Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 01 March 03 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Payne (cartoonist)[edit]

Henry Payne (cartoonist) (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 fails WP:GNG. None of the sources in the article satisfy the necessary criteria. I've also searched for sources online and none of them seem to satisfy these criteria either. Please review the source assessment table below. Nythar (💬-❄️) 23:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Source assessment table: prepared by User:Nythar
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
The Grand Rapids Press Yes ? I don't know if MLive is a reliable source and it's difficult to determine. No The source barely focuses on or describes who he is. The article mostly focuses on Henry Payne's contributions to ArtPrize, which seems to be a contest. The article is 100% trivial WP:ROUTINE coverage of local events. ✘ No
The Item No This source represents a newspaper publishing a story about itself. The Item's "stable of national commentary and opinion" is apparently being joined by three columnists, namely David Broder, Mike Royko, Walter Williams, and Henry Payne. Yes No The coverage is not significant. There's a very short general history of Henry Payne, introducing him and three others to a commentary panel. ✘ No
Michigan Capitol Confidential Yes ? The website itself isn't major so it's difficult to tell if it's reliable. However, upon reviewing it's main page, you can see a clear pro-Republican and anti-Democrat lean, with most article focusing on Michigan politics. No The article mentions Henry Payne's contributions as a speaker to to a climate change forum, but does not focus on him. ✘ No
Michigan Messenger Yes Yes No Although there is a section in the article that focuses on Henry Payne's contributions as a speaker to a climate change deniers forum, its coverage of him is not significant and the article focuses on the forum, simply mentioning him and using one of his statements as an example. ✘ 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}}.
  • Keep Payne has an entry in the West Virginia Encyclopedia, both the 2006 print version and online version. Don't know much about this encyclopedia but the about section of the website shows a large editorial staff and gives me little to be concerned about. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment https://www.nationalreview.com/author/henry-payne/ shows his contact information. If someone wanted to ask him if he has ever been interviewed or reviewed anywhere, that would help you find out if any sources existed. Dream Focus 04:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article is looking better now than when nominated. After working on the article I believe at a minimum the guidelines for WP:BASIC are met. Additionally I believe the person meets the criteria for WP:ANYBIO#2. I may continue to add references to the article. I am trying to confirm the Michigan AP award that is mentioned in primary sources. Lightburst (talk) 15:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Every source added to that article fails the WP:GNG criteria. I can make another source assessment table but I'm busy today, so maybe tomorrow. I think that the only thing about him that is notable is the fact that he is a Pulitzer Prize finalist. Even so, we can still debate if this is actually something that proves he is inherently notable according to WP:ANYBIO's first criteria. Replying to User:Lightburst's !vote above, if you "think" that he meets the #2 of WP:ANYBIO, you'll need to prove it by providing reliable sources that say he "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field". Like I said, none of the sources provided are acceptable according to GNG (I'll probably make the assessment table tomorrow), so the claim that he meets #2 can't be taken as a fact. Nythar (💬-❄️) 01:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nythar: WP:COAL and I recommend that you do the same. Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: I have seen many an AfD result in a consensus that is contrary to any of the available facts. One occurred quite recently, for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Liu, where the result was to keep, and an AfD a few weeks later: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Liu (2nd nomination), where the result was overwhelmingly to delete.
At AfDs, nominators begin by presenting their points while explaining why they think an article should be deleted, with relevant policy links. In many cases, like this one, after some article work, everyone agrees that the article is in good condition and should not be deleted. What if the nominator (me) notices that your (the !voters') claims that the article has been improved are actually wrong? Seriously, take a look at the example I linked to above. And like I said, I will probably assess the new sources in a table tomorrow. If at that point you have any meaningful argument to counter my evidenced points, please put it forward. If your argument makes sense and is grounded in policy, I might even agree with you. Nythar (💬-❄️) 03:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Citations added since nomination are of little value for establishing whether WP:ANYBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The lack of independent coverage is a concern. However, I will trust the judgement of those who state that the Professional Journalist awards are sufficient to demonstrate notability. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. He won a Society of Professional Journalists award twice (I just added them to the article in the past few minutes), plus the Pulitzer nomination/finalist. Reporting on the former is minimal and lacking independence (his own publication is the only source reporting it), so I think that is not the clearest pass at WP:ANYBIO but it's enough for me to !vote keep, weakly. CT55555(talk) 01:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep based on the professional award from a society that seems important to the profession (won twice), the West Virginia Encyclopedia entry and overall the article is not in bad shape. While there is little coverage of the professional award these things still elevate the subject over his peers making him notable. --hroest 03:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I searched before but so many results appeared [1] hard to find anything really standing out. 1,744 matches in newspaper.com for "Henry Payne" "cartoonist". Many places mention his work or have a brief quote from him, but I couldn't find any detailed coverage anywhere. But if the Society of Professional Journalists is a significant award, that's enough to prove he is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 04:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Since there seems to be consensus that the sources don't necessarily prove notability, but that the award Henry Payne won makes him notable, I won't prepare a source assessment table and I'm not against keeping the article. Nythar (💬-❄️) 09:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 11:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poena Is Koning[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability.

PROD removed with "noted work of a notable filmmaker, deprodded", but notability isn't inherited WP:NOTINHERITED. The work must stand on it's own. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and South Africa. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I watched this movie actually, and recall it being quite popular and widely theatrically released, even if it was trashy, critically disliked and unsophisticated. It was released widely, as noted critic Barry Ronge described it there's a big audience for these films. Audiences love them and they make big money, which allows them to get government money for copy-cat sequels, while filmmakers who aspire to deliver quality fail to get subsidies because the donors believe the film will fail.[2] Here's another rueful mention of its nationwide release:[3]. Here are reviews from WP:RS [4][5]. Meets WP:NFILM via WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO ("The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics."). WP:WORLDWIDE also needs to be taken into account. EDIT: It's led to a TV Series, and The Citizen, another WP:RS describes the movie as "iconic".[6] Park3r (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as shown in the above post that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because the RS mentioned in the discussion that I checked on looked less than reliable. The first one listed had a paywall (which doesn't rule it out) but then wouldn't let me back out of the site without displaying more screens of clickbait journalism.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Regarding the relisting comment: The Sunday Times has been around since 1906, and is reliable. The Citizen is another well-known mainstream newspaper. IOL, despite post-2020 woes, was reliable at at the time that the review was written, and it carries news from Independent Newspapers, which owns some of the oldest papers in the country, including The Star, The Daily News, Mercury, and finally News24 is owned by Media24, which is part of Naspers, and is South Africa's largest publisher, with a history that dates back to 1915, and Naspers is one of the biggest companies in Africa. Barry Ronge was a well known, widely read, and respected critic. If any of the news sources are deemed unreliable, we might as well gut a substantial number of articles about South Africa, since these are heavily cited. None of these have been discussed on WP:RSN, apart from post 2020 IOL, which I raised (but doesn’t apply to the review of this movie which was released in 2007). Park3r (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have updated the article with additional detail and sources. The film seems to have been a box office success in South Africa and spawned one spin-off film, two television films, and a television series. I also found quite a detailed academic analysis of its themes, which I wasn't expecting. Ackatsis (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio giuliano 23:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Lim[edit]

Annie Lim (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 about a person that fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Practically unsourced since its creation, apart from links to her official website. Jamiebuba (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searches indicated no notability. CT55555(talk) 03:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom McKenna (town planner)[edit]

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

I'm not finding significant coverage for him. Australian search engine Trove yields namesakes and a few mentions of his memorial lecture but nothing indepth about him. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this article: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00049999.1977.9656566 in a peer reviewed journal, usually obituaries are only dedicated to impactful individuals in the field and the article should give at least enough coverage for a short WP article. The memorial lecture further indicates notability. --hroest 15:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per hroest. I think the Royal Australian Planning Institute Journal reference is probably sufficient, when combined with the eponymous lecture series, to meet GNG. More RSs would obviously help but I'm satisfied notability requirements have been met. Cabrils (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep A bit of a borderline, but convinced by Hannes Röst's argument. Jeppiz (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Quito Metro. I realize that some content might already have been merged during the discussion but Merge appears to be the consensus here. Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Quito Metro stations[edit]

