Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 20 March 22 >

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 no consensus between keeping and merging. However, that's an editorial discussion and does not require continuation of this AfD as there is no broad desire for deletion as even the nom withdrew. Star Mississippi 02:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Lao[edit]

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

Most of the available sources at google shows him appearing at Mortal Kombat X back as old and a little bit commentary, but that's it. This possibly fails third party sources. The sources again on reception sec are crufts. GlatorNator (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with List of Mortal Kombat characters. Reception is mostly listicles; article does not demonstrate it passes WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I really can't get behind this one. First Reptile (which rightfully resulted in keep), now this. I mean, I can see where you're coming from with the likes of Baraka, but I always thought this one would be safe. Well, for Kung Lao, we have, in addition to the sources the nom mentioned, this, this, and best of all, this. There's probably more out there. I'll continue to look. Either way, I think it's safe to say that Kung Lao, IMO, passes the tests in what we're looking for in notability. MoonJet (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad you found one from Den of Geek, but I doubt there are more, thus failing independent sources. CBR and comic books are the weakest sources out there and shall not be used for notability, unlike The Den of Geek. GlatorNator (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't doubt it. Kung Lao is a very popular character. He even co-starred in a game with Liu Kang. ComicBook.com has been discussed here, with consensus leaning towards reliability, and nothing saying it can't be used to establish notability. As for CBR, this discussion indicates it can be used on at least a situational basis. MoonJet (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    CBR is a widely known content farm and the ComicBook.com source is not significant coverage. Throwing random sources at the wall is only going to weaken your case by making it more obvious the character has nothing of note. Den of Geek is solid, but take care not to mix it in with other poor sources. And if Den of Geek's article is all there is, it shouldn't have an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever the case, how about a couple magazine scans? MoonJet (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The EGM interview is a promotional puff piece. The second, absolutely not in terms of notability. They’re also far outdated. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 17:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Define "promotional puff piece." It goes into the making of the character and the actor who played him, which is helpful for any character article. Them being "outdate" sounds like a WP:NOTTEMPORARY argument. MoonJet (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first scan is more about the actor than the character. The 2nd seems usable for general info, but offers no reception. WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. So I am definitely no more convinced than I was when I first voted merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Moonjet.KatoKungLee (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The character is notable enough for me to remember jokes about him from my non-English childhood decades ago. Suitskvarts (talk) 11:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How in the world is that a valid keep !vote? Sergecross73 msg me 22:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 2 users above voted without valid argument. WP:NOTAVOTE to the closure. GlatorNator (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Suitskvarts, sure. But KatoKungLee was voicing his agreement with my arguments. WP: NOTAVOTE should only apply to Suitskvarts, unless they can come up with a better argument. MoonJet (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is WP:JUSTAVOTE though, it's not an argument. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of Mortal Kombat characters. Fails N, none of the sources above or in article meet IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV, fancruft. Just because something exists and is mentioned on the internet doesn't make it N. The keep comments above are to obvious promo or don't bother mention sources or guidelines, so they don't merit consideration.  // Timothy :: talk  12:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]
  • Leaning weak Keep on this one. The sourcing is generally pretty weak, but those magazine sources are more compelling than most of the rest. Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm with Sergecross for the time being. There are indeed some decent sources (I did remove one lousy one in Cheat Code Central from reception), but the article itself is in dire need of copyediting. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 16:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why didn't you list any of the sources you found?  // Timothy :: talk  02:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to the ones already in the article. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw but leave a clean up tag. I found an IGN about Kung Lao just now and I think it barely passes notability now, withdrawing. GlatorNator (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I object to withdrawing the AfD - I still have not found anything that marks notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you mind posting the IGN source for Kung Lao you are referring to? I haven't found any when looking for sources.
    Anyway, I'll be incorporating the sources provided here to the article soon. MoonJet (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, I agree with a stay of execution while viable sources are sought. Kung Lao may not be Liu Kang or Sub-Zero but he's not Drahmin either. Plus it's not as if this can't be nominated again if the effort is ultimately unsuccessful. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wish to argue for draftification, feel free. But without any real evidence sources exist, it would be a large waste of time for everyone involved to go through another AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:43, 27 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. Aoidh (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Wimberley[edit]

