:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quentin Newcomer[edit]

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

Contested PROD, fails WP:NRU and WP:GNG. Creator has stated that there are lots of sources, however none of this show any significant coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 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. ✗plicit 23:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fermín Martínez[edit]

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

Contested PROD, fails WP:NRU and more importantly WP:GNG. Creator has stated that him playing semi-Pro in Argentina and in America makes him notable, but none of this shows any form of significant coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 23:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KoiKoi Nelligan[edit]

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

Contested PROD, fails WP:NRU and more importantly WP:GNG. Creator has stated that he's played for multiple teams and at college, however this does not make him notable, and doesn't show any significant coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 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. ✗plicit 14:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcos Young (rugby union)[edit]

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

Contested PROD, fails WP:NRU and WP:GNG. Creator has stated that he has played for a number of teams and added more sourcing, however none of this points to significant coverage of any sort. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's draw a fair comparison. You have repeatedly nominated every single rugby article I have created for deletion twice now. You have claimed every single one suffers from a lack of significant coverage.
    Let's take a look at some of the articles you've created, like Owen Watkin. As of now, Owen posesses a whopping 0 citations, and his 2 external links are to generic websites, much like a few of the sources I've used in creating these pages. Dmitri Arhip, another rugby article you wrote that has 1 citation, and 3 generic sources. What about him? Dillon Lewis? EytanMelech (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Granted, a lot of my early articles require significant improvement, but all of these were created at a time when notability guidelines were different, and all have significant coverage passing WP:GNG that can be found in even a simple search. On this subject, there is nothing to suggest in a WP:BEFORE that the subject passes WP:GNG. Please refrain from personal attacks please. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I don't seem to agree with you on that. Also, there are no personal attacks here, I am not insulting the quality of your work, nor am I attempting to state that your articles deserve to be deleted.
    I did a 'simple search' for "Owen Watkin" rugby -wikipedia -wiki, and I see a very similar pattern among our articles.
    1. Sports databases (ESPN, all.rugby, rugbypass, eurosport).
    2. Trivial mentions (listings in general articles about team/team performance along with their position)
    3. Articles from teams that they have been included on.
    4. Signing statements.
    If you think that Young, Sheehy, Bavaro, Daniel, Nelligan, Martinez, Newcomer, and the others all need to be deleted. That's' fine, that's your opinion, however, holding up to the notability standards of today, if the articles I created are to be deleted in 168 hours, I can think of a few others that definitely meet the same criteria that these do. EytanMelech (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @EytanMelech You are more than welcome to nominate articles for deletion if you do believe that the fail the notability guidelines but I would advise not to do such out of WP:REVENGE. Also please note that the current state of an article is generally not grounds for deletion so a proper WP:BEFORE is recommended. In the case of the above mentioned Owen Watkin, I easily found several significant sources on the subject and added them to the article. Alvaldi (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Argentina and Texas. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. The fact that the nominator has created articles that possibly fail GNG, has no relevance on this particular AfD. Alvaldi (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.eirarugby.org/las-vegas-2017 ? ? ? Inaccessible ? Unknown
https://torontoarrows.com/news/match-report-230518/ Yes No No Trivial match report mention ✘ No
https://www.gettyimages.fi/detail/uutiskuva/marcos-young-of-old-glory-dc-is-hit-by-jack-heighton-of-uutiskuva/1471515795 No No No Image caption ✘ No
http://bcrugbynews.com/show_news.cfm?ID=2190 Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://www.itsrugby.co.uk/players/marcos-young-50560.html Yes Yes No Database source, see WP:SPORTBASIC #5 ✘ No
https://www.goffrugbyreport.com/news/aircraft-charter-solutions-pow-marcos-young Yes Yes ~ Not enough for me. He gets a few mentions but it's an academy 'player of the week' announcement, not a massive claim to notability ~ Partial
https://djcoilrugby.com/2023/01/03/old-glory-dc-marcos-young/ Yes Yes No Basic transfer announcement ✘ No
https://www.espn.com.ar/rugby/nota/_/id/3477070/m19-sic-se-quedo-con-un-duelo-apretado-frente-a-cuba Yes Yes No Trivial match report mention ✘ No
https://www.cuba.org.ar/rugby/un-triunfazo-ante-el-sic-para-seguir-sonando No His employer No No Trivial match report mention ✘ No
https://www.espn.com.uy/rugby/nota/_/id/10371279/urba-top-13-copa-star+-cuba-jugo-un-partidazo-derroto-por-39-25-a-newman-y-le-corto-el-invicto Yes Yes No Trivial match report mention ✘ No
https://www.aplenorugby.com.ar/site/america/major-league/73861/otro-argentino-para-old-glory Yes Yes No Basic transfer announcement based on Instagram posts ✘ No
https://www.americasrugbynews.com/2023/01/03/old-glory-signs-versatile-back-marcos-young/ Yes Yes ~ Brief career summary, not enough for me ~ Partial
https://www.majorleague.rugby/news/first-xv-wk6/ Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:17, 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. Sourcing is insufficient. Technically not eligible for soft deletion, but given a lack of input this is semi soft deletion Star Mississippi 02:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alejo Daireaux[edit]

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

Contested PROD, fails WP:NRU and more importantly WP:GNG. Creator has stated that article has been significantly expanded, however there is nothing to suggest significant coverage, and has basically just been WP:REFBOMBed. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, let's think about this. Daireux has not only played for multiple major-league rugby union clubs, but he has played for CASI, which is the best performing URBA club in all of Argentina. He even won the 2019 championship.
If we go by your idea on what 'notability' constitutes. We should remove every single government politician in history who didn't make big headlines, but that's not how this works. Being a high-level member of a successful sports club/government/etc. generally does qualify one for notability, especially if they participated in a crowning achievement of said organization. EytanMelech (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please show how any of this would pass him for WP:GNG. as with Bavaro, he has played for some teams just under the previous, now defunct, rugby union notability guideline, WP:NRU. We only use WP:GNG for notability now, and with the sourcing provided, and what I can find in a WP:BEFORE, there isn't enough to suggest significant coverage exists. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the following sources are the strongest in terms of providing significant coverage.
You don't need to have a million sources of significant coverage to be on Wikipedia. CASI and OGDC are relevant teams, and some of your articles have just as many significant citations as mine do.
And, by the way, I wouldn't classify this article as "refbombed", as I'm sure you consider all the articles you have just nominated to be. Many additional references give very specific information that is relevant to the article, such as teams they've played for, points they've earned, height, weight, etc... I fail to see how these articles fail GNG, as our main dispute is only over whether you think certain coverage is significant or not.
EytanMelech (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source 1: A fan blog (although a good one with reasonable reliability) signing announcement, so therefore doesn't constitute SIGCOV.
Source 2: A short signing announcement again, this time from Argentina rugby, so not independent
Source 3: Same again, a short signing announcement. There's no significant coverage here.
My WP:BEFORE not showing anything else either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On Source 1, defer to my argument about DJCOIL on Bavaro's AfD. Also, I would hardly consider dcr a "fan blog" more than I would consider PCGS a "coin enthusiast club". Is there something particularly bloggy about it, compared to a traditional media outlet specifying in one type of topic? It's a website created by a competitive college rugby coach, and has professional videography + scores tons of interviews with people whose Wikipedia articles that you have not yet nominated for deletion. Unless you're implying that one should only be allowed to cite media sources where the author has a college degree in the field, I fail to see why DJCR doesn't count as a proper citation. EytanMelech (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:VERIFIABILITY specifically WP:SPS. While a very good fan blog with significant interest and knowledge in the field, it is still self published and not wholly independent. ARS likely falls under the same category. These are perfectly acceptable for primary sourcing, offering information and detail that isn't always included in other sources, but isn't secondary as they just state the facts that are known, or known to them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever team he played on or sport achievement he accomplished doesn't mean anything to notability guidelines. All sportspeople need to meet GNG. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. SWinxy (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Where are all of our editors who create and maintain rugby articles?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from reliable third-party sources. The three "strongest" sources provided by EytanMelech are not nearly enough. Subject fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lautaro Bavaro[edit]