List of Quito Metro stations (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)

List of unclear necessity. All of the stations listed here are already listed in the head article as it is, meaning that this is just a content fork reduplicating content we already have in another article. And all of the stations listed here exist solely as redirects back to the same head article, with absolutely none of them having their own separate standalone articles about the stations themselves -- which means it's a list with only one outbound target, because every single link in the list is going to the same place.
Furthermore, even if the stations did have their own articles, the head article could just directly link to them as it is — the article isn't particularly long even with the list of stations already embedded in it, so the list doesn't need to be spun off to its own standalone page on article size management grounds.
There's just no pressing need for this to be its own separate topic, if the exact same information is already present in the parent article anyway. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Ecuador. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose. This nomination is really ridiculous. I already said elsewhere that I will create the article page starting from tomorrow, meaning the nomination argument is invalid. Moreover, the content duplication fork is invalid as well, we do have list of metro stations for pretty much every system, and nobody ever complains. If you are unhappy, remove it from the article, or even include it to the article as a section. There are literally zero reason to delete the list. Ymblanter (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We most certainly do not routinely have a standalone "list of metro stations" as a separate topic from "System" for every metro system that exists — we do that if the system's article is long enough to need splitouts for size management purposes, and if that's not the case then we just list the stations in the main article instead of their own separate list. This, additionally, is supported solely by the system's own self-published primary source content about itself, which is not an independent or notability-supporting source at all. Bearcat (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This last statement is incorrect. Urbanrail is independent of the Quito Metro, I am not even sure how you got the idea it is affiliated with this system. Concerning this first statement, I doubt it is correct, and if it is we should have a policy stating this. Ymblanter (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect unless significantly expanded. Currently there is nothing in the list article that isn't in the main article other than the opening date, but that can (and probably should) be fixed by adding the single sentence "All stations were opened on 21 December 2022.". The list does not currently overwhelm the main article either, so unless the list is significantly expanded such that it would overwhelm the system article (and with just 15 stations, even coordinates and an image for each station would not do that) there is no need to split-out the list. However the title is a very likely search term so it should be redirected to the section of the main article - Quite Metro#System. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect When Quito Metro is as short as it is, there is no basis whatsoever for a separate page to list the stations. If that's significantly expanded, a split would be welcome when warranted. With just one line, it should still be easy to keep in the main page. Reywas92Talk 14:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Quito Metro. There is absolutely no reason for a separate list, this only serves to fragment the information and make the reader chase links.  // Timothy :: talk  11:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Quito Metro. This would indeed be the best place for this list. TH1980 (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect into Quito Metro. I have copied the sole ref in the article to the target. Now nothing needs salvaging and the article should be redirected. gidonb (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    At the very least, the list already contains two links to the station pages, and the article does not contain any. Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter, thank you for pointing this out! I saw even three stations. Now linked from the main article. gidonb (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after Merge — since the content is a fork, there's no reason to keep the history in a redirect. All content has already been merged.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If some content has been merged, it by definition was not a fork. Deleting even the redirect would be a violation of my right as an author. Ymblanter (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Salvio giuliano 22:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Trey Edward Shults film[edit]

Untitled Trey Edward Shults 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)

WP:TOOSOON article about a film in the production pipeline, not yet reliably sourced as the subject of sufficient production coverage to exempt it from the principal notability criteria at WP:NFILM. As always, the "future films" section of NFILM is not an automatic "every film that enters the production pipeline is automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article right then and there" pass -- it's for films that generate a very large volume of production coverage that marks them out as special cases of significantly greater notability than the norm, such as Marvel or Star Wars films, while most films are not notable until they're actually released and getting reviewed by professional film critics.
But this just has a couple of stray production and casting announcements, which is not enough coverage to deem it a special case of greater notability than other as yet unreleased films -- and both the fact that we don't even know a title yet, and the fact that I can't even get it out of the container-only Category:American films because we don't even have a confirmed genre for it to be recategorized to yet, both mean it's too soon for us to have an article about this yet. Even if we sometimes permit articles about films prior to release if they have sufficient coverage, we should still never start an article about a film before we even know a title or a genre. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft. Per nom, it's too soon. Deadline said " production of the film began on February 2023", that does not necessarily mean principal photography. Even if it did, there is only one source really for this, the initial announcement from Deadline, the others are just a reprint of that source. Draft it for now. Mike Allen 20:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft. Per nom, TOOSOON.  // Timothy :: talk  11:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft. ONLY because of its limited sources. Otherwise, as I stressed on Jenna Ortega's Miller's Girl, it would be notable enough to include in the main space.TheMovieGuy 15:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft - as per above, definitely WP:TOOSOON.Onel5969 TT me 23:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft - If it's coming, you'll be able to get it. Just not enough info at the moment.KatoKungLee (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: WP:TOOSOON per comments of the nominator and others. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. and salt. Courcelles (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sunjay Kapur[edit]

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

The article which was created by a sock and heavily relied on refbombing does not have sufficient coverage from independent and reliable secondary sources to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Akevsharma (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 16:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 20:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only find coverage about his wedding (or someone with the same name). Nothing we can use to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 07:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mont-saint-Guibert Phoenix[edit]

Mont-saint-Guibert Phoenix (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)

Wikipedia is not an address book of non-notable amateur sports clubs — Preceding unsigned comment added by DovaModaal (talk • contribs) 15:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 16:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 20:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Second division baseball in Europe is not unlike soccer, the lower level. The Fr wiki article only has confirmation the club exists and about a stadium opening. Not seeing GNG for this team, and I don't think they play at a high enough level regardless to be listed in GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Patrick (meteorologist)[edit]

John Patrick (meteorologist) (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 A09 (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was the one who pointed this out on WP:DISCORD and didn't expect to see an AfD nominated because of it. Really important detail: the awards mentioned are regional awards (regional Emmys, Florida AP, etc.) that do not confer notability. This is quite common in broadcast journalism. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To make things clear, I also saw this article on Discord; however this has no relation to article being unsourced and thus failing WP:BLP. A09 (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Journalism, Television, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable enough for a stand alone article. This is local or regional at best and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just a regional weatherman doing his job, nothing found for GNG, beyond forecasts he's made. Trivia section is a red flag and agreed, this is written like a resume. Oaktree b (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could be summarized as "A guy in Florida has a job" and that's all the notability there seems to be. Jeppiz (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No effective reference and non-notable, man doing his job. scope_creepTalk 09:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 07:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vassilis Chatzigiannakou[edit]

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

Can't find the multiple examples of significant, detailed coverage for WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Best I can find is Phile News, which contains one sentence about him being injured, Sport FM, a contract renewal announcement with no independent content (copied from club website), and Kerkida (translated), a basic announcement of his release from AEK Larnaca. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 20:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 04:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

African Congress of People[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. A Google search for "African Congress of People" return the Wikipedia article, a Facebook page, a Twitter account and this article which mentions it in passing. There's literally nothing else. The current references in the article are actually copied from an article about a different Zimbabwean party, the Mthwakazi Republic Party. Pichpich (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 20:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My extensive searches found nothing to suggest notability. CT55555(talk) 01:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Isasi[edit]

Jose Isasi (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)

It's a resume. Can't find any reliable sources relating to this person. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio giuliano 18:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Nunn[edit]

Matthew Nunn (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)

written like advertisement and cannot be seen notability Endrabcwizart (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete between a press release, unverified claims and some marginal attention to what seems to be a self-awarded title of Australia's biggest advertisement agency, I see no notabilty as per WP:GNG to make the article stand. Rkieferbaum (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - was already thinking about PROD before this AfD was created. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 18:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – if it looks like an advertisement, feels like an advertisement, and reads like an advertisement, it's probably an advertisement. But also, fails GNG. SportsGuy789 (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Basketball coach for the U20 team isn't notable, rest feels like fluff. 120 employees is a rather small company, so we aren't likely to find much of anything about this person. I don't find coverage beyond confirmation of his sports coaching, simple mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rlendog (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Primarily because it feels very much like a paid promotional article (particularly in light of the author's contributions). Nunn himself does garner some coverage (eg in the AFR and Media Week's top 50 media agency directors) however it doesn't feel like there's sufficient to meet GNG. Cabrils (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio giuliano 18:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Board for Medical Research and Studies[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria under WP:ORGCRIT. Would propose merging, however there is no ECLBS article and thus nowhere to merge the page into. Opal|zukor(discuss) 16:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Medicine. Opal|zukor(discuss) 16:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article has no references. The external link to its website (www.ibmrs.org) is completely broken – it's possible the organization no longer exists, as it has almost no web footprint (especially post-2019) – surprising for an organization with such a lofty sounding title. Wikipedia Library general cross-database search also yields zero results, which is surprising as well. Delete with confidence – Wikipedia should not be perpetuating a dubious fragment of information – and also delete completely from any page that links to this, such as List of medical organizations. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio giuliano 18:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pabin Tripura[edit]

Pabin Tripura (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)

He is a student leader and a failed political candidate on the state level, he doesn't have significant coverage. Mvqr (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio giuliano 18:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

US Peace Prize[edit]

US Peace Prize (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:NOTABLE: this seems to be some completely irrelevant prize given out by some irrelevant non-profit organization called the US Peace Memorial Foundation (which doesn't even have its own article page). The sources are really poor, and the award's dreadful website seems to suggest this isn't anything serious. I'm struggling to find any even remotely popular media outlet talking about it. BeŻet (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Rothsey[edit]

Sean Rothsey (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)

Could not locate reliable sources with SIGCOV to establish notability. References just mention a his name without much other detail. Does not fulfill general notability guidelines, and is written in somewhat promotional manner. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I found numerous mentions of Rothsey in a NewsBank database search (of Aust and NZ newspapers) however all were either very short, or incidental when discussing properties for sale around Noosa, Pinefilm film activity, or MDS business activity-- none in depth about him. So I don't think he "clearly" fails WP:BIO-- rather, while there is certainly some coverage that includes him, there isn't sufficient to meet GNG in my view. Cabrils (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG, no independent coverage. --hroest 15:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citra Air[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This appears to be an article on a minor cargo airliner that operated for six years in Indonesia. The only sources in the article are this database entry on "airline history", an apparently self-published website, and this primary source photograph. Neither of these contribute towards WP:SIRS, and I am likewise not able to find sources in an online search that would contribute towards SIRS. As such, this article should be deleted in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8 for failing to meet the relevant notability guideline of NCORP. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi please don't delete Citra Air instead make it a draft, I will try to update it. Thank you CARLITOAHUISA (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there is not a consensus that this would never be an appropriate subject, the consensus is that at this time, there is not sufficient source material available to support an article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:34, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posterity of Heaven[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Posterity of Heaven (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 page should be deleted as per WP:DEL-REASON 6.: Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes. A previous deletion discussion in 2007 resulted in no consensus. This article has only two sources. The first source is incomplete and consists only of a title, publisher, and year. From what I can tell this source is referring to “한국적 신학형성과 단군신화 연구” (단군학회 편 자료집, 1999) by 박영규. This is from a Daejongism conference (see details at this website) that makes no mention of Cheonson/천손, the topic of the Wikipedia article. The second source, What does the national holiday mean? by Park In-Taek and Han Chang-soo, is only used as a reference for the etymology of the holiday Gaecheonjeol which is not the topic of the article. The contents of the present article are therefore supported by no sources. What's more, I was not able to find any reliable sources for Cheonson in the academic literature, or more broadly in reliable sources indexed on the web. Yannn11 15:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is this book in English, published by SAGE Publications, but it was published in 2018, well after the Wikipedia article was written, and you would be hard-pressed to call that significant coverage. For this to be kept it looks like sources in Korean (which I don't read) will be needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's worth noting that Korean mythology is not the topic of this book. In a single paragraph describing Dangun, the only mention of Cheonson is in the sentence Human beings are considered the descendants of Dan'gun and are considered the posterity of Heaven (Cheonson, 천손天孫). Considering the Wikipedia article has existed since 2006, this book was published in 2018, the sentence in the book is unsourced, and the sentence uses similar wording as the article, this could likely be a circular reference. Yannn11 14:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for absence of significant coverage in RS. See WP:NONENG - if the sources given are to be pushed forward as the justification for claiming WP:GNG then there's a great deal of work to be done. Springnuts (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the state of this article is appalling, there are definitely more than enough reliable sources (albeit mostly in the Korean language) to establish both its notability. Just FYI that this originated (contested by some Korean scholars who argue that it was exported to Japan from Korea) from the Tenson kōrin mythology of Japan, and English-language sources may also use the Japanese term Tenson when referring to the Gaya Confederacy founding myth. I'll clean it up when I get some time to work on it. Freedom4U (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide said sources in this discussion? The assertion that the sources must exist does not justify the current article (e.g., WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES). Yannn11 03:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To reply to the second part of your comment, I think by "this" in FYI that this originated you are referring to aspects of Korean mythology that share similarities with the Tenson kōrin myth (천손강림신화). These may be appropriate or already found in Korean mythology#Gaya or Dangun. I do not think you will be able to find a source for the topic of this article (Posterity of Heaven or Cheonson (천손, 天孫) designates the Korean people because they are considered the descendants of Heaven or the heavenly god.). If you can find such a source please add it to this discussion. Yannn11 15:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, I see the diference here, potentially merge with the Tenson korin article could work. "Aspects of Korean [Gaya, Goguryeo, Balhae] mythology that share similarities with the Tenson kōrin myth" is what I was referring to by 천손, claims of descendancy from heaven made by various emperors of Korea.
Here's a few sources I've found:
https://www.gimhae.go.kr/07025/00050/00103.web?gcode=1191&idx=31&amode=view&
https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/334/article/805034/pdf
(Most comprehensive of all the sources, there's a few mentions in other chapters of the book as well) https://brill.com/downloadpdf/book/9789004262690/B9789004262690-s009.pdf
(mentions in passing) https://rks.accesson.kr/assets/pdf/7517/journal-7-4-57.pdf
(mentions in passing) https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.13173/jasiahist.50.2.0175
(mentions in passing) http://islandstudies.net/weis/weis_2017v07/v07n1-2.pdf Freedom4U (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily opposed to a merge, but given that the Posterity of Heaven article would need to be renamed and rewritten (renamed because "Posterity of Heaven" never appears in any of these articles and Tenson kōrin is always referred to as 천손강림; rewritten because the current contents are unsourced and confused), I don't quite see the point. Although if the end result is that the unsourced article in its current form is deleted, a merge seems reasonable. Thanks for the sources on Tenson kōrin. Yannn11 19:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: judging from what was said in the nomination and including the comment above, this is largely original research. The relevant points of the article could well fit into other articles, but the one being discussed here doesn't seem to fit Wikipedia's guidelines. Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedom4U: Do you have any additional comments? To summarize the current discussion, Springnuts and Rkieferbaum are also in favor of deletion. Freedom4U is in favor of keep or merge, but finds that the state of this article is appalling. The article in it's current form is unsourced. Freedom4U has provided sources for Tenson kōrin/천손강림; however, these sources do not support the current article subject of "Posterity of Heaven". Yannn11 22:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sounds about right, I think there should be an article about this, but this definitely isn't the article. Freedom4U (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Joyous! Noise! 23:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities and towns in Michiana[edit]

List of cities and towns in Michiana (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 list of cities and towns in an unofficial region with subjective boundaries. This explicitly defines itself as using a "narrow" definition, as opposed to a "wider" one, which means that the basic boundaries of what's even in the region in the first place are up for debate and dispute -- which, in turn, means that it's effectively unmaintainable in a Wikipedia context, if there are such open questions about what should or shouldn't even be listed here. And, indeed, this came to my attention because the page recently got decategorized in the process of an attempt to strip the Michigan subsection from the article entirely, which seems like an intentionally targeted content dispute rather than just for-the-lulz vandalism.
Since we already have a head article about Michiana which already links to all the counties in it, and the counties in it in turn already link to all the communities in the counties, that means we already have the same information in other places anyway -- so it's just not clear that there's any pressing need to also maintain an omnibus list of all the individual communities in the region as its own standalone topic, especially if there isn't one objective universal definition of what the proper boundaries of the region even are. Bearcat (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Joyous! Noise! 23:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Health Coalition[edit]