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

Contested PROD, fails WP:NRU and more importantly WP:GNG. The creators statement that he has played for Argentina is inaccurate, as he has only played for Argentina's 2nd team, and basic details do not denote significant coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never said he played for Argentina, that was another user. Although, playing for 2 different teams that compete in the URBA top 12 is another reason to keep notability. I'd say out of any person in those clubs, Bavaro SHOULD be kept, as he was the team captain that led them through the Americas Rugby Championship.
Please explain what you get out of repeatedly nominating 10+ of my articles for deletion at the same time? Don't you have a hobby?
EytanMelech (talk) 18:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of this shows how he passes WP:GNG. He's obviously played for some clubs at a reasonable level below what is now the no longer used notability guide for rugby, WP:NRU. However, there is nothing in the sourcing in the article, or what I can find in a WP:BEFORE that shows enough for significant coverage to be met. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citing guidelines no longer used doesn't seem to very valuable argument. They're no longer used for a reason.
Out of the 9 articles of mine you've NfD in the last 30 minutes, Bavaro has one of the strongest team repetoires out of all of them. Please cite to me which guidelines he fails to meet? You keep linking the general concept of "NRU" with no real backing for your claims.
  • Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases.
There are definitely sources listed for Bavaro that do not fall under the "trivial coverage" database description. There are legit sources there.
  • Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources. Team sites and governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability.
Once again, governing body and team sites pages are used, but they are not the only ones.
  • Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article.
I think ARN and A Pleno count towards this, c'est non?
EytanMelech (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source 1: Database source, not GNG
Source 2: Brief press conference with some quotes, doesn't constitute significant coverage
Source 3: 4 lines of the same press conference
Source 4: Database source
Source 5: Signing announcement, doesn't constitute significant coverage
Source 6: Just states he is captain, no significant coverage here
Source 7: Same as source 2, press conference after squad naming
Source 8: Brief interview with Argentina rugby, not independent of the subject and no SIGCOV
Source 9: Match report with a couple of mentions of him, not SIGCOV
Source 10: Signing announcement, not SIGCOV
My WP:BEFORE brings up nothing of note either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring any relation to WP:Significant coverage not required, let's take a look at what SIGCOV actually says:
SIGCOV addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
For example, let's take the most detailed articles, the signing statements. (Ref 5)
1. Addresses the topic directly and in detail
Article is literally about them, I think this meets the mark.
2. No original research is needed
Definitely still fits the bill
3. More than a trivial mention.
Whether or not you like the source, it def isn't a "trivial mention" of the guy.
4. Does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
Bavaro shares the spotlight with OGDC here, but I don't think that should be an issue given this criteria.
Feel free to explain further.
EytanMelech (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Significant coverage not required is just an essay and not policy or a guideline. Please not the following in bold at the bottom "In short, regarding "notability", a topic may be presumed notable (i.e. capable of being noted or worthy of notice) if it is noticed in one or more independent, reliable, and verifiable sources." None of the sources provided show this in my opinion. Signing statements do not constitute SIGCOV as they are routine coverage of the subject. We don't count signing announcements as they are just a description of what has occurred. While they are better than primary sources, they still don't indicate notability. See Q7 on WP:NSPORTS. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Going to WP:What is and is not routine coverage:
However, if an article goes into detail about the event, it is not necessarily "routine" coverage. Not every sporting event earns a feature article in the press, and not every professional hopeful gains significant coverage and feature articles.
In other words:
"routine coverage" is not a disqualification for notability.
"routine coverage" may indeed be significant enough to surpass Wikipedia's general notability guideline.
Routine coverage is characterized to be more "here is the score from the local game at Ramsett Park" with a list of players names. Not so much a couple of articles that say "Here's a national champsionship winner and multi-year national finalist in 2 different countries being signed by the international Major League Rugby" Simple signing statements saying "Little Timmy went from Orange County to Los Angeles" may be considered RC, but something that not only constitutes a successful player, but also describes his history with the game and other details (education, build) are more than RC.
EytanMelech (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is just an essay. There is no policy of guideline here. While WP:ROUTINE coverage alone does not disqualify the article. However the sourcing, especially the signing announcements do not go into enough detail in the whole to be considered as anything other than routine, and if they do they tend to not be independent of the source or reliable as very little in terms of secondary sourcing exists. Signing announcements are basically just Primary sourcing. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Having reviewed the sources and guidelines cited above, I find EytanMelech's analysis convincing. I am not particularly impressed with the attempted wikilawyering by the nom. Deletion is an extraordinary, substantially irreversible and frequently harmful measure, and if your arguments in favor of it require elaborate legalistic backflips it's a pretty good sign that such an extraordinary measure is not warranted in this case. -- Visviva (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the nominators assessment of the sources. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. PER GNG, A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject., something that the subject has not received. Alvaldi (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I disagree with the nominator's desire to delete the article. Not only are there currently no written standards surrounding professional rugby players within (Wikipedia:Notability (sports)), but there are many articles on the site that lack in great detail or explanation surrounding professional athletes, yet they are still kept up. Would you delete a page like this then, with just seven sources but a notable individual? No, it wouldn't make much sense.
Given the lack of standards written, it wouldn't be appropriate to resort to the general guidelines of a subject when ones for a sport that would do a much better job at filtering articles aren't yet in existence. Or as I see it, it's not in good faith.
Lastly, let's consider the argument that this article lacks significant coverage.
  1. Addresses the topic directly and in detail The sources do discuss Bavaro in detail, maybe not to excruciating detail but the detail is there.
  2. No original research is needed to extract the content I don't see any reason why there is a need for original research, it's not like the article is making links to fan discussions on Reddit or anything like that.
  3. Must be more than a trivial mention There are multiple sources that state more surrounding Bavaro than "fun fact: did you know x thing about him?", so that's enough, and the information is relevant to Bavaro as well.
  4. Does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Like #3, there are multiple sources where Bavaro isn't the main topic of the source material. Overall, it would be a gross misinterpretation of notability guidelines to claim that just because a topic lacks the coverage you'd expect out of somebody as notable as Abraham Lincoln that deletion would then be warranted. I think it's pretty clear the article should be kept up, albeit improved with more writing and hopefully more sources. If not, though, it should still stay up, because it fits the requirements and the whole argument for its deletion is nitpicky at best, which doesn't meet up with Wikipedia's standards.
ShticktatorTal (talk) 00:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ShticktatorTal Per WP:NSPORT, all athletes, including rugby players, must pass WP:GNG. That means the subject must be shown to have received multiple reliable sources of significant coverage that are independent of the subject. And GNG isn't some impossible barrier to break. Usually, two to three significant sources are enough for an article to be kept in AfD's. I do recommend reading the FAQ at the top of NSPORT, it gives a good insight into what NSPORT is about. Alvaldi (talk) 08:51, 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 23:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mailtraq[edit]

Mailtraq (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 the GNG. My WP:BEFORE search did not find evidence that this software has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. (Previously deleted via PROD in 2007.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens#Alpha Centauri. Any content worth merging is retrievable from the page history. ✗plicit 23:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Centauri (Doctor Who)[edit]

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

An article for a minor fictional recurring character. Highly dependent on primary sources, doesn't meet GNG. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens seems obvious. Dronebogus (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blinovitch Limitation Effect, Destrii, Muriel Frost, Kadiatu Lethbridge-Stewart, Iris Wildthyme, Shayde, Fey Truscott-Sade, Sam Jones (Doctor Who), Molly O'Sullivan, Jason Kane (Doctor Who), Flip Jackson, Mila (Doctor Who), Charley Pollard, Evelyn Smythe, Thomas Brewster (Doctor Who), Abby (Doctor Who), Vislor Turlough, Rutan (Doctor Who), Draconian (Doctor Who), Sisterhood of Karn, Henry Gordon Jago, Professor George Litefoot, Forge (Doctor Who), Timewyrm, Threshold (Doctor Who), Coal Hill School, Nimrod (Doctor Who), Nobody No-One, Borusa, The Monk (Doctor Who), Polly (Doctor Who), Ben Jackson (Doctor Who), List of UNIT personnel, John and Gillian, Shalka Doctor, Sabbath (Doctor Who), Chris Cwej, Grandfather Paradox (Doctor Who), The Other (Doctor Who), Alan Jackson (The Sarah Jane Adventures), Vortis (Doctor Who), Thal (Doctor Who), Ogron, Werewolf (Doctor Who), Sil (Doctor Who), White Guardian, Mara (Doctor Who), Sabalom Glitz, Castellan (Doctor Who), Professor Edward Travers, Alpha Centauri (Doctor Who)
Such a mass deletion would significantly alter the coverage of Doctor Who on Wikipedia. WikiProject Doctor Who was not informed beforehand. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, is there a precedent for this? Editchecker123 (talk) 19:03, 4 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. Star Mississippi 02:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Kingsley Publishers[edit]

Jessica Kingsley Publishers (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 article had tons of puffery in it, and it just feels like it's a corporate profile that was written with significant COI problems. The sources are VERY weak, and these are not within the standards expected to Wiki. As such, this should be deleted in accordance with Wiki policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pumpkinspyce (talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Probably redirect to Hachette UK, seems to be a sub-unit of that company now. [10] Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm surprised that the nominator has characterised the sources in this way. For example, what is wrong with the van Goidsenhoven source? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:52, 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 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 23:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manicaland Development Association[edit]

Manicaland Development Association (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)

Coverage seems not to be significant enough per GNG. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:15, 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. Star Mississippi 15:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Reed Kraus[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jessica Reed Kraus (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)

You all take a look at the page and tell me if it meets the criteria and you think it should stay up. Amaekuma (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]



  • Delete

For 2 reasons. 1. she hasn’t a career outside of the Johnny Depp coverage 2. all of her mentions in these articles cited are in passing.

Amaekuma (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you nominated an article you created? Nswix (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG as most articles made by Amaekuma. Ironically user nominated article he created himself lol. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable
Theknowhowman (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not used to:
  1. Editors nominating articles they started
  2. Such a lack of deletion rationale

Mildy support a editor seeking to delete their own work, but could do with a bit more explanation about what's going on here. CT55555(talk) 04:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t worry, you’ll understand in the time Amaekuma (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If she broke the stories or had exclusive coverage, that is more notable than merely covering them. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, reassess later. It's impotant to this discussion that we understand the creator's and nominator's reasoning and what "Don’t worry, you’ll understand in the time" implies before making a decision. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Chamaelum, where in the Wikipedia rules is it stated that a person can’t nominate a page they created for deletion? What this place here is meant for is your assessment of the page, i.e is the page bad enough to be deleted or good enough to be kept. If you can’t make that assessment, then feel free to skip the page, as it’s never a must for you in particular to vote. T for Thanks. Amaekuma (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not against the rules to nominate of course, but my assessment is that the page should be kept and reassessed later once we have the relevant information. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not against the rules to nominate your own page but you are supposed to come up with a rationale for nominating any article for deletion. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Trival Coverage showing a WP:REFBOMB - Newsweek sounds important but it's a less then one sentence of coverage. The Stork and Bean is an interview... on a blog. CRJ - trivial coverage. Meaww - trivial coverage. Primary sources don't show notability. Just not notable. Denaar (talk) 13:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are a ton of refs but most are not RSes. Out of the more reliable sources, most are passing mentions and none seem to go beyond routine coverage. Having said that, every nom should have a good rationale for deletion @Amaekuma:. BuySomeApples (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Devara (film)[edit]

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

Article fails the WP:NF required and there is a more developed draft on this topic SP013 (talk) 20:53, 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 keep‎. Star Mississippi 15:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Laundromat Cafe[edit]

The Laundromat Cafe (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)

There does not appear to be significant enough coverage of the cafe to meet WP:ORG. Uffda608 (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – it is mentioned here and here, and there are articles here and here by The Reykjavík Grapevine, but not enough to establish notability. EndTheory (✉ • ✎) 20:59, 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. Per input here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian Resistance in Yugoslavia and because it's a sock creation. Pick your reason. Star Mississippi 15:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Breakthrough (Albania)[edit]

Operation Breakthrough (Albania) (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 seems to be a made-up story. I could not find any peer-reviewed academic source elaborating with details about a plan made by Enver Hoxha to invade parts of Yugoslavia after Tito's death. The claim was made by a Russian author and it has found a place only among non-RS Albanian and Serb newspapers. The sources used in the article have no peer-review process at all, no academic background and at least one of them (B92) is quite well-known for spreading propaganda, made-up stories, fabrications and conspiracy theories. The 4th source actually does not even mention any plan for invading Yugoslavia and targeting its control over Kosovo. Per WP:RS, IMO this article should be deleted. Any reliably sourced claim for an invasion could be added to the Albania-Yugoslavia relations article, if such material is found in the future. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Albania. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kosovo, Serbia, and Yugoslavia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Shebeniku-80 or Operation Shebeniku-80 after the speculation and unreliably-sourced information has been removed. I agree that we don't have the references to justify an article about a plan to invade Yugoslavia, but the military exercise did take place and was notable for the number of Albanian troops involved. That being said, I think Albania's leaders spent a lot of time preparing for defensive war and saw Yugoslavia as a threat. The Albanian leadership also felt kinship with ethnic Albanians in Kosovo and probably expected to be welcomed as liberators by the Kosovars. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only 4 sentences in the article concern Shebeniku-80. So it would mean removing ~90% of the content and leaving 4 sentences without context. A Shebeniku-80 article would be viable only if someone found some RS and wrote a few paragraphs, including some RS-based background for context, aftermath etc. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article was created by a sockpuppet with a history of misgiving sources but there aren't even any good sources given her to misuse! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.219.157.108 (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP should be a sock of User:Gugrak. The same conflicts with the other sock, the same IP geolocation. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a recent AFD where this topic was discussed already, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian Resistance in Yugoslavia. A cursory search of Wikipedia for Artyom Ulunyan or Artem Ulunyan (not sure about Russian transliteration) brings up nothing else, so while this work received some mainstream news coverage, until it gets scholarly corroboration it's too early to report on in an encyclopedia. Certainly we shouldn't accommodate repetitive 'contributions' from an abuser of the account policy (the previous AFD was stuff from "NormalguyfromUK" as well). --Joy (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 10:05, 30 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 23:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Roses[edit]

The Dark Roses (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 group does not appear to meet notability guidelines, as I cannot find any reliable digital sources about the group other than its own website. Uffda608 (talk) 19:07, 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 UNSW Faculty of Science. Star Mississippi 15:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New South Wales Systems Biology Initiative[edit]

New South Wales Systems Biology Initiative (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Sources all appear to be about research that has been done, and not on the oragnization itself. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—siroχo 20:03, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 05:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Necroscope IV: Deadspeak[edit]

Necroscope IV: Deadspeak (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Unsourced except for the novel itself. Fails WP:NBOOK. UtherSRG (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources

    1. Zaleski, Jeff; Cannon, Peter (2001-10-29). "Necroscope IV: Deadspeak". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 248, no. 44. p. 40. EBSCOhost 5446719. Archived from the original on 2023-07-02. Retrieved 2023-07-02.

      The review notes: "Lumley also broadens the scope, adding much to the story of psychic abilities, centered on the ultra-secret "E-Branch ( 'E' for ESP)" division of Britain's Secret Service. With their paranormal powers, Harry's E-Branch teammates give the novel an Ian Fleming/Stephen King crossover feel. Despite a tendency to overreach his descriptive power and the dated Cold War background, Lumley (Psychomech) tells a fast-moving tale of the primal horror of an undead parasite worthy of Stoker's original."

    2. Betancourt, John Gregory (Fall 1990). "Deadspeak, by Brian Lumley". Weird Tales. p. 18. Retrieved 2023-07-02 – via Google Books.

      The review notes: "There were only two elements I disliked in Deadspeak: First, the introduction of magic. (Though the series has the trappings of horror, the "supernatural" abilities demonstrated — right down to the vampires themselves have all been explained in a thoroughly pseudo-scientific way thus far. The existence of working magic undercuts the rationalism behind the earlier books' basic premise.) Second, the invocation to Yog-Sothoth in one of the spells, and the new implication that the Cthulhu Mythos is involved. Give me a break.... Though not quite up to the level of the earlier books, it's close. Four instead of five stars. Fans of the series won't want to miss it."

    3. Gilbert, John (September 1990). "Action and Monstrosity. Necroscope IV: Deadspeak". Fear. No. 21. Newsfield. p. 76. Retrieved 2023-07-02 – via Internet Archive.

      The review notes: "Like the vampires it so full-bloodedly portrays, Brian Lumley's Necroscope series just gets stronger. His lively mix of action and monstrosity transmutes the base cliché of the vampire and turns it into a wonderfully contemporary bane."

    4. Sawyer, Andy (December 1990 – January 1991). "Brian Lumley – – Deadspeak" (PDF). Paperback Inferno. No. 87. British Science Fiction Association. p. 14. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2023-07-02. Retrieved 2023-07-02.

      The review notes: "Fourth in the Necroscope fusion of vampire horror and spy thriller, with a touch of Lovecraft as one might expect from Lumley. The conventions are more those of the thriller than the vampire or Lovecraftian genres: frequent crude writing, but occasional compelling ideas among the metaphysics."

    5. Dziemianowicz, Stefan (September 1990). "Necroscope IV: Deadspeak". Crypt of Cthulhu. No. 75. pp. 66–67. Archived from the original on 2023-07-02. Retrieved 2023-07-02.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Necroscope IV: Deadspeak to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:07, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Mulvany[edit]

Dominic Mulvany (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. No independent sources. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. UtherSRG (talk) 18:55, 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. ✗plicit 23:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yasim Abdi Mohamed[edit]

Yasim Abdi Mohamed (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Possible WP:BIO1E issue. UtherSRG (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Terrorism, Somalia, and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable terror suspect, now in the food service business. Not guilty of the former, latter is run of the mill. Oaktree b (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and be sure to mention all the charges dropped at 2006 Ontario terrorism plot. I'm on the fence about redirecting there, but I'm leaning we shouldn't since charges were dropped and he's not really a WP:PUBLICFIGURE (See also WP:NPF). Detailed WP:BLPs of non-public figures notable for being accused of a crime and later having the charges dropped sets off a lot of BLP alarm bells for me.
TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is also exactly what WP:BLP1E is for (meets all 3 criteria). WP:SUSPECT also suggests we shouldn't even include information that they were accused as a non-public figure. —siroχo 20:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable as either as designer or so-called victim QueerEcofeminist🌈 03:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per QueerEcofeminist🌈. Chamaemelum (talk) 04:52, 5 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 FM (British band)#Discography. History is there should there be something worth merging. Star Mississippi 19:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolis (FM album)[edit]

Metropolis (FM album) (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NALBUM. UtherSRG (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to FM (British band): Could only find this announcement article from a site I can't even be certain is a reliable source. Clearly not enough for a notability pass. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect. Here's review rehosted by Seattle Post-Intelligencer, but it's only one and it might not meet WP:NALBUM's requirements as a rehost (not sure on the PI's policies for such). If we find another review might be harder to decide —siroχo 21:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a rehost of a review from Blogcritics which appears to have potential reliability per their full editorial team. One reliable source does not save an article of course, but it's a promising start. Would be worth pulling some quotes from that for the band's page if the redirect goes through. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:53, 30 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 23:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loft design by[edit]

Loft design by (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)