Canadian Health Coalition (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 lobby group. Article has been unsourced for 17 years and a WP:BEFORE search turned up next to nothing. Lacks WP:SIGCOV and fails to meet WP:ORG. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and Canada. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find them mentioned every time public healthcare is discussed here, as recently as 2022 [7], but it's always "Mr. XYZ from the Coalition says this and that". I'll keep looking, but I don't see any coverage of the group we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete best I can find is the group acting as intervenor in a court case [8], tangential coverage about them. They give plenty of interviews. Even in Gscholar, all I find are policy papers they've published. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tally Hall per WP:SNOW ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Fabloo[edit]

Fabloo (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 genre. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note - See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fabloo bands. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No use of the term in any sort of RS found, some mis-spellings pop up in old medical journals in GScholar. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The genre term is meaningless until it is widely discussed by professional music journalists and other reliable sources. This one is equivalent to an inside joke among scenesters, and does not qualify for an encyclopedia. Nobody has ever used the term except a few bands and some of their fans. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hardly a genre, more in in-joke among a very few musicians. Saying the sources are unimpressive is a gross understatement.TheLongTone (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tally Hall: The term is at the top of their page as their self-described genre, so there is a very valid redirect. I am not opposed to a small section about it about on their page, either, but sourcing currently is lacking for that. I would also preemptively say to keep the page starred in case we need to lock the redirect. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tally Hall - lacks the coverage to pass WP:GNG but is a plausible search term. Would also support delete and redirect. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tally Hall. Fabloo is not notable, but appears to largely be associated with the band. I'm not seeing any reliable sources in my search for the term. TipsyElephant (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tally Hall. If ever coverage comes along that isn't the crap this article currently has then a section on that band's article would be appropriate, but I see no point in a merge vote based on the available material. QuietHere (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tally Hall; no coverage from reliable sources establishes this as a notable source. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's looking pretty WP:SNOWy for a redirect, so I went ahead and did it. No reason to have someone else comment the same thing. If someone opposes, then go ahead and undo my edit. If not, then please close. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caspian (rapper)[edit]

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

WP:BLP, started in draftspace and then immediately moved to mainspace by its own creator without WP:AFC review, of a musician not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The notability claim here basically amounts to "musician who exists", with the article documenting nothing about his career that would even be measurable against any of NMUSIC's accomplishment-based criteria -- and there are just four references (one of which has been redundantly reduplicated as two separate cites, for five footnotes but only four actual sources), of which two are Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person rather than having his significance analyzed in the third, one is just one of his own songs metaverifying its own existence on YouTube, and one is a short blurb not substantive enough to carry him over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the most GNG-worthy source on the table.
This is not enough to get him over the "notable because media coverage exists" hump, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have stronger referencing than this either. Bearcat (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We apologize for moving to mainspace without WP:AFC review. The subject has been well covered and signed to multiple record labels (CP Music Group, StealthBomb Records). Every notable collaboration he has worked with have pages on Wikipedia and are tagged in the article. Cites include well known and reputable online sites including vice.com in two different articles. The third cite article mentioned is from one of the biggest online hip hop websites Worldstarhiphop.com. We will add more information in the article but please ask to not delete this page as there are interfering search results between the subject and a rock band with the similar name. Thank you Samroth33 (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Signed to record labels" is not, in and of itself, a Wikipedia inclusion criterion, and neither is "has collaborated with other people who have Wikipedia articles". You also appear, from your tone here, to have a direct conflict of interest with regard to Caspian, so please be aware that people who have a direct personal stake in his career (such as himself, his own record label, his own management team, and the like) are not who gets to decide whether he gets a Wikipedia article or not — our inclusion criteria are clear, and you have not adequately demonstrated that he meets them. Bearcat (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply, is there anything else we can add to the article to resolve this issue. As mentioned above, it seems he meets all criteria for a article. Samroth33 (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have not demonstrated that he "meets all criteria for a article". You need to read WP:NMUSIC, and show third party reliable source coverage about him which demonstrates that he meets one or more of the inclusion criteria listed there. Not wrapped YouTube videos, and not interviews in which he's talking about himself in the first person: third-party coverage in which other people are talking or writing in the third person about his achievement of something that would satisfy an NMUSIC criterion. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, i have added more cites to the article, there are 10 cites now. We will continue to update it as we search for more articles. Samroth33 (talk) 14:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you're not getting it. For example, you don't get a musician over the touring criterion by using a concert listings calendar to verify the existence of a tour — you get a musician over the touring criterion by using media coverage about the tour (i.e. concert reviews in the major newspapers) to demonstrate that the tour was deemed significant by professional music journalists. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles including media coverage of the tour in the cites. Samroth33 (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We apologize - uh, who's "we"? - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 13:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is about the only non-PR piece I can find, an interview [9], nothing discussing the individual found in RS. Non-Juno winner, no charted singles. Nothing found for GNG or MUSIC. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•Keep We have provided enough information and cites for the article to remain. All label mates tagged in the article have Wikipedia pages with the same accolades and accomplishments as Caspian. We feel that the rock band with a similar name is interfering in search results on google and other search results and this article is important, not only for the history of the artist, but to differentiate the different musicians in the different Genres. Samroth33 (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the "we"? He isn't owed a Wikipedia article because of a problem you're having on Google — the question of whether he gets a Wikipedia article or not is determined by whether he clears our inclusion standards or not, and has nothing to do with anybody's personal desire to augment their own Google presence. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is sufficient information proving the article to be of a notable entity, to say a article cannot be made for a artist who hasn't won a Juno or had a charting song is dishonest. He had a number one video on muchmusic in 2009, but there are no articles online to prove that so it is not included in the article, along with a life time of work in the music industry that feels like is being discredited at this point. We will have to let the admins decide. Thanks Samroth33 (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And we're not here to help with your Google SEO problems. Oaktree b (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the notability criteria we look at, having a single that's charted in Canada, a Juno nomination, having a gold record... Look at the Reve article; her songs were played on the radio and we couldn't even make an article about her until Ctrl alt delete hit Gold Record status. Simply recording music doesn't cut it, even having it played on the radio doesn't cut it here for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "notable enough for a Wikipedia article on the basis of a claim I cannot prove by reliably sourcing it properly". Anybody can claim anything, even if it's a lie — so it's not the things you say that get a person into Wikipedia, it's the quality and depth of the media coverage that can be shown to support the things you say, and there's no such thing as "notable for a reason I can't actually prove". Wikipedia is not a free public relations database on which people are automatically entitled to have articles just because they exist — we're an encyclopedia, with specific requirements that a Wikipedia article has to follow to become appropriate for inclusion here. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned previously, there are multiple reliable sources in the article, thanks Samroth33 (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned previously, there are zero sources present in the article that are covering him in the context of anything that would satisfy WP:NMUSIC. We're going to go over these one by one here:
  1. Vice - Acceptable publication in theory; this particular piece, however, is only a short blurb that doesn't say anything about him that would pass a notability criterion at all.
  2. HipHopCanada - A Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person, which is not support for notability.
  3. Vice - Q&A again, talking about himself rather than having his significance analyzed by other people.
  4. WorldHipHop - Not coverage about him, just a streaming copy of one of his own songs, and thus not support for notability.
  5. Just a repetition of the same Q&A interview we already had to dismiss in #2.
  6. Exclaim - Not about Caspian, just glancingly namechecks his existence a single time in the process of being about somebody else.
  7. Concert Addicts - Not a reliable or WP:GNG-worthy source at all.
  8. Ephin Lifestyle Holdings - Not a reliable or WP:GNG-worthy source at all.
  9. HipHopCanada - Not about Caspian, just glancingly namechecks his existence a single time in the process of being about somebody else.
  10. Ephin Lifestyle Holdings - Again, not a reliable or WP:GNG-worthy source at all.
  11. Georgia Straight - Not about Caspian, just glancingly namechecks his existence a single time in the process of being about somebody else.
So no, the only source that's getting you anywhere at all is #1, which again is a short blurb and therefore not enough all by itself. None of the other sources are cutting it at all in terms of building notability. We are not looking for just any web page you can find that has his name in it; we are looking for coverage about him (not just happening to mention his name while being fundamentally about somebody else) in real media (not PR blogs) which analyzes the significance of his accomplishments (not just verifying the existence of songs) in the third person (not him talking about himself in an interview). Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we'd consider a Muchmusic chart from 2009 a reliable source. Was it on the main MuchMusic channel or Much Loud or one of the other iterations that came along of the same channel? Did he attend the VMAs? We need more than just confirmation that he sings and gives interviews. Did the Toronto Star or Vancouver Sun ever do a feature article about him? We need a media story about him (not an interview) in a major Canadian media outlet to even look at notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment and his photo has been copied from his website by a red-linked user, with no proof of authorship submitted to VTRS. That's a glaring red flag at AfD when we see articles about musicians. Reported it as a copyvio. Oaktree b (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Article and photo also made by a user who has made no contributions outside this subject or adding the person's name into other articles on the topic. I suspect a COI. Oaktree b (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG due to lack of SIGCOV. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 13:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - UPE/COI article which fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 23:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Herrgärdets IP[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:NARENA. This article has very few mentions on the Internet:

  • the only citation of the article – which is only used to confirm that the stadium was the home stadium of Västerås IK for a game and doesn't give the topic significant coverage

Searching "Herrgärdets IP" -wikipedia on Google only yields seven results: the first being the aforementioned blog post; three links giving the same level of coverage as the source given in the article; and three irrelevant links. The same query on Google Books and Google News yield no results.

The article on the Swedish Wikipedia uses the same source as this article and the article on the Dutch Wikipedia gives another link (which seems to be dead) whose archived version (as of 2 January 2014) only makes a passing mention of the stadium.

I suggest either deleting the article or redirecting to Västerås IK. -- Kzkzb (talk) 09:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. So Herrgärdets IP is fairly significant in the history of Swedish sports: two Swedish ice hockey championship finals, home of Västerås SK and Västerås IK at a time when they played in the highest tiers of Swedish bandy and football (soccer), respectively, all of these being major sports in Sweden. There's a two-page article about the stadium in Vestmanlands Läns Tidning (accessible through sv:Mediearkivet) and some other mentions. Books which would contain more information are VSK : Västerås sportklubb : 100 år 1904–2004 (ed. Hans Mejevi), Västerås idrottsklubb : Jubileumsskrift. 1913-1943 and Arosidrotten 1000 år : en kulturhistorisk Västeråskrönika (ed. Ingemar Helgoson and Göte Johansson), none of which I have access to at the moment. I've expanded the article based on the texts I have found which are electronically accessible. /Julle (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (This doesn't mean the nominator hadn't done a reasonable WP:BEFORE. Google is terrible at locating Swedish news, and doing a proper search in Swedish newspapers, even from the last twenty years, requires access to services like Mediearkivet.) /Julle (talk) 13:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You know, I am inclined to keep this article, it's small and could be expanded if additional information is found. However at the moment what is there is sourced and it is correct and can be helpful to a reader. If anything, this nomination feels it's simply sent to AfD because the nominator didn't like the article size! I don't see any point in a redirect as it has been a multipurpose venue used for different things. Also because it was a multipurpose venue, a redirect to a football club shouldn't be done. Correct redirect and merge would be to the town of Västerås. Regards Govvy (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, most of the article has been written since it was taken to AfD; when Kzkzb suggested a redirect to Västerås IK, it looked like this. I've since expanded it. /Julle (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Västerås#Sports where it can be covered, don't think it's independently notable. GiantSnowman 19:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Govvy. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Very old article that is being put up due to new guidelines. I don't see how removing this helps the website in any way.KatoKungLee (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources demonstrate notability satisfying WP:GNG as well as WP:NARENA. The article could definitely be expanded, but the essentials of notability and coverage are there as a foundation. Shawn Teller (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've also got confirmation there's more about Herrgärdets IP in Arosidrotten 1000 år, which together with the newspaper articles should be enough for notability as well as verifiability. /Julle (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Krakoa. As this is the second AfD with this result, the redirect has been protected. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet Council of Krakoa[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Quiet Council of Krakoa (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 was redirected by consensus (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quiet Council of Krakoa) two months ago but has been restored and User:Ringardiumleviossa thinks it should not be redirected again. There is no agreement and no point in further edit warring over this so bringing it here for resolution. Mccapra (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Redirect - The previous AFD's consensus was, to quote the closer, a "clear consensus against a standalone article". If there are disagreements over the initial redirect target, that should have been addressed via discussion, particularly as the close of the previous AFD noted that it did not preclude later retargeting. Edit warring and restoring the article with no discussion is not an appropriate method of handling it. Rorshacma (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First of all, I'm sorry because I still don't know few rules regarding this and thanks for informing me. I want it to keep because I'm still editting this article. Just compare the last revision before first Afd closure/redirection with latest edit. Secondly, is this article not enough to have its own page? But clearly its upto consensus to keep or redirect.
Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - again, nothing has changed in the few weeks since the last AfD. Then salt to prevent recreation again.Onel5969 TT me 23:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Wikipedia is not supercruftipedia. Dronebogus (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Reynard Motorsport cars. This seems to be the redirect target that has more support from participants here. Liz Read! Talk! 08:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reynard 2KF[edit]

Reynard 2KF (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)

Disputed redirect. Sources are a Geocities / Oocities blog and Linkedin, and no better sources found (database entries like this or this). Not a notable car, but a redirect to List of Reynard Motorsport cars seemed a good solution. Fram (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vision Gran Turismo#Ferrari Vision Gran Turismo. Liz Read! Talk! 08:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari Vision Gran Turismo[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:LASTING. Sources all from a period of a couple of days. Tried G7 but apparently 98.5% authorship isn't enough. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 07:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Vision Gran Turismo per WP:ATD. It doesn't seem like this individual car is independently notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Vision Gran Turismo. Does not have enough references to even somewhat indicate notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Motorsport, and Italy. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 15:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close per WP:POINT based on the recent edit history of the article. Bad-faith nomination in an attempt to "knock the pieces off the board" after being involved in a content dispute over the placing of a notability tag. This should have been resolved with discourse on the talk page instead of trying to G7 the article. For his part, Piotrus gets a TROUT for edit warring to replace the tag without going to talk either. AfD is the wrong venue at this time. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 15:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying it's inappropriate to send an article to AFD when there's a dispute on its notability or whether or not it should be merged...? Sergecross73 msg me 15:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominator of this AfD is the creator of the article. in this diff (with an edit summary of fucks sake alright you win) they tried to G7 the article because Piotrus edit warred to add a notability tag. Neither of them discussed this tag on the talk page, which should have been done before coming here. The nominator clearly thinks the article is notable, but has given up because of the behavior of Piotrus. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 15:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a bit out of the ordinary, but I don't see a need to close it. Especially since there already seems to be a consensus forming. It could end up being good documentation of a consensus for the future. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair. The nature of how we're here shouldn't discount the opinions of the uninvolved !voters above. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 17:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Content is based on a press release that got reprinted/reworded in few other sources. This doesn't pass WP:GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Vision Gran Turismo#Ferrari Vision Gran Turismo - Honestly, I think the section about it in the main article is already decent enough that a merge would not actually be needed and a simple Redirect would suffice, but as the consensus is clearly leaning towards some kind of merge occurring, I will go with that. Clearly not a notable enough topic for a standalone article - as pointed out, all of the coverage is just various outlets reporting on the same press release. Rorshacma (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Vision Gran Turismo. Fails notability standards to warrant its own article. Hansen SebastianTalk 04:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. As an alternative to deleting this article, the topic of which has some encyclopedic content and is tangentially notable, I would boldly propose merging with Vision Gran Turismo. Notability isn’t sufficient for a stand-alone article, although there is some notability in the context of Vision Gran Turismo, which would be the best merge target here. Shawn Teller (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oman–Spain relations[edit]