Only one source has been found in seven years. I tried again online but the name of the business is a bit too basic to make that easy. Perhaps there are offline sources. ~TPW 18:03, 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. I overturned a badnac [22] the keep arguments are very weak and assertive. The source analysis is with the delete side and a convincing argument against the analysis has not been made. That this article suffers from puffery is clearly evidenced in the discussion and strong suspicions of a COI remain. Therefore losing this content is no loss to the project. If an established editor without a COI wants to turn their hand towards the article then I would encourage it. Spartaz Humbug! 07:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gege Gatt[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Gege Gatt (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 to meet WP:BIO. Sources in article are either trivial mentions, or not independent of subject. ARandomName123 (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Thank you for your input, @Oaktree b. I appreciate your efforts in reviewing the sources. However, I would like to present several varied sources that support Gatt's notability, including academic publications. Gatt's notability is not solely dependent on his own published material, but also on contributions by others, impact, and recognition in the field. Here are some notable sources that establish Gege Gatt's notability:
"Çocuk, Oyun, Oyuncak Temalı Çalışmalar" edited by Prof. Dr. Derya Öcal, which touches on social individuality and the role of technology in the present day.[1]
Several academic peer reviewed papers such as 'Agile...' (peer reviewers: Fabri, S., Cassar, V., Fabri JP, Fenech G, Spiteri, J;) publication and the inclusion of Gatt's condensed view on AI itself indicates Gatt's expert status and recognition in his field. So much so, that the publication is a 'scholarly article' published by the University of Malta: https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/handle/123456789/110560
Other journalistic publications (such as Forbes and The Telegraph) also covered his pioneering work in the digitisation of public healthcare and societal services</ref>[2][3]
His work and key thesis are also published by the International Data Corporation (IDC) which is the premier global provider of market intelligence in their report on technology for island[4]
As well as several books that carry directly or through third-party viewpoints Gatt's ideas on AI and technology, such as the President of Malta's State of the Nation 2021 book [5]
These sources, among others, contribute to the evidence of Gatt's notability as an entrepreneur, IT lawyer, and thought leader in the field of artificial intelligence. They demonstrate his impact, recognition, and involvement in various fields beyond his own published articles. Therefore, I believe the provided sources establish Gatt's notability in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines and are verifiable.
KEEP DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Some seems hard to verify, even given the (inadequate) sourcing. The writing in this article is not NPOV, the inclusion of this article is not NPOV. —siroχo 22:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have moved all the material below up here to the first discussion, so it can be deleted by an admin. --Bduke (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I respectfully disagree with the delete request and maintain that Dr. Gege Gatt satisfies the notability requirements stipulated by WP:BIO. I posit that the array of evidence presented supports his notability and that the provided articles and references may have been inaccurately classified as "trivial mentions", "hard to verify" or "not independent of the subject". Let's reconsider this in detail:
Substantial Coverage: Dr. Gatt's work has been extensively covered in several independent and reliable sources, both locally and internationally. His thoughts and work are addressed in the 'State of the Nation Report' by the President of Malta, a source of high credibility [6]. His thoughts on AI and Society also features in a book on the Maltese media landscape titled, 'Navigating the Maltese Mediascape'. Borg, Joseph; Lauri, Mary Anne (2021). Navigating the Maltese Mediascape. Kite Group. ISBN 978-99957-50-73-2. The significant coverage in these esteemed sources underscores his notability.
Independent Coverage: Dr. Gatt's work in AI philosophy and digital technology has received independent coverage in academic publications, such as a peer-reviewed publication at the University of Malta Fabri, JP (2020). "Agile : perspectives on Malta's economy post COVID-19". University of Malta Repository. p. 92. Retrieved 2023-06-28.. His work has also been cited in other scholarly publications, demonstrating his influence in his field such as: ÖCAL, PROF. DR. DERYA (2021). Cocuk Oyun Oyuncak Temali Calismalar 2 (in Turkish). Iksad Publications. p. 120. ISBN 978-625-7562-97-3. and Gatt, Gege (2002). "The misuse of computers in Maltese criminal legislation: legal development & issues". University of Malta Open Access Repository. Retrieved 2023-06-06.
Leadership and Impact: Dr. Gatt is not only a founder of EBO.ai but has been instrumental in driving its growth and accomplishments in the AI industry. His leadership at EBO.ai is linked to his notability, considering his notable contributions to AI which are translated into actual implementation and independently covered by various sources[7][8][9].
In this regard, Gatt's views are also carried by a key 2022 International Data Corporation (IDC) publication. IDC is the premier global provider of market intelligence.[4]
Comparative Notability: When compared with other Wikipedia entries in the same field, Dr. Gatt's contributions and the level of independent coverage he has received are equivalent to, or even surpass those of other notable persons.
The sources provided offer significant and independent coverage of Dr. Gatt's work and contributions to his field, extending beyond "trivial mentions" and substantiating his notability. I recommend a careful reassessment of the evidence prior to making a decision on deletion.
"Our shared goal is to ensure that Wikipedia remains an accurate, comprehensive, and reliable resource. I firmly believe that Dr. Gatt's contributions to his field are pertinent to Wikipedia's global audience.
Let's continue this discussion with a broader array of voices and scrutinize the evidence comprehensively to reach a consensus that respects both Wikipedia's notability guidelines and the notable contributions of Dr. Gatt to his field.
  1. ^ Öcal, Derya (2023). Çocuk, Oyun, Oyuncak Temalı Çalışmalar (in Turkish). İksad Yayınevi.
  2. ^ "NHS Users Prefer Talking To AI Virtual Assistants Instead Of Humans". Forbes. 2019-09-09. Retrieved 2023-06-28.
  3. ^ "Will robots change business for the better?". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2023-06-29.
  4. ^ a b "Creating a Smart and Sustainable Island Strategy" (PDF). IDC. Retrieved 2023-06-28.
  5. ^ L-istat tan-nazzjon 2021. President of Malta. 2021. ISBN 978-99932-7-854-2.
  6. ^ L-istat tan-nazzjon 2021. Klabb Kotba Maltin. 2021. p. 61. ISBN 9789993278542.
  7. ^ "EBO registers successful AI project with UK's NHS". Times of Malta. January 16, 2022.
  8. ^ "NHS Users Prefer Talking To AI Virtual Assistants Instead Of Humans". Forbes. 2019-09-09. Retrieved 2023-06-28.
  9. ^ "Kumpanija Maltija ta' l-AI protagonist fil-futur tal-kura tas-sahha fir-Renju Unit". Newsbook.com.mt. Retrieved 2023-06-29.
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalArchiver2020 (talk • contribs) 17:49, June 28, 2023 (UTC)
Hello, DigitalArchiver2020, it seems you are knowledgeable on the subject, if you feel it meets WP:BIO, consider reading WP:BETTER and taking your hand at a full rewrite, with an understanding of neutral point of view. A problem with this current article is that it comes across like a resume/linked-in profile. Many editors are going to have trouble rewriting it due to the level of problems and a lack of knowledge (each claim needs to be verified in the citations, evaluated for inclusion and phrasing to preserve NPOV, and so on). A non-neutral point of view is an agreed upon valid reason for deletion, even if notability is eventually established. It can be tricky to learn the the right voice, most of us continue to learn, but it's vital to creating a good encyclopedia. —siroχo 23:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response and valuable feedback. I appreciate your suggestions. I understand the importance of maintaining a neutral point of view and ensuring that all claims are properly verified and supported by reliable citations.
I agree that constant refinement and possible section rewrites may be necessary. This is precisely why my stance is Keep (as 'Delete' would remove that opportunity and is a measure too far). As a contributor to Wikipedia, I am committed to creating a high-quality and unbiased encyclopedia. With the right feedback and the guidelines outlined in WP:BETTER there is no reason why the standards of neutrality and verifiability cannot be met (assuming they are not already met - I am keen to hear others on this).
I acknowledge the challenges involved in rewriting the article, and preserving a neutral point of view. However this is the point. I (and others) are willing to take on such tasks especially when covering notable individual from small member states (like Malta) where the content (and access thereto) is limited.
I am committed to contributing good quality content to this and other pages which is why I feel Keep is the right call. DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Refine but not delete. More sources would be desirable, and more detail on his studies and thesis (plural). Mtonna257 (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed @Matt0513. Thank you.
    The KEEP approach is the sensible route as the recommendations you provided are pragmatic, possible and will be implemented. DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:REFBOMB hurts an article like this, it doesn't help. Under publications, I open and read a magazine that has 5 authors - and he's not an author even though the page lists him as one. That's always a red flag that the rest of the sources aren't going to pan out. Next, there is a profile on siliconvalletta, ok - that has promise... except it's a member profile. "Silicon Valletta is an association set up by Malta based tech entrepreneurs." He's been asked for comment about AI by local news sources, at this point - but that's not about him, it's about AI. The reason the article reads like a resume is there isn't in-depth coverage of HIM, as an individual, though he's given his opinion on technology to newspapers. Denaar (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - While the concerns brought up by Denaar are noted, this article can be improved rather than deleted. It's important to note that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is notability, which Gatt has demonstrated through his significant contributions to the field of AI and digital technology, both nationally and internationally. The reference bomb issue can be addressed by curating and appropriately distributing references throughout the article (which I have been doing, and pledge to do). In terms of the publications, it's necessary to check each source individually, as authorship can be variable in academic or professional works. The siliconvalletta profile provides background on Gatt's position within Malta's tech scene. I agree that more in-depth coverage of Gatt as an individual would be beneficial. However, his regular appearances as an expert commentator on AI does attest to his reputation in the field. It's not uncommon for profiles of academics and professionals to focus on their work rather than their personal life. Overall, I believe this article needs improvement and better sourcing, but deletion is not the most productive step forward.
    By way of factual correction the comment by Denaar which states: "Under publications, I open and read a magazine that has 5 authors - and he's not an author" is incorrect and misleading.
      • None of the 4 publications listed are 'magazines', but published books
      • Gatt does not claim to be the 'author' (save for the 4th book listed) but a key contributor on the topic of AI and technology in such book.
      • I have re-verified all 4 publications and can guarantee 100% Gatt's contribution therein. This is not a matter of subjective opinion but rather one of fact. Buying/downloading the books is a superbly easy way to attest to this matter.
    DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--really a puff piece with no secondary sourcing to prove his notability via the GNG or via NPROF. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I note the points of Drmies about notability and sources, I'd argue that this article does not necessarily fall short of the General Notability Guideline or Notability for academics and persons in other fields of scholarship.
      Gatt's notability is evidenced by his substantial contributions to the field of AI and his frequent appearances as an expert commentator on technology, referenced by multiple sources including IDC [1], and cited in multiple articles, including Times of Malta[2], the National Broadcaster TVM[3], Newsbook [4], and others. These are recognised media outlets that provide secondary sources on Gatt's work and thought leadership.
      Regarding NPROF, it's crucial to note that criteria 1 and 6 can apply to Gatt's case. As the CEO of EBO.ai and his role in shaping AI policy and education in Malta, he's made significant contributions to his field which got noticed by Forbes[5]. Moreover, he's also been recognised for his influence and thought leadership by significant publications including the President's State of the Nation Address for 2021[6].
      I agree that the article requires further editing to align it better with Wikipedia's neutral point of view, but this does not detract from Gatt's notability. Therefore, the appropriate course of action would be to revise the article, rather than delete it.
      Also.. a gentle reminder to all to adhere to Wikipedia's "Do not bite the newcomers" policy. This article is an initial contribution from a newcomer, and any assistance from experienced editors to provide constructive feedback and guidance to improve the content will be much appreciated. DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • You get to vote ONCE. No one is biting, but at the same time it seems you're not listening, and you are not following the guidelines for participating in these discussions. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Contributing_to_AfD_discussions, which is linked at the top of this page. Drmies (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for your feedback, Drmies. My aim is not to disrupt the discussion or violate the guidelines but to ensure a balanced and informed debate. I appreciate the reminder of the policies, and I'm keen on complying with them. Let's continue to focus on the content and its improvement, in line with the guidelines for participating in AfD discussions. I certainly abide with the 'one vote' policy. My intervention here is only to correct factual inaccuracies which I have independently verified as this allows us editors to reach better informed decisions. DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • One more thing: those guidelines also include the notice that any COI must be acknowledged. That you have one seems pretty clear, but I don't think you've declared it anywhere. Drmies (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for your comment, Drmies. None of us stand to gain from the promotion of a page or another. Our interest in any subject matter is motivated by academic interest utilising the sources available to ensure the accuracy of the information provided. I am not affiliated with Gatt nor do I stand to gain from the promotion of his page. I am however interested in building more content about entrepreneurs and researchers on AI in Malta which is a tiny country in the EU and under-represented in Wikipedia. This page (which I did not create) is a first area of work - and Wikipedia's "Do not bite the newcomers" policy is doubly valid. DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Creating a Smart and Sustainable Island Strategy" (PDF). IDC. Retrieved 2023-06-28.
  2. ^ "Local AI experts warn of pitfalls in EU legislative push". Times of Malta. 19 June 2023. Retrieved 2023-06-19.
  3. ^ "Experts urge comprehensive laws and expertise to regulate artificial intelligence". TVM News. 19 June 2023. Retrieved 2023-06-19.
  4. ^ "Kumpanija Maltija ta' l-AI Protagonista fil-Futur tal-Kura tas-Saħħa fir-Renju Unit" [Maltese AI Company a Protagonist in the Future of UK Healthcare]. Newsbook (in Maltese). 2 July 2020.
  5. ^ "NHS Users Prefer Talking To AI Virtual Assistants Instead Of Humans". Forbes. 2019-09-09. Retrieved 2023-06-28.
  6. ^ L-istat tan-nazzjon 2021. Klabb Kotba Maltin. 2021. ISBN 9789993278542.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 19:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rihan Miya[edit]

Rihan Miya (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)

There is no coverage on him. He just happens to be running a business that got the media all excited that one time by securing an order worth $10,000 from India. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nepal. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete This is the only other thing I can find, trivial coverage, basically an extended photo caption [23]. No extended articles on this person. Oaktree b (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank You for your reply but It seems that there might be a misunderstanding and you may search from google news in English language tried to search in Nepali Language(रिहान मिया) as he is from Nepal and He has coverage in almost every reliable news source in Nepal (I have also checked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Usedtobecool/PSN). The references I have provided are Gorkhapatra [24], The Rising Nepal [25], The Annapurna Express [26], and Ujyaalo Online [27]. and many other sources like Nepal Samacharpatra [28], khabarhub [29], breaknlinks [30], nepalkhabar [31], DCnepal [32], sanghunews [33] ETC. Wikipedilogy (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I generally agree with delete here but am not confident enough to !vote. My consideration, is this an inverse case of WP:BIO1E, where a person played a major role in a minor event, so there should be an article about the person rather than the event, if there is coverage of the event? Add to the mix that Midlaj was speedied for advertising. —siroχo 00:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank You @Siroxo for your reply, I don't know who crates the Midlaj article, but I searched for it and found it, and I made some contributions for more trust to verify my created article of Rihan Miya, but it's seen there might be some confusion between the creator of the Midlaj article and admin, so it's been speeded up for advertising and is not related to my article. Wikipedilogy (talk) 04:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      We were not born yesterday, you know. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      You can check edit history @Usedtobecool Wikipedilogy (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had started an article for creation, but I was not happy with the consideration. The subject I have created has coverage in almost every reliable news source in Nepal (I have also checked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Usedtobecool/PSN). The references I have provided are Gorkhapatra, The Rising Nepal, The Annapurna Express, and Ujyaalo Online. How can someone covered by all these reliable media not pass the notability guidelines and Nomination for deletion? There are few youth entrepreneurs in Nepal and from an export view, it’s rare, So the coverage by national media, and in my view it is great and notable work. Please check and suggest your opinion. Wikipedilogy (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The sources are reliable but the coverage is not significant. In addition, they were all a one-time burst of human interest stories, likely originating from a single source. So, they do not count as multiple sources. If newspapers and magazines keep going back to him for more over the coming years, and start writing about him directly and in detail, only then would we know that he's an exceptional youth entrepreneur doing great work worthy of note. Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reply @Usedtobecool, As in Nepal, news that keeps coming back to him over the coming years is only possible for political or artistic reasons. He became notable after exporting plywood, and after he did this work a second time regularly, no one would cover it as they said your export news was not new and had already been covered. So, We have supported the youth of our country to know him internationally so he can export more from our country, Nepal. Wikipedilogy (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We generally want to write about people who others will care about 100-200 years from now. If nobody cares after that one time, he's not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Promoting youth entrepreneurship is noble goal, Nepal could certainly do with more of it, but it is not what Wikipedia is for. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but one is better than nothing. Rihan Miya started exporting at the young age of 22, and I didn't see any news about who is exporting at this young age, so I am interested in making an article. We can say this was the first youth to export from Nepal, but this line didn't have any relevant source, and his starting point is inspiration for all the youth of the nation, and its article will inspire every youth for hundreds of years, in my opinion. In this International trusted source, Wikipedia, I just want to add my country's youth who is taking Nepal to the World without any personal interest (As I personally don't know him) because I can't do it, but he did, and now please remove it because it is considered for deletion because it has coverage in almost every reliable news source and meets Wikipedia guidelines, and it will contribute somewhere to present our country to the world. If you remove it, then we have to wait for another youth to export, but when this happens, we don't know. Let's show the world that our country's products also have great quality, and our youth can do business like other countries that meet International quality standards to export. One more thing: our news coverage in almost every reliable source will only be read by Nepal, but this Wikipedia article will be read by all around the world, so let this article be easily published. Wikipedilogy (talk) 05:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we close the discussion?@Usedtobecool Wikipedilogy (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An administrator will close it in a few hours. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If you were a journalist doing original work, this might be an interesting person to interview or follow, but doesn't meet WP's Notability requirements today. Denaar (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas Fiala[edit]

Tomas Fiala (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 investor person. All hits found are in PR items. Nothing here given to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deshbandhu Group[edit]

Deshbandhu Group (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:ORGSIG; most of the contents are taken from company's website and others are from outside, Combinely did not meet WP:GNG M.parvage (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 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. ✗plicit 14:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Janimation[edit]

Janimation (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)

As Vegantics said, this article has almost no notability, and does not cite many sources. It may also have a COI with the articles major contributors, like Farix said. JazzyRightdoer (talk) 07:56, 14 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! 07:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Seems like a case of industry notability, but without some reliable sources it may not be possible to verify. The existing magazine sources seem like industry periodicals that rely on interviews, so it's hard to verifiably determine the contribution to these major works. A single source that's not an interview would really help. —siroχo 08:40, 21 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 14:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I did a fair amount of digging when I initially proposed this page for deletion and could not find significant coverage in multiple sources-- the majority of citations mention Janimation's work on notable productions but do not convey notability to the business itself. Additionally, the article creator was almost certainly a paid consultant (see my follow-up comment on the Talk page) and the previous deletion was reversed by JaniOctopus, whose user name is a direct reference to the company and who has not made any effort to improve the page since having the deletion reversed (all to say, I strongly suspect ongoing COI). Vegantics (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ and I don't see a 3rd relist being viable. A discussion on whether to merge or maintain as a standalone can continue on the Talk Star Mississippi 13:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Gauntlet (tabletop games producer)[edit]

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

Not meeting WP:NCORP; the sources are far away from the subject Edit.pdf (talk) 07:36, 14 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! 07:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Easily meets GNG. Polygon is an established reliable source independent of subject with multiple articles providing SIGCOV. Here's a separate independent source we could add [35] —siroχo 08:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I checked every source in the article, and I couldn't find any that have WP:SIGCOV about The Gauntlet. The source mentioned in this AFD has one paragraph of significant coverage, but in that same paragraph the author states they have a conflict of interest because they have been paid to work on The Gauntlet's magazine. Feel free to ping me if folks find more sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you check the Codega Polygon article for "gauntlet" without the "the"? That article alone provides a fair bit addressing the subject directly and in depth, much more than a passing mention, eg "Gauntlet Publishing is one of the older publishing presses to champion independent and underprivileged voices...Like many publishers, both large and small, Gauntlet Publishing uses Kickstarter to fund its projects....By creating a tentpole game of its own, Gauntlet Publishing allowed marginalized authors the opportunity to write for a larger game without compromising on their visions or asking them to write for less than their idea’s worth...Independent presses like Gauntlet Publishing... are centered on the authors and artists that they work with, allowing them to retain control of their work. And, perhaps most importantly, they are keeping money flowing into and through a growing community of game creators."
    That coverage seems sufficient for NCORP, especially when combined with the Carter Polygon article which provides a paragraph or so of SIGCOV as well, more than a passing mention, though less in-depth. —siroχo 08:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah thank you, I missed that one. Looks like two meaty paragraphs of significant coverage. My typical cutoff is three paragraphs, but let's say that one passes. Would still need two more sources for me to feel comfortable that this is a GNG pass. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 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! 07:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NHS National Workforce Projects[edit]

NHS National Workforce Projects (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)

Failed prod. Non notable defunct organisation, no references WaggersTALK 08:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, and England. WaggersTALK 08:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An article on a project team within an (admittedly large and complex) organisation which, as with any such team, had its place in the org structure of the time but was then reorged. I had thought searches in likely places such as the Guardian site would find comment at the points of creation or dissolution but have not found anything. That leaves the secondary question of whether there might be an alternative redirect target? AllyD (talk) 05:43, 15 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! 07:20, 21 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 14:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 15:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SeaTable[edit]

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

Not yet notable; no reliable sources (not enough). Interviews, paid columns and WP:MILL stuff. Edit.pdf (talk) 07:58, 14 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! 07:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete The Tech Crunch article above establishes GNG for software. However, despite apparent good faith creation, this article's content is full of marketing jargon and phrasing, so I'm not sure it should remain up in its current form. —siroχo 08:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of sources in German for this German outfit. [36] seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One in Business Insider in German, also seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable in another Wikipedia version --DH22 Mim (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @DH22 Mim. Each Wikipedia has its own notability rules. enwiki's notability rules are some of the stricter ones, so comparing to other wikis that probably have easier notability rules is not a great argument. See also WP:OTHERLANGS. However, good sources from articles in other wikis could certainly be checked and mentioned here. Finding good sources and linking to them would be a much stronger argument. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is currently not for the company but rather for their product. I think it should probably be updated to focus more on the company instead, sources like TechCrunch's article would be a better fit that way. - Indefensible (talk) 17:54, 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. The "delete" !votes made more persuasive arguments, particularly to the extent that this article fails to adhere to the WP:CRYSTAL policy in regards to the verifiable information available at this time. If any editor would like to preserve the article history, please feel free to request draftification at WP:REFUND. ✗plicit 14:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2026 Cricket World Cup Qualifier[edit]

2026 Cricket World Cup Qualifier (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)

Way WP:TOOSOON, as the event is scheduled for 2026, and key information such as the teams participating won't be known until around then too. No information about this event currently exists (other than it's scheduled), so we don't need an article right now. I oppose moving to draftspace, because it will likely be 2-2.5 years until there is enough information about this tournament (e.g. teams competing, location, exact dates) to justify an article (and Wikipedia is not an indefinite holding area). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Cricket World Cup Qualifier is almost half-way through and the next edition should be created... Also it forms part of 2027 Cricket World Cup qualification. ŇƗΜŘØỮ Đ€ŁΔỮŘ€ŇŦƗŞ (TALK) 01:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those are reasons why the article should be created, unless there is significant coverage about it right now, which there isn't. No point in having an article that simply says "this event is scheduled to take place in 2026" with no other info. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Currently WP:TOOSOON. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete meets WP:TOOSOON — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justwatchmee (talk • contribs) 19:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The relevant page here is not WP:TOOSOON (which doesn't even mention sporting events), but WP:CRYSTAL, which does. And the key thing is whether there is anything verifiable that can be said about the event. In this case, there is: the number of teams has already been fixed, as demonstrated by reliable sources in the article (the ICC at least, not necessarily Czarsportzauto). StAnselm (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • the number of teams has already been fixed, as demonstrated by reliable sources in the article Which source actually shows how teams enter this qualifying tournament? The sources say that this qualifier will be in 2026, and will let 4 teams qualify for the 2027 Cricket World Cup, but nothing else. There is not significant know information like you claim. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @StAnselm here. Keep. --WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 14:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON Grahaml35 (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible keep or redirect, though I can't see anything in WP:TOOSOON guidelines which pertains to this type of entry and the page in itself would pass criteria for entry. All the current information is verifiable from independent sources as details emerge, so I'm inclining towards keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:4F05:9001:64B1:E58:8FF8:89F0 (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per point 1 of WP:CRYSTAL. The event is highly likely to take place with number of spots available fixed combined with the information available makes me inclined to support keeping this. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON to the max, though the article certainly could be recreated as the event draws nearer. TH1980 (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON and does not meet WP:CRYSTAL. There is no information available (dates/teams/hosts) except that it will be qualifier tournament for 2027 WC (which is known to all). RoboCric Let's chat 11:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Practice in recent years has shown that even larger sporting events can be postponed for years because of some pandemic, and the list of participants and the rules are all the more volatile. Suitskvarts (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Eurovision Song Contest 2009 jurors[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Eurovision Song Contest 2009 jurors (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)

Standalone list of this type is not required and falls down on WP:NOTDIRECTORY (specifically point 2 around "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics"). Any known jurors are already included in the individual articles outlining a country's participation in the event (e.g. Belgium in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009), and although the list is not directly affected by WP:ONEEVENT, there is an indirect relationship that would bring into question the necessity of a list for all jurors in a given year, given the notability of the individuals listed. As all information is already listed elsewhere merging is not required, and keeping as a redirect would not serve a purpose given the lack of related material in any one target. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons as above:

List of Eurovision Song Contest 2010 jurors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Eurovision Song Contest 2014 jurors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Eurovision Song Contest 2015 jurors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Eurovision Song Contest 2018 jurors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Eurovision Song Contest 2019 jurors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete. I've known that these lists existed, but I never felt the need to use or update them. I think that speaks to their utility (or lack thereof). The respective jurors are also listed in each country's "country in ESC year" article, but are also included in each country's summary article. As noted, a lot of these jurors are average citizens with roles that are typically just music-focused in government, media, etc. As such, a vast majority do not and will not have articles. It was fun to sort them by birthdate on one of the articles, but I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to do. The amount of information about each years' jurors also varies, so it's difficult to have one format that works for all of them. Grk1011 (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Anderson (programmer)[edit]

Tim Anderson (programmer) (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)

Perhaps best to make this a redirect to Zork. If anyone wants to add enough details to justify a stand-alone biographical article that option would remain available. CapnZapp (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator: The reason I nominated this article wasn't because it wasn't sourced, but because it basically said nothing about the individual past "creating Zork". Thus, my suggestion to redirect to Zork. I still don't see why this person merits an article if we can't find any sources actually discussing the subject. As for co-founding Infocom, well, not all of the co-founders have their own Wiki page. What I'm trying to say is: while I commend your work to save articles from deletion, so far I don't see any addition that convinces me the article merits keeping. However, I realize that being notable for two things (both creating Zork and co-founding Infocom) likely will make some editors not want to have to decide where to redirect. CapnZapp (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded again. I feel that now in its current state it's likely enough to stand alone. IceBergYYC (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - article has been significantly improved, looks to have sufficient referencing to support article quality and notability. - Indefensible (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sufficient, sourced information on a clearly notable person. Kind regards, Grueslayer 05:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United World College of the Adriatic[edit]

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

NN school - fails WP:NORG and has no independent sources UtherSRG (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this school is notable, both for Friuli-Venezia Giulia (the region it is based in), and for it's role in developing international education and pedagogy. I will take a stab at adding some details and a handful of independent sources to the article to make that more apparent. Keep. Dotx3 (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - United World Colleges tend to be notable. However this article has been flagged for over a decade and is in real need of proper sourcing. - Imcdc Contact 02:28, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International air travel from the United Kingdom[edit]