Oman–Spain relations (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. Article is largely based on the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Coverage is rather routine like this rather than meaningful bilateral relations like significant trade, numerous state visits. LibStar (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 06:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per ample precedent of similar articles. Just not notable. Mangoe (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 08:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael McGuire[edit]

Rafael McGuire (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 actor/singer. Sources appear to be puff pieces/paid PR. KH-1 (talk) 05:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Plagiarism. This seems to be the preferred Merge target. Of course, if an editor believes content from this article would be appropriate in a different article, additional Merge edits can be undertaken. Liz Read! Talk! 21:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rogeting[edit]

Rogeting (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)

Basically, it's fake news, which is also used to promote the author. After almost ten years, this hypothetical neologism is not listed in any real dictionaries. Besides, some of the (few) Web sources actually used this article as a source. IJustNeedToMessageYou (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. IJustNeedToMessageYou (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. IJustNeedToMessageYou (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into paraphrase. "Rogeting" is just a silly word for paraphrasis by synonyms, which is a topic discussed in several sources, for example [11][12][13]. Some of the information in the Rogeting article would be useful for starting a section about this in the paraphrase article. small jars tc 11:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment: Unfortunately I can't see your sources because I get an error message, but if they were written after 2015, they may have become aware of this hypothetical neologism by reading this Wikipedia article. IJustNeedToMessageYou (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The second one cites Inglis, 2008 for its typology of paraphrase. The first and third describe the behaviour in second language English writers, while the Rogeting article is focused on plagiarism. small jars tc 12:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @IJustNeedToMessageYou: for the first source, have you tried clicking "view all" in the Google books viewer? small jars tc 12:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Google keeps telling me I've run out of "views" (although I didn't open Google Books at all; go figure). Anyway, I agree with your first suggestion: this term could be mentioned in another article, instead of introducing it as a "neologism" in its own article. IJustNeedToMessageYou (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Not vastly prominent but in use and discussed: here's a paper specifically on the topic, and it does come up in the discourse [14]. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, this deserves the briefest possible mention over at paraphrase, of which it is a weak commercial synonym or neologism, indeed very possibly marketing hype. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we don't need an article on every imaginable term. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, but to plagiarism rather than paraphrase. Started off leaning keep, since there's popular press coverage and journal article mentions. Looking closer, the popular press don't really add anything to each other, and there's only really one academic article about it (the others are just mentions). I wouldn't be sad to see this kept, but there's not much more than a paragraph that can be written about it, and that can go in the plagiarism article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If merged, should the destination be plagiarism or paraphrase? (Or possibly both I suppose)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to plagiarism, not paraphrase, as the current article is specifically restricted to the use of close paraphrasing to evade anti-plagiarism software. Paraphrasing is a much larger thing, that isn't necessarily negative (it's what we do here!) Elemimele (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively to Plagiarism. The article relates more strongly to that topic than to "paraphrasing." Joyous! | Talk 04:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into plagiarism. –lomrjyotalk 22:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominator is now a blocked sock of Bianbum. MoodyTourist (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MoodyTourist, while true, you have only two edits. How did you know about this AFD and the SPI case involving this editor? Liz Read! Talk! 21:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. On a straight nose count, this would seem to veer toward "no consensus". However, as always, AfD is not a vote. The two individuals who argue to keep cite, essentially, their personal standards for what would make someone notable, rather than actual notability guidelines agreed upon by community consensus. This causes the arguments to carry substantially less weight, and tips into "delete". Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:39, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alan R. Schwartz[edit]