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

Not notable. Data is from 2008, whole article does not feature a single source for the destinations displayed nor the passenger numbers and percentage changes. Hasn`t seen a content edit for almost 15 years now. Research does not show any reliable sources which would help to update the page. Der HON (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE exactly the sort of list-cruft article that starts out as a good idea but then gets forgotten. There is no way that this article will ever be updated annually. Plus it's all WP:OR and it's unreferenced and has very likely been pulled together by someone looking at other sources and collating in a spreadsheet WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia better off without this sort of article. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR that died about a decade ago when the person gave up on it. Oaktree b (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Over a decade old. Just doesn't seem likely it will improved to the state it needs to be. - Imcdc Contact 14:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of Touhou Project characters. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 12:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reimu Hakurei[edit]

Reimu Hakurei (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)

Despite the effort, the article's reception is mostly pulled out from game reviews and/or of course from a Japanese Wiki. WP:BEFORE shows zero WP:SIGCOV unfortunately. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge. I feel the article generally has enough information to be a viable article, but the things mentioned in the Reception and Legacy section are generally lacking in notability outside of a few exceptions. Some of the stuff they link to lack articles or redirects entirely. I feel it's a few good sources away from being kept without any debate, but unfortunately, in its current state, I feel it should be merged into the List of Touhou Project Characters article. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to character list. There’s got to be SOMETHING worth keeping out of this huge article (though obviously the existence itself is ridiculous when Marisa is clearly best girl [just kidding]). Dronebogus (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Searching didn't find anything that really merits the character having an article that I found. It's surprising to have no touhou articles on wikipedia, but at the same time this ain't it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge. There is some interesting stuff regarding Internet memes, but nothing in the aricle right now strikes me as meeting WP:SIGCOV, it's pretty much fancruft+collection of trivia. Do let me know if any serioius (academic or non-fansite journalistic) sources are found and I'd be happy to reconsider my vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the list of characters - Wikipedia is not Wikia, no matter how much effort is expended on an article it is up to the creator to prove it passes WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The thing about attempting to look for sources is that when attempting to look for sources, the most I found were from sites that are either deemed unreliable or from user-generated fan sites. The lack of non user-generated reviews for the main series games don't help either, at least from what I've found so far. That being said, I'll attempt to find the final references later in terms of overall reception and also trim some biographical information. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The key is not to force the creation of an article when sources aren't out there. Gather up the sources first before even trying to write it and ask yourself whether they would hold up if its notability is challenged. Otherwise you end up with articles that are probably better being done on FANDOM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Thing is that this is currently the fourth fictional character article I've written here and from what I've gathered from prior discussions are that protagonists generally have less requirements for notability then say, a side character. This isn't even mentioning that prior articles had notability issues... despite having a sizeable amount of content regarding notability. Regardless, I'll be looking to expand it once more for final thoughts to be made. Either that or I'll probably continue to work on it on my sandbox if it gets relegated to a redirect once more. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain that protagonists have less leeway, just that they are more likely to pass it than non-protagonists. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I recently spent the past three days attempting to find references and results were pretty scarce when it came to non-user generated reviews with the few reviews I could find often times focusing purely on gameplay and music rather than story. Despite this, I did gather enough sources to give the Reception section its own area, creating a new section for popularity. I still don't know if this is enough to justify a standalone article but given reliable sources for gaming were already used and further expanded, potential sources for new titles both official and fangame as well as outside commentary, I believe that the article at its current state at the very least qualifies for WP:HASPOT. Unless I'm missing something and fictional characters require at least two paragraphs for their reception section, I'd say that Reimu has more going for her own article than some other fictional character articles I've used as reference when initially creating it. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The legacy and popularity sections have merit, but the reception is pretty light. I'd encourage you to keep at it in a user subpage or a draft and continue working on it. I can, at least, help clean it up when I have time. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I'd like to see a Reimu article, but as it is, the article simply does not have enough notability. It's not the worst I've seen by any means - I mean, the fact that a flower was named after her is not nothing - but it's not there yet. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. She looks like she has barely any more notability than any other character in List of Touhou Project characters. NegativeMP1 (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge there just isn't enough WP:SIGCOV to support this article. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Merge while keeping open the possibility of a standalone article in the future. Much of the current article is fancruft. Partofthemachine (talk) 14:36, 3 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 as we've got a case of WP:SNOW here‎. Orange Mike | Talk 20:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Donnell[edit]

Joe Donnell (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:POLITICIAN as the only conceivable claim to notability would be the WP:SENSATIONal comments he made about Mount Rushmore being a portal to hell or whatever. If there ever is more attention than this WP:ONEEVENT, I'm sure the Wikicritters will rush to restore the article. jps (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and South Dakota. jps (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:NPOLITICIAN as an elected member of a state legislature. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: satisfied WP:NPOL--PARVAGE talk! 13:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there some WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that I am not aware of that elected members of state legislatures in the US are automatically notable? If so, this is horrifying. There are some 7,758 state legislators in the US with turnover rates between 20% and 30%. This means over the course of Wikipedia's 22 year existence that would mean, conservatively, a staggering 30,000 BLPs. I am highly suspect that this is something the community agreed to. jps (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • After some digging, is appears that people who monitor WP:NPOL really do seem to think that it confers automatic notability on any state(or equivalent political-level) legislator in the world. I am floored and started Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#WP:NPOL_BLP_issue to see if others are aware of this. jps (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        This is really horrifying. Once I wasn't agreed with this. But whatever, rules are rules. Happily passes for politicians. But things needed to be improved. PARVAGE talk! 18:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A topic that is "presumed" to be notable under a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) is not a guaranteed "keep", contrary to what the two previous !voters seem to think, because sourcing is still a central issue on Wikipedia. According to policy (WP:SNG): "Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found," and here "significant coverage" means from independent, reliable secondary sources. This article lacks such sourcing. NightHeron (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with NightHeron's arguments. Paul H. (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Calling a sitting legislator WP:ONEEVENT seems wrong. At the very least their notable for being elected and then the scandal. This is a currently sitting legislator that meets WP:NPOL. The presumption exists because state legislators are highly likely to have sources that cover their state legislative career (it's almost guaranteed they get significant coverage). I don't think the delete votes have rebutted that presumption at all. There is no proof that "adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found." I added more sources to the article and am sure more exist than what I've added.
TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Subject clearly passes WP:NPOL as an American state legislator. NPOL is not the automatic conferral of notability per se, moreso it is the presumption that coverage exists. Because politicians always generate coverage (in national, regional, and local media) through their actions, we thus assume they are notable even if the coverage is not presently evident in the article or on Google (because many of these sources may be offline/non-digitized; this is especially important in countries where Internet access may be limited at best). Curbon7 (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if you think this is a novel interpretation, see for example Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2015#WP:POLITICIAN Issue (Cullen's example at the end is a good one). By all means, if you don't like it and think it should be a different way, then write your ideas at the WP:Village Pump for consideration, but we should not be legislating what has been the SOP for 15 years at a random AfD. Curbon7 (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have brought the discussion to BLPN. Have you guys actually thought about the implications of this SOP? I can't find any clear discussion of such. The example you cite is an exception to the rule which is rather bizarre. If I was a little more WP:POINTy, I would start a bot that would autogenerate BLPs for every single state legislator Neelix-style. I imagine then the policy would change right quick. Y'all aren't thinking this through. jps (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per presumption of notability under WP:NPOL. RecycledPixels (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly meets WP:NPOL as an elected state legislator. WP:N states that a subject is presumed notable if it meets either the general notability guideline... or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (emphasis mine), so long as the article is not excluded under WP:NOT. In other words, meeting a subject-specific notability guideline is more than sufficient to meet our notability standards. What's more, he has been covered both while running for office ([43] [44]) as well as while in office ([45]), and he's not exactly a low-profile figure, so I don't see a plausible WP:BLP1E issue here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not only does he obviously meet NPOL as clearly demonstrated, but putting that aside for a moment the coverage of him is quite significant. I'm struggling to see policy grounds for this nomination. AusLondonder (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly passes WP:NPOL as a duly elected member of a state legislature. Obviously such articles still have to be monitored for WP:BLP compliance, but there's no valid argument to be had that some state legislators are somehow less notable than other state legislators. I mean, seriously, if a state legislator who clearly has media coverage is still somehow non-notable anyway, then what else could possibly be the bar for making any other state legislator "more notable than the norm" at all? Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NPOL states "The following are presumed to be notable: The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.". While I think the article should include things such as committee assignments, maybe some votes on key issues, in addition to what it includes now (yes even the lunatic podcast interview). It clearly qualifies under current guidelines AND is frankly better sourced and better written than most state legislator articles.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:58, 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 keep‎. Star Mississippi 15:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jyoti Deshpande[edit]

Jyoti Deshpande (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 page is purely promotional, and the references are essentially press releases or sponsored posts pretending to be journalistic articles (WP:ADMASQ). This specific sentence indicates the promotional intent of the page, as it mentions the discovery of the "love of her life, Sanjay Deshpande." CGGCA201 (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has verifiable references to prove its notability. The following two references gives details of her being Viacom18 CEO and her life journey as a tuition teacher to present and her being MD and Group CEO of Eros International. All the companies she has worked for and working for are well known and notable. [1][2].
Her role as Co-Chair of, the Media & Entertainment Committee, FICCI can be proven by following references [3][4]
The following reference will tell her struggle in early life due to polio to being CEO. [5]
She is India's most influential businesswomen can be proved from following reference [6][7][8]
She was Forbes The Emergent 25 Asia's Latest Star Businesswomen (2018) and reference to prove is its official website with her profile [9]
Bollywood Hungama has her celebrity profile with most of the filmography and other details and reference for same is as follows [10]
All the above verifiable references are from notable sources and proves her to be eligible for being an article on wikipedia. I agree it can be improved with more citations and editing. Thank You. DSN18 (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Style issues, like the "love of her life" phrase, can be resolved by editing and do not require deletion. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, It needs styling improvements and do not require deletion. DSN18 (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "love of her life" phrase, can be edited and can be improved and does not require deletion. Thank You.DSN18 (talk — Preceding undated comment added 13:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Delete The only reliable sources used are simple news announcements of this person getting one job or another. This is about the best one [46], rest is less useful. Oaktree b (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can be resolved by editing and do not require deletion. The article has enough notable references to prove its quality. Strivedi1 (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Vote-stacking by User:Strivedi1, an account was formed after the discussion began. This ID also expressed a keep vote in favor of another ongoing AfD discussion, which involved a page created by the same editor responsible for creating the page of Jyoti Deshpande. CGGCA201 (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, CGGCA201,
Please review WP:ASPERSIONS. If you have evidence of misconduct, you know where you can report it. Please do not cast aspersions in deletion discussions when an editor disagrees with you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz I have taken note of it. Thank you. CGGCA201 (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCER. Fade258 (talk) 05:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was on the fence about this one per Oaktree b. I don't agree that she meets WP:PRODUCER for presumed notability, the criteria for which are somewhat stricter than merely being a producer. However there does seem to be sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet WP:BASIC. It is, in my opinion, a closer run thing than this snowy consensus would suggest, but it does cross the line. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ ":Viacom18 names Jyoti Deshpande as CEO". Economic Times. 30 September 2021.
  2. ^ "Meet Jyoti Deshpande, ex-tuition teacher, Mukesh Ambani's right hand who runs Jio Cinema, Viacom 18". DNA India. 17 April 2023.
  3. ^ "FICCI appoints Jyoti Deshpande as the co-chair of FICCI Media & Entertainment Board". Financial Express. 15 February 2022.
  4. ^ "Ficci appoints Viacom18's Jyoti Deshpande as co-chair of media and entertainment board". Live Mint. 14 February 2022.
  5. ^ "कभी पोलियो की शिकार थीं ज्योति देशपांडे, आज Viacom 18 की हैं CEO". DNA India. 15 April 2023.
  6. ^ "Jyoti Deshpande One of India's most influential businesswomen". www.businessoutreach.in. 17 February 2022.
  7. ^ "MPW 2015: Eros' Jyoti Deshpande is poised to make it big on small screen". Business Today. 27 September 2017.
  8. ^ "7 women front-runners changing the rules of the power game". peoplematters.in.
  9. ^ "Jyoti Deshpande". www.forbes.com.
  10. ^ "Jyoti Deshpande". www.bollywoodhungama.com.
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. Star Mississippi 15:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palak Purswani[edit]

Palak Purswani (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)

She doesn't meet the criteria for WP:NACTOR due to the absence of any lead roles (significant roles) in her filmography. Furthermore, there is a lack of in-depth coverage WP:SIGCOV. The majority of the references consist of brief mentions or promotional announcements. Premature-ish as per WP:TOOSOON. CGGCA201 (talk) 12:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I agree with Eastmain, A significant role does not have to be a leading role. Also, there are enough notable references to prove the content of the article and that it meets the criteria. Although, It can be edited or can have Citation needed tag wherever there are no notable references and do not need deletion. DSN18 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Maharashtra. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are enough referencing to support notability and do not require deletion. All the reality shows she had done are well known. Also, they link back to her profile from notable articles. It can be improved but no need for deletion. Strivedi1 (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Vote-stacking by User:Strivedi1, an account was formed after the discussion began. This ID also expressed a keep vote in favor of another ongoing AfD discussion, which involved a page created by the same editor responsible for creating the page of Palak Purswani. CGGCA201 (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.:The work and roles of palak purswani in television serials and reality shows are notable and article has notable and verifiable references to prove it. It can be improved by editing if any issues with styling and do not require deletion. Thank you. DSN18 (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: @DSN18 Your previous vote has already been registered. CGGCA201 (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @CGGCA201, thank you for considering my vote. DSN18 (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There must be some concern in this deletion discussion that the page creator has voted twice and did not strike their second !vote, even when that was pointed out. Moreover that an SPA has appeared in support of the page creator's deletion discussions. Nevertheless Eastmain's point is correct inasmuch as a significant role need not be a lead role. I would ask for clarification: what evidence do we have of significant roles? The lead says She had worked in television serials... She has also been featured in the web series ... She is seen in the second season ... None of these suggest or tell of a significant role. What significant roles has she played that meets the first criterion of WP:NACTOR? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Sirfurboy, I accept my mistake of second vote and have strikeout the second one. Palak had played important role of ex-girlfriend of Lead in 'Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke' which is important role and has notable references. one of which is [1]. She was also seen in the web series 'Roohaniyat' alongside lead Arjun Bijlani [2] [3] She is now also seen in 'Roohaniyat Chapter 2' where the series romantic drama revolves around her too, also providing reference to prove that too. [4] [5]. As far as reality show is concern you will find many notable reference for her for Spitsvilla 7, Nach Baliye season 9 and recently Bigg Boss OTT season 2. [6]. All these references are notable and verifiable to prove it. Thank You. DSN18 (talk) 08:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sirfurboy, She also won an award for Most Stylish Reality Show Star recently. DSN18 (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I am not familiar with much of the context of this, nor with the quality of the sources so not ready to come down as a clear keep at this point, but neither do I see a clear reason to delete. Deletion is a discussion, and if no one familiar with the quality of these sources can demonstrate a reason why these should not count as independent significant coverage, I would suspect there is no reason to delete. But my lack of expertise here is showing, so I will leave it at that for now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This source [47], which is source 2 of those posted, does look like significant independent coverage. Some of the others less so, but on balance, and in the absence of any strong arguments that the sources provided lack the necessary quality, I think this one crosses the line. - Keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several reliable, secondary and independent sources which have significant coverage which is also independent to the subject. Such as abplive, india today, timesofindia etc. Thus it passes the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Fade258 (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "'Splitsvilla 7' contestant Palak Purswani to enter as Kunal's ex-girlfriend in 'Yeh Rishtey Hain Pyaar Ke'!". abplive.com. 17 June 2019.
  2. ^ "Bigg Boss OTT 2: Know everything about 'Splitsvilla 7 fame Palak Purswani". jagrantv.com. 23 June 2023.
  3. ^ "रूहानियत की अनु हैं इतनी पढ़ी-लिखी". abplive.com.
  4. ^ "Arjun-Kanika's 'Roohaniyat Chapter 2' Is A Pill For Love & Romance". Ahmedabad Mirror. 14 July 2022.
  5. ^ "Watch: Arjun Bijlani, Kanika Mann's 'Roohaniyat Chapter 2' to release on July 22; trailer out". freepressjournal.in. 14 July 2022.
  6. ^ "Bigg Boss OTT 2 Weekend Ka Vaar: Salman Khan announces Palak Purswani's eviction". India Today. 26 June 2023.
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. NYC Guru (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Mid Bedfordshire by-election[edit]

2023 Mid Bedfordshire by-election (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:CRYSTALBALL. There is no 2023 Mid Bedfordshire by-election sheduled. Despite her statements, this MP has not yet resigned [48], and it is unknown if she will actually do so in 2023 or at all before the next general election. Draftify this text until any such resignation occurs. LukeSurl t c 11:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and in its current form, the article isn't really about the not-scheduled by-election. It's about a lot of political shenanigans that might or might not cause a by-election. Once the dust has settled, it may be that some of this information is better included at Nadine Dorries (even if she doesn't formally resign), and if she does, we may need only a cut-down version here as "background" to the election. But until we know what's happening, we can't write anything. For the moment, draftify is sensible, with no prejudice against moving to main-space as soon as it happens. Elemimele (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify if that's an option. We've got enough decent sources covering her announcement, her pause, her subsequent statements, and candidate selection, so it's a decent article in many ways. Deletion would be too harsh a sentence. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drafity per above. Presently it's not official so it violates WP:CRYSTAL. — Czello (music) 13:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: an article, under WP:GNG, is justified by reliable source coverage of the topic. We have extensive reliable source coverage of a probable by-election (so WP:CRYSTAL does not apply). Yes, Dorries has delayed her resignation: she says it's only a temporary delay, although some others are sceptical, and parties have selected candidates and are campaigning. We could rename to Possible Mid Bedforshire by-election if that helps. But there is good material here and this is a sensible place for it to be. Good material should be in article space; draftifying does not achieve that. If the AfD decides to get rid of the article, the background stuff can be merged into Dorries' article, while the candidates/campaigning stuff can be merged into Mid Bedfordshire (UK Parliament constituency). Bondegezou (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and United Kingdom. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bondegezou. Even if it doesn't end up happening, there is sufficient sourced encyclopaedic information that the article meets GNG and splitting that information over two or three other articles would not benefit readers in any fashion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this election is likely to happen at some point. Moondragon21 (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I read Wikipedia and have no interest in editing, so I know very little about the policies, beyond knowing that the spirit of Ignore All Rules is that policies exist with the intention of delivering outcomes that make sense. So I'll make an exception and participate here. Of the four by-election pages, this is easily the second most notable story behind Uxbridge - the other two resignations were relatively straightforward matters for their respective stated reasons. Dorries herself states that she is going to resign once she gets the answers she is seeking (which technically, as an MP, she can demand - if she writes to the appropriate minister whilst an MP she is entitled to receive a response in a timely manner). She has also suggested she will time her resignation to be as awkward as possible for the Conservatives. [49] [50] The overwhelming evidence is that there will be a 2023 Mid-Bedfordshire by-election, and the absence of such an article would have the effect of giving undue levels of coverage relative to the overall topic on either the constituency page or Dorries' page, else a lack of appropriate coverage overall. I understand why this discussion was started, but to me the appropriate outcome seems obvious, and the better time to have this discussion is when there is a real reason to doubt the by-election taking place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:B10E:8001:A505:CDE2:F065:C96D (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until the MP officially resigns WP:CRYSTAL. There are instances where a candidate intends to resign, but changes their mind (Note to closer, if the MP does resign prior to the closing of the AFD, then the article should be kept). --Enos733 (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for now. Firstly, we have never required a by-election to be scheduled or for a resignation to officially occur in order to create a by-election article, we have only required a resignation announcement and significant media affirmation of an upcoming by-election. Secondly, even in the remote chance that this by-election was not to be held, the hypothetical by-election is still itself a highly notable event per WP:GNG, with significant coverage in reliable sources, including at least one opinion poll. This is already a fairly popular article at 23,000 views over the last 18 days. WP:CRYSTAL applies to events which are only speculated to occur, and this is not the case here as reliable sources are stating that this by-election will happen. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bondegezou and Onetwothreeip. I don’t think WP:CRYTSAL applies here and there is significant enough Coverage to keep the page. Speculating that Dorries won’t keep her word and trigger a by-election is the speculation. JamesVilla44 (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not aware of any case in recent years where an MP announced their intention to resign but changed their mind. As the article points out, candidates have been selected, polling has taken place. PatGallacher (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have a problem with this material existing, but at the moment we have next to nothing about an election; we have a lot about a (non)resignation, which is definitely a notable story. We rightly titled our article on the Wallis Simpson affair Abdication of Edward VIII, not Coronation_of_George_VI_and_Elizabeth, a separate matter triggered by the former. I would be much happier if the "Background" section of this article were moved to something like Nadine Dorries resignation, and the routine stuff about results of previous election were delayed until there is an election to write about. Otherwise, if she doesn't resign, we're stuck for all eternity with an article about a major political event, hidden behind the name of a consequence that never happened. Elemimele (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I count 617 words on Dorries' resignation to 260 words on candidates/campaigning/polling, which is more on the resignation, but not next to nothing on the election. Nothing will be stuck for all eternity. The outcome of this AfD does not bind us for all time. Obviously, we can respond to any future developments, e.g. should Dorries explicitly say she's not resigning, or if reliable source reporting indicates that the by-election is probably not going to happen, or if time ticks on and a by-election in 2023 versus 2024 becomes unclear. Bondegezou (talk) 08:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele@Bondegezou - I'd be happy to support an article move to Potential Mid Bedfordshire by-election while we wait. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good idea. LukeSurl t c 08:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with that, though I do think it's still a little like writing about a traffic accident under the title "requirement for new motor vehicle". Bondegezou, you are of course right that we're not stuck with the title for all eternity - I shouldn't exaggerate. If she doesn't resign, we can always move the article to a title reflecting how the event is remembered. The resulting article could also, reasonably, have a paragraph on the election that the crisis would have engendered. Elemimele (talk) 10:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A name tweak is a reasonable compromise if folk think all this content should remain in mainspace for now. It'll be an inherently temporary name, ultimately either ending up at 2023 Mid Bedfordshire by-election, 2024 Mid Bedfordshire by-election, or quietly being merged into a subsection of the Nadine Dorries article after the announcement of the next general election. Perhaps I'm more cynical than most, but I feel there's a fair chance of this latter scenario. LukeSurl t c 14:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not firmly against this compromise but it feels pointless if it means another discussion like this to rename it back? It feels to me that the entry point to rename would be should there be serious doubt about this by-election taking place, given that the rationale for keeping is that there aren't sources which cast serious doubt on a 2023 by-election? 2A00:23C8:B10E:8001:5FC7:E492:DABA:8588 (talk) 06:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but retitle to either 'Potential' or 'Future' Mid Bedfordshire by-election as there is no guarantee it will take place this year. If the by-election doesn't happen, there is still precedent that an article exists on the expected one - see 2017 Manchester Gorton by-election as an example. OGBC1992 (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments by Bondegezou and others - this has certainly attracted enough media coverage, and even if the election never happens should stay thus. Frzzl talk · contribs 18:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I do expect that eventually Dorries will be forced to resign because she said she was going to, and to abandon doing so shows she has no regard for her constituents, but how long that might take who knows. However I guess the saga of her resigning and then not actually resigning is worthy of an article in its own right. gbrading (ταlκ) 09:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but possibly retitle, agree with OGBC1992. Article is solid and a lot of work's been put into it. Blythwood (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Koli Taal[edit]