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

Per WP:USCJN, state appellate judges are not inherently notable. BD2412 T 21:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • BD2412, you nominated for deletion four articles regarding judges (Juan Ramirez Jr.; Angel A. Cortiñas; David M. Gersten; Alan R. Schwartz), within the span of two minutes, with identical descriptions. Likewise, while you state in each that "state appellate judges are not inherently notable", you do not address why each individual judge is not notable; plenty of people are notable, even if not bestowed inherently by job title. With that in mind, and given that the AfD guidelines have a checklist of steps to carry out before nominating an article, what steps did you take to assess the notability of this particular judge before nominating the article for deletion? --Usernameunique (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did find some mentions of him, but nothing extensive. He seems to be known for having referred to "gotcha" cases in here, and he wrote an analysis of airline safety after Lockerbee: Schwartz, Alan R., and Michael J. Bayer. "Pan Am Flight 103 and the Aviation Security Improvement Act of 1990." The Logistics and Transportation Review, vol. 28, no. 1, Mar. 1992, pp. 61+. But I don't find anything that would rise to GNG. Lamona (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So shouldn't the criteria for keeping or deleting be more than just the title or office of the person, and instead what she/he did while in the office? A minor officeholder can make a big impact (good or bad) (for example, Rosemarie Aquilina is a low level state court trial judge, but she made a major impact during the Nassar trial). Judge Schwartz, in his almost 30 years on the bench, authored 944 opinions. To dismiss him as delete-ably routine simply because he was just an appellate judge really glosses over what he did as an appellate judge. In 3 minutes of looking at some of his decisions and sorting by the number of times those decisions were cited by other courts, I was able to find 2 significant and interesting (well, at least interesting to lawyers) decisions that made law. His decisions, his reasoning and writings will continue to influence the application of law for likely decades to come. Significance and notability should be more than surface level deep, and the contributions a person makes should be a factor just as much as a person's perceived social importance. Today's flash-in-the-pan celebrity will be gone in 15 seconds; this man's work will live on and impact real people. The article needs work and more research, no doubt, to identify and analyze decisions and the impact of those decisions. But aborting the notion of his notability on what might be cursory research (hopefully more than just a google search...), favors the potentially less-serious-more-notorious people over those who are serious and impactful but not flashy. Judge Schwartz seems serious and impactful. Let this article live on; maybe somebody will fill it out more oneday. Leglamp123 (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leglamp123, thanks for the link to the Court Listener list of decisions. (I find it particularly interesting the search terms "author_id:6756 OR panel_ids:6756" and would love for there to be instructions somewhere here on WP on how to discover those ids.) Looking through the notability criteria I am unable to find a policy that would support this article. All of the wp:Notability_(people) criteria, including those in wp:Notability_(people)#cite_note-note6-8 refer to "in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles". We have a separate set of criteria for academics that takes into account their publications and impact through citations and that does not require main-stream third-party sources, but we do not have any stated policy that would cover judges. You say that he authored 944 opinions. I have no idea if that is a lot for a career judge. Admitting that our criteria for notability is lacking for judges, what does that number of opinions represent in the juridical realm? An average amount? A huge amount? Are there awards that would follow, or are those not an aspect of that type of work? Thanks, Lamona (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lamona, that's a thoughtful question, and a hard one to develop criteria for. In the legal profession generally, a lawyer's reputation is mostly known inside that specific legal practice area (not dissimilar from academics); except for personal injury lawyers who advertise on TV or buy those SuperLawyer rankings, the legal community frowns upon overt self-promotion or boasting, and prefers to be known by word-of-mouth reputation - and that's practicing lawyers. Judges are even more adverse to attention, and between that and judicial canons / code of conduct, judges almost never grant interviews or author non-judicial opinion pieces...so as a result, the news universe finds most judges pretty boring most of the time. So like academics/professors, the real reputation of judges is known within the small insider circle of other lawyers and judges.
There aren't really any awards or rankings, at least none that serious lawyers and judges take seriously or that would easily appear on google. Coming up with some type of objective-ish metric isn't easy. @Berian has a good start in his lawyer standards.
So this would be my suggestion to try to apply a metric: an impactful judge who is respected by her/his peers, who authors compelling legal decisions, is often quoted/cited by other courts in other legal decisions. Impactful decisions are often cited in or the subject of scholarly law review articles. So an idea would be to look at how often a judge's decision is cited in by other courts, particularly a state's highest court (in Florida that would be the Supreme Court), by federal appellate courts, and most rare of all, the U.S. Supreme Court. And look at how often a judge's decision is cited by law review articles. Often those two will go hand in hand - if cited by numerous courts, chances are a decision will be cited by numerous law review articles - a sign that the judge has made some type of impact in the legal universe. Here, for instance, is a small list of the top top top who's who of cited/respected jurists.
Perhaps a criteria building off of Berian's, something like a notable judge will have authored at least X decisions (10?) that have been positively cited by a state's highest court, a federal appellate court, or SCOTUS, or has been cited in a law review article.
I know Lexis and Westlaw have means of tracking most court citations, and also law review articles; not sure if a free service does the same. Leglamp123 (talk) 17:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Leglamp123: I don't think CourtListener.com is usable as a source. My understanding is that it is user-generated content, like a wiki, and not fact-checked. BD2412 T 19:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @BD2412 - CourtListener, like PACER, Westlaw, Lexis, or the actual bound printed legal reporter casebooks in law libraries they make 1st year law students use, publishes court decisions (which are, as you know, a government public record and gold-standard source). The court decisions themselves are the actual source, and each appellate court decision, and some trial decisions, have both a court docket number and a reporter citation (e.g. the 2000 SCOTUS case Bush v. Gore is docket number 2000-949 and is cited as 531 U.S. 98, or 121 S. Ct. 525, or 148 L. Ed. 2d 388, or 2000 U.S. LEXIS 8430). It is the court decisions themselves that are the source, not the publisher of the court decision (anyone can access and publish a public record, so there are thousands of court decision publishers). The publisher is not important - they all do the same thing - the important thing / source is the court decision, which absolutely is a source, and is referred to by the reporter citation (e.g. 531 US 98 (2000)), and usually not by the publisher (e.g. use the 531 US 98 citation to refer to Bush v. Gore, not a link to CourtListener. Leglamp123 (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What little content we have at CourtListener does not seem to indicate such a status. BD2412 T 00:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @BD2412 - Can you please clarify what you mean when you say that "CourtListener ("CL") wiki does not seem to indicate such a status?" I'm not sure I understand. If you're saying the CL wiki is not complete and should be updated for completeness because it does not include my opinion that it is a publisher of reported opinions, I don't have an opinion, except to note the wiki you referenced does state, in a bullet point, that CL provides, among other things, more than 3 million judicial opinions. If you're saying that you disagree with my statement that CL is a publisher of reported judicial opinions, please explain (a) why you believe same; and (b) how you reconcile your belief that CL does not publish judicial opinions against the fact that CL has massive quantities of cited, reported, published opinions. Thanks! Leglamp123 (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's content on CourtListener, in full, is "CourtListener, is an open source software project to archive and host court documents". Hosting court documents does not make a source reliable with respect to the notability of judges, or indeed with respect to their biographical data. I have used CL plenty as a way to find items of information from which to track down reliable sources about judges, but never as a source for articles on the subjects themselves. BD2412 T 01:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya @BD2412 - perhaps I've not been clear enough. I am not suggesting CL is a source in and of itself - who cares about CL? - I am suggesting that the court documents themselves (e.g. reported opinions) are a reliable source with respect to, and probably a key factor in determining, the notability of the judges. The reported opinions - regardless of where hosted - is what makes a judge notable in the world of judicial opinions, particularly when cited by other judicial opinions and academic journals. IMO a judge with notable reported opinions meets the notability requirement (similar to WP:PROF) even though the judges' biographies might not be the subject of secondary sources. Leglamp123 (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The opinions themselves are primary source documents. I don't consider CL as a source for the notability of those opinions (they might be the most notable opinions realtive to that judge, but that does not make them notable cases relative to cases generally). Are there reliable secondary sources that write of the notability of this subject's work? BD2412 T 01:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya @BD2412 - I guess my point is, a reliable secondary source is another judicial opinion that cites and references the primary source that is judge's original opinion. Particularly when the court that is citing the original opinion is a higher level court than the judge's court.
One needs to cross reference a judge's opinions to see which other court opinions refer to it and if it is referred to by scholarly articles or notes.
For example, Judge Schwartz's opinion in MORTGAGE ELECT. REGISTRATION v. Revoredo, 955 So. 2d 33 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007), was cited by:
Judge Schwart's opinion in MORTGAGE ELECT. REGISTRATION v. Revoredo was a notable contribution to American law; confirmation of said notability comes from citations by multiple states' supreme courts, appellate courts, and citations from scholarly articles/notes.
If a judge has a number of similarly notable opinions, I think it makes her/him notable as a judge. Leglamp123 (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a totality, this judge passes my standards, especially as the chief judge of an intermediate court. Bearian (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Bearian: I am unaware of any criteria for inclusion that gives weight to chief judge status on a regional (not statewide) intermediate appellate court. As far as I know, the office in Florida DCAs is administrative, and holds no particular legal authority. BD2412 T 21:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost all chief judges and chief justices are administrative in nature; their legal authority derives from the authority granted to the appellate court as a whole. Leglamp123 (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 05:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is no claim for notability sustained beyond the judicial appointment, which itself does not pass WP:GNG as a relatively minor appointment at district level. We are informed by WP:JUDGE here: "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." Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Gersten[edit]

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

Per WP:USCJN, state appellate judges are not inherently notable. BD2412 T 21:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • BD2412, you nominated for deletion four articles regarding judges (Juan Ramirez Jr.; Angel A. Cortiñas; David M. Gersten; Alan R. Schwartz), within the span of two minutes, with identical descriptions. Likewise, while you state in each that "state appellate judges are not inherently notable", you do not address why each individual judge is not notable; plenty of people are notable, even if not bestowed inherently by job title. With that in mind, and given that the AfD guidelines have a checklist of steps to carry out before nominating an article, what steps did you take to assess the notability of this particular judge before nominating the article for deletion? --Usernameunique (talk) 07:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He did write/co-author some study guides for Florida law in the early 2000's, and I found one interview. In the JSTOR search I find very short mentions of his writing, but most of that writing itself doesn't turn up in my searches so it must be in less-accessible legal sources. I did find: Dynamic Trial & Appellate Advocacy DAVID M. GERSTEN Family Advocate, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Fall 2008), pp. 41-43 (3 pages) https://www.jstor.org/stable/25806797. That's about it. Lamona (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as a totality, this judge passes my standards Bearian (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Bearian - I looked at your standards for attorneys and they are quite comprehensive. On these AFDs it would really help me if you could say which of the standards/points you see these folks as meeting. Thanks, Lamona (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He served as a chief judge of an intermediate appellate court. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Estrid Brekkan[edit]

Estrid Brekkan (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 significant coverage, fails WP:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 05:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, based on Alvaldi's additions to the article since it was taken by AfD. /Julle (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yoshihiro Akiyama#Personal life. I accept this as an ATD although I dislike how many times a woman's biography is turned into a redirect to her spouse's article. Seems to mainly happen with historical figures. Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shiho Yano[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability, married to a celebrity and done some modeling. That's it. Nswix (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Editors are encouraged to work on improving NPOV in this article and increasing reliable sources. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba[edit]

Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba (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)