Koli Taal (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:NFO, especially doesn't not received a good number of reviews from any known review aggregator website or, user community PARVAGE talk! 10:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of New Caledonia international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 07:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sele[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 07:03, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew McKagan[edit]

Matthew McKagan (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)

There are some articles about the awards and nominations, but none of them would lead to notability. The cited sources are WP:ROUTINE, and all the content covered in the news reports seems to be provided by McKagan or other involved parties, thus making it not intellectually independent. Churnalism does not make notability. (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Music. (t · c) buidhe 01:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I evaluate these as the three best sources: [54][55][56]. I agree with the nominator that these sources fail WP:ROUTINE and are probably not intellectually independent. While being a middle school teacher is a noble profession, it is not very notable by Wikipedia standards. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also add that McKagan could have taken his music education skills to any level he wanted: high school, college, or beyond. That is the opinion of many in the music education industry, which spans K-12 and college. The main reason he chose the middle school level is that what was open when he came onto the market scene, shortly after the Northridge quake (he was attending Northridge College at the time) - he could teach at any skill level. It can be an almost a greater skill to be able to form the concept of music in a young mind, than an older, more experienced mind. He also has led professional groups, which I did not include, due to lack of citations. Additionally, he had significant professional hornist performance experience that I did not detail for the same reason. Thank you again for your consideration. Sincerely, Scott McClelland Philo1208 (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep -- LA Times is a top-tier newspaper that covered the BRAVO award win with an article, so that's one significant coverage point. Each of the other two awards had more than ten winners/nominees, so they're not enough on their own though the KCLU coverage of the grammy is significant and with the LA Times the article may be. I disagree with @Novem Linguae about the articles probably not being "intellectually independent" -- the Bravo award was 1999 and the Grammy nomination in 2022; that doesn't seem like a single press release becoming multiple article type of material. I definitely don't want to set a precedent that every good middle school band director is notable, but if there are five in Wikipedia he should probably be one of them. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Secondary-school music teachers are far from automatically notable, but they can still be notable through WP:GNG. I think there's enough in-depth coverage, in enough different secondary sources, for enough different events, to qualify. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your interest in the Matt McKagan article. I am the person who wrote the article.
I have known about McKagan since we attended school together, then diverging at college. I was personally impacted by McKagan's musical leadership, and realized he was special (I can supply my own pedigree if needed). His reputation in the industry quickly grew. I watched with great interest as McKagan turned a neglected music program into a national force to the point where boosters built a $5M performance/recording hall for him, while he created professional music performers and music educators by the dozen. He truly personifies the Mr. Holland Opus award he attained. This music educator is a rare talent.
I may have mischaracterized the article with incorrect tags. Please correct me where needed. I am still learning about them. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, Scott McClelland Philo1208 (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I identified the same WP:THREE sources as Novem Linguae but come to a different conclusion. This subject passes WP:GNG. This is significant, not routine coverage and there is no basis for the claim that the sources are not intellectually independent. ~Kvng (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you mean by "no basis for the claim that the sources are not intellectually independent". Let's take a look at #2 for instance.[57] About half the article is quotes and the rest of it is basic information that likely came from a press release (eg "The ultimate recipient of the award will be recognized during GRAMMY Week 2023 and will receive a $10,000 honorarium and matching grant for their school's music program."). There's nothing in the article that wouldn't belong in PR material. (t · c) buidhe 14:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe Thank you for clarifying what you meant by and presenting evidence for intellectual independence. I would look at this more closely but I don't think I need to bother now that other sources have been found. ~Kvng (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just want to confirm User:Philo1208, do you have a conflict of interest regarding the subject? Please see WP:COI. - Indefensible (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi User:Indefensible, there may be some COI in that I knew McKagan from Jr high through high school. During college, we diverged and lost contact. McKagan went into music education in CA and I went into IT in Seattle. However, I followed McKagan's career path with interest from afar as his successes in the music education industry began to mount up.
    When I read McKagan was nominated for Music Educator of the Year Grammy award, I believed I knew enough about McKagan to document his music education career. Philo1208 (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, I removed the Personal section, leaving just facts pertaining to his music education awards. Philo1208 (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - there seems to be enough to support inclusion, but I recommend Philo1208 abstain from substantial edits to Matthew McKagan's article per the COI policy. You can discuss requested changes on the article's talk page. - Indefensible (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. LA times article is reliable/significant, and a single quote is not too much to maintain independence. Here's a Seattle Times source with some coverage [58]. We can also consider WP:BIO which says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, and combine the Seattle times coverage with [59], [60]. —siroχo 08:42, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Smithwick[edit]

Jan Smithwick (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:SPORTSCRIT and WP:BIO. The best I could find is 1 line mentions in Australian search engine Trove. LibStar (talk) 06:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Basketball, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Weak keep - A successful 70s/80s athlete who was the captain and key player of the Australian national team and the 1985 WNBL championship team. I did find a couple of sources on Newspapers.com that discussed her a bit, but nothing great. I'm not to familiar with Australian newspapers archives to be fully convinced that there is nothing out there. At worst, redirect the article to the Australia women's national basketball team. Alvaldi (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has some significant coverage already cited via The Age and Bendigo Advertiser. We also have some coverage here and another passing mention and another title match report from The Age. The Age seems to have several more match reports and passing mentions. Taken together, should meet WP:BIO —siroχo 11:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above. It should be obvious that someone who captained a team from a major basketball country will be notable.--User:Namiba 16:29, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Birds of Prey (1973 film)[edit]

Birds of Prey (1973 film) (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)

After cutting the trivia and unsourced claims, there isn't a whole lot left. The two sources, while reliable, aren't enough to demonstrate SIGCOV and there are no reviews. Any online presence has been overshadowed by the association with the female Batman villains. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Utah. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG. I have added references to two full length newspaper pieces to the article, one was a detailed review in the Los Angeles Times, the other was a detailed article about some of the filmmaking techniques used in the movie, particularly the challenge of flying two helicopters inside a hangar in close proximity at the same time. RecycledPixels (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But does it meet WP:NFILM? At least one of those sources seems to be WP:TRIVCOV. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 07:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting you would say that, did you look at either of them? Both are significant coverage. I am interested to find out which of them you consider trivial or passing mentions. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking at 1, 3, & 4. One sources nothing more than the film's budget and the others are basically movie trivia. SIGCOV means "more than a trivial mention." Looks like this thing aired on TV once about 50 years ago and sank w/o a trace. Even if two critics reviewed it, that means it barely squeaks by one of the five different notability criteria and I just don't think that's enough. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To add to above, there seems likely to be a full length review from the UK, though Google books snippets are failing me right now [61] —siroχo 07:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is a review at DVD Talk [62] DonaldD23 talk to me 14:09, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have enough references of reviews with good coverage. Strivedi1 (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC) — Strivedi1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I have added a couple more references. There are plenty more in contemporary newspapers. —siroχo 08:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is enough significant coverage in reliable sources including reviews identified in this discussion for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think this coverage, with the references added by Siroxo, is sufficient. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Sarvjeet Giri Memorial College[edit]

Baba Sarvjeet Giri Memorial College (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 coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Only a directory listing provided as a source. LibStar (talk) 02:19, 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! 02:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Janta Intermediate College[edit]

Amar Janta Intermediate College (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 coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Only source is a directory listing. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yattee[edit]

Yattee (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)

Similar to Invidious but with less referencing support. This article seems to be for promotion and only has primary sources; the only non-primary reference does not mention the subject. Indefensible (talk) 00:46, 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 keep‎. Overwhelming consensus that the subject satisfies the GNG/BIO; per WP:SNOW unnecessary to prolong discussion. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xiao Hua Gong[edit]

Xiao Hua Gong (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 notability guidelines. Per WP:NPOL: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". —WildComet talk 00:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable businessman, election candidate and pyramid scheme operator who has sources that are reliable documenting him Chicken4War (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:SNOW —siroχo 02:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He was arguably the most colourful candidate (from a showmanship point of view) in the 2023 Toronto mayoral election. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Politics, and China. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep; notability not just from running in the by-election. We all know where this discussion is going; recommend WP:SNOW for the next editor who comes along. Iseult Δx parlez moi 20:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - before failure. Operative word in nomination is "just". Nfitz (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the memes alone. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:GNG for the mess he caused in New Zealand, the mess he caused in Michigan, and the mess he caused in Toronto. There are enough folks out here in Michigan cursing his name to generate sufficient press coverage, never mind everywhere else. DontCallMeLateForDinner (talk) 01:57, 30 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! 00:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sunlight Solar Energy[edit]

Sunlight Solar Energy (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)

Existence and mentions are not notability. Non-notable solar contractor. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:NCORP. Coverage is trivial and routine like .. "Tim Moore, supervising electrician for Sunlight Solar Energy, Inc., who oversaw the panels’ installation at the aquatics center." Graywalls (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Coverage is typical of this [63], mentions, but not extensive. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Not notable. It's also puffed up with fake refs that don't support the material. I removed some of these a few years ago but some still remain. GA-RT-22 (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like a clear case of WP:NOTPROMO, very few reliable sources exist, and the couple that do are just quotes from someone from the company. —siroχo 02:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:41, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_June_28&oldid=1163995788"