Extremely biased article. I would recommend deletion of this page and adding a section to Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan. Controversies section states that "Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba has been continuously speaking against campus violence in the name of ethnicity" yet three of the four sources are clearly *about* members of IJT carrying out violence; many claims throughout the article have no sources; uses QUORA as a source and more TokiSixskins (talk) 03:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question. It seems you think this article could be and should be significantly edited and improved. Is that accurate? CT55555(talk) 04:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
essentially yes, but in my opinion everything beyond the lead section would need to be entirely rewritten to be make the article neutral TokiSixskins (talk) 05:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Islam, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and use WP:AFC to submit it again. The article should not be on Wikipedia as is. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an article started in September 2004 about a notable organisation in Pakistan. The topic is covered by reliable third-party sources that can be found by searching on Google scholar, Google books, etc. At least some of the citations in the article are to newspapers from Pakistan. There is no valid reason for deleting the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This article is supported by 25 References from almost all major English-language newspapers of Pakistan and many independent international sources. This is a reckless nomination where the nominator obviously wanted to turn a blind eye to all the valid sources and 'cherry-pick' one bad source and get this article deleted. Religious parties (all religions including Islam) are also allowed to have articles on Wikipedia along with non-religious secular parties and individuals. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems to me this was the nominator's first day of editing on Wikipedia after looking at his Talk page and he brings this article to the AfD Forum?...Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject is notable and passes WP:GNG. The article definitely needs some clean up, but deletion is not clean up. Insight 3 (talk) 07:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is coverage from various credible sources to meet GNG. AFD process is not intended for cleaning up Akevsharma (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I spent some time carefully going through the references and conclude that they constitute WP:SIGCOV by WP:RS, establishing WP:NOTABILITY and satisfying WP:GNG. The argument for deletion would be considerably stronger if WP:GNG wasn’t met. However, it is met, and I think the best thing to do is keep the article. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 see a consensus to Delete this page. I'm less sure about a future DAB page but since on the current page "improper" is being used as an adjective to modify a noun and not article subjects, I think that potential is dim. Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improper[edit]

Improper (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:NOTDICTIONARY applies This is not a disambiguation page though it looks like one at first sight.The draft was accepted at AFC by a sockpuppet - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harttyny which is rather disappointing all round. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 23:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unambiguous WP:NOTDICTWP:PTM. There's no plausible reason for those article titles to be included in a disambiguation page. This could also be a borderline WP:A3, since it could be argued that the "disambiguation" links function as a "See Also" section. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Updating my vote since PTM is more applicable per Joy. I could have sworn I made this edit earlier, but it must have been swallowed up by an edit conflict. There's no need to have a disambiguation page here, since it isn't ambiguous and nobody would look up the word "Improper" expecting to find any of these articles. The only thing someone searching is likely to be looking for would be the dictionary definition. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't presume to know what readers want. This page was created recently, so we don't have any meaningful data yet, but you can compare it with the similar case of Proper: it was viewed 200 times last month [15], and the two entries that received the most clicks were for the two very involved maths topics of Proper space and Proper map [16]. – Uanfala (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The existence of the page doesn't preclude comparison to the search results, though, they're still visible at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=1&search=improper&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 --Joy (talk) 08:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a not-unreasonable disambiguation page. Why is NOTDICT relevant? There's no definition anywhere on the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't see why NOTDIC is relevant here. WP:PTM, on the other hand, may look applicable, but that's only apparent (this happens often with dab pages that are more naturally cast as disambiguating an adjective; it will become a bit clearer why PMT doesn't apply if you reword the entries so that they describe nouns, e.g. instead of "Improper integrals" you have "the characteristic of an integral that is improper"). – Uanfala (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need someone to properly (heh) analyze whether the list entries use "improper" in a way that would satisfy WP:PTM or not. In some cases it's the "new" in "New York" and in some cases it's the "york". For example, improper input validation is a case of the former, because nobody would be searching for "what's improper" and expect to see this - rather this list item would be more appropriate at input validation instead. --Joy (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I went through and removed some of the more obvious cases, and tagged one redirect for discussion. The rest seems potentially dubious as well. --Joy (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not formatted properly as a disambiguation page, but that's easily fixable and obviously what the creator was going for. This is a disambig page regardless of current structure and, considering the amount of potential articles for it to point to (which I suspect what's there currently is only a portion of the total possibilities), it's a disambig page that is sorely needed. SilverserenC 18:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This was created as a set index in 2007, someone tried to blank it in 2010, and in 2013 someone dropped everything as partial title matches and converted it to a redirect. That redirect was deleted in 2015 through Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 29#Improper. Then a set index was re-created this month. If it was completely non-existent for far longer than it has been in existence, then it can't be sorely needed. Maybe the search engine was serving the average readers well enough. --Joy (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. NYC Guru (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can anyone give an example of a reasonable search where you would type "improper" alone and expect to be shown any of these options? Most of them aren't even bold text on the page they link to. For example, "improper noun" links to Proper noun, but that article uses "common noun" as the other category. "improper motion" links to a bit of historical trivia on Proper motion. Then there's Improper rotation, which is indeed an article title, but "improper" isn't the key part here - all the other names for this are words like "rotation-reflection". "Improper part" is found nowhere on Mereology; it looks like the useful term is "improper subset", and I hope we can agree that no one using set theory is likely to remember the word "improper" but forget the word "set". It looks like this is a disambiguation page set up to house a bunch of links that would not likely survive an RfD. -- asilvering (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This parallels the case of "Proper" noted above: it seems implausible to us that readers would be using such a search term, but it turns out that they do in fact use it when seeking several involved maths topics. – Uanfala (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:PTM... there's no reason to expect to use this to search for these terms. UtherSRG (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a reasonable search term by itself.Onel5969 TT me 19:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - asilvering has expressed the argument better than I could. Springnuts (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Impropriety is everywhere and does not require a long list of partial match "disambiguations". Mangoe (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create Impropriety as a dab like User:Drapetomanic/Impropriety and redirect there Drapetomanic (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But that really is WP:DICTDEF. -- asilvering (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If it only meant one of the linked things you'd redirect there, right? But it means more than one, so a dab is appropriate Drapetomanic (talk) 06:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we don't make an exception to WP:DICTDEF for words that have multiple meanings. Given the variability of the English language, that would mean we'd be duplicating a significant proportion of wiktionary. -- asilvering (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide evidence of "we don't make an exception for words that have multiple meanings" Drapetomanic (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How could I possibly do that? There is no stated exception, so there is no evidence of not having the stated exception. There would only be evidence if we did have an exception. -- asilvering (talk) 19:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    DICDEF applies to articles, not redirects. A dab is what happens when there are multiple possible targets of a redirect. Drapetomanic (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What multiple targets? Maybe Etiquette (which is the target of Propriety), but that's about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think vulgarity/obscenity, unethical or immoral conduct, and the property of a complex random variable being correlated with its conjugate. Drapetomanic (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also misconduct Drapetomanic (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ASilvering and Onel5969 put it well, it's not a useful redirect because it's just a common adjective that no reasonable person would use alone in a search. Elemimele (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PTM. The same problem exists with impropriety: there are no bands, songs, places, etc. with that name alone. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belmont, Arizona[edit]

Belmont, Arizona (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)

Serious WP:CRYSTAL issues here, as the most Gates has done is acquire land without turning over a single shovelful of dirt. Could be recreated in the event of actual construction, but right now it's a press-release palace and not a reality. It's extremely common for failed projects of this type to buy up property and then sell it all off, so I don't count the current coverage as notable even if some of it isn't local (and that latter, from Seattle, is local for him, and is just routine "don't build anything" response mongering anyway). Mangoe (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joséphine Drabo Kanyoulou[edit]

Joséphine Drabo Kanyoulou (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. News coverage on the subject is almost non-existent. ABHammad (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator ABHammad (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: She was one of a delegation of women MPs who attended COP21 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.243.255.179 (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per those arguing above. Clearly, the OP did not do their due diligence on this topic before proposing this AfD, which is sad to see. She is mentioned in reliable sources here, here, here, and here to name a few.Historyday01 (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per G11 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashik Wasi[edit]

Ashik Wasi (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)

Obvious paid/promo, no GNG sources. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 01:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ananda–Nalanda[edit]

Ananda–Nalanda (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 citations. Unclear if it meets the GNG or is just a SYNTH collection of facts. (If it does, the article title should be changed.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a single source within the article, doesn't meet WP:GNG, and unless significant sources can be found with decent coverage of the subject it should be deleted. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 01:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiz Patel[edit]

Kaiz Patel (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)

Source review:

  1. [17] Interview
  2. [18] Blog, not reliable
  3. [19] Two sentence mention
  4. [20] Interview
  5. [21] (mostly) interview

Also seems like WP:DUCK paid... Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 00:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_March_2&oldid=1143797933"