John Wimberley (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)

dubious notability. Can find virtually no coverage by reliable sources, seems to exist only to promote the subject FASTILY 23:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This is clearly a promotional, CV-like article that requires serious pruning (which I will do after posting this comment). Regarding his notability, a quick BEFORE yielded three notable museum collections that is enough to pass WP:NARTIST (normally two notable museum collection are considered enough). These are: Portland Art Museum [1]; Museum of Fine Arts, Houston [2]; Yale University Art Gallery [3]. I've seen other museum collections online, but haven't yet checked if the institutions are notable enough to mention. Netherzone (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've trimmed back most of the unsourced content, promotional content, and content that was solely sourced to his own website. I found a few reviews of his work online (but have not added them to the article at this time). I created a section for three notable museum collections plus citations. He meets WP:NARTIST and may also meet he also meets WP:GNG based on the reviews that exist online and the five that I just added to the article, four of which are WP:SIGCOV, the other a decent mention. Netherzone (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find anything that satisfies any of the four criteria under WP:NARTIST, (There are 13,000 artists listed at the MFA for example, so being there is not notable) and main cite is WP:PRIMARY. MetricMaster (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]
    @MetricMaster, I believe you are misunderstanding the WP:NARTIST SNG. He clearly meets criteria #4d of NARTIST: The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.. All three museums are notable per WP standards. The number of artists or artworks in a museum collection has no bearing whatsoever; if it did (by your logic) we would have to discount works held in the Met, the British Museum, Louvre, etc. That the citations for the collections are primary also has no bearing as they are used for verification purposes - searchable museum collections have been used for verification as long as I've been editing. Museum collections are not only curated, the objects in collections are heavily vetted by the institutional acquisitions board. He may also meets WP:GNG, based on the reviews I added to the article, however articles on artists do not have to meet both GNG & SNG. Netherzone (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and please withdraw, per Netherzone's good work on the page, well sourced, and well represented in museums and publications. As it is now the page seems to have been saved, and removing it from AfD saves closer's time. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless the delete !vote is struck out the AfD nominator doesn't have the option to withdraw. WP:WDAFD Rupples (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand it looks like the nominator can still put a note agreeing to withdraw but can't close the AfD. Rupples (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see this as a shoo-in but there seems sufficient here to fulfill WP:NARTIST and likely Wimberley satisfies WP:GNG. Here's an art review in The Sacramento Bee.[4] Rupples (talk) 19:13, 24 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 23:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers named Henry[edit]

List of rulers named Henry (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:INDISCRIMINATE. See recently deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rulers named Robert. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:21, 21 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. Aoidh (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Kidd (ambassador)[edit]

George Kidd (ambassador) (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Israel, Scotland, Canada, and Cuba. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep: A search through newspapers.com revealed several sources providing significant coverage, particularly regarding his post as ambassador to Cuba. [5], [6] (same as 1 but with some added paragraphs), [7] (obit), as well as non-sigcov providing but supplementary sources like [8] (multiple mentions in this book) and [9], as well as other supplementary sources on GBooks I haven't linked. I think this is enough to push this over the threshold of significance compared to the usual quality of ambassador-cruft that is brought to AfD. Curbon7 (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This journal article also expands upon his fairly significant role in the CMC. Curbon7 (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First Canadian ambassador to Israel, a major posting. In any case, coverage meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "a major posting" is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is in the real and WP:COMMONSENSE world! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:GNG even though there are no news articles on Google. There are some references from independent sources on JSTOR. Globesam (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which are the sources are from JSTOR? LibStar (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of the ones I saw are relatively small mentions, but I think they do display his significance, particularly [10] and [11], in addition to the one I linked above. Curbon7 (talk) 00:12, 27 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) 03:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Textile Recycling for Aid and International Development[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. No significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 21 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 23:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Ong Jing Jie[edit]

Glenn Ong Jing Jie (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)

Neither of the two sources that are currently in the article demonstrate WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG since one is a database page and the other is written by his employer, Lion City Sailors FC, so is not independent of Ong. Searches, including a Singaporean one, yielded nothing better than Straits Times, which is a few match report mentions, and Vavel, a squad list mention. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:12, 21 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Hardin[edit]

Joel Hardin (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)

Bio which appears to fail WP:GNG. Article has existed since 2007, was PRODded a few months after creation but this was immediately contested by the author. There has been little improvement since then. Provided external links are to the subject's own business, an interview with the subject and an article which looks like it might be a decent source but which is paywalled. My searching turned up nothing better. (Note: Article was originally tagged for deletion by Saintstephen000 without followup.) --Finngall talk 22:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Idaho. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reeks of promotion, but this one might be notable. He's mentioned in this NYT obituary for another person as a "leading tracker" [12] and I think this article is about him, but it's paywalled [13] Oaktree b (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    and it veers into the fantastical, tracking Bigfoot [14] (see the very bottom of the page (rest is cut off in my preview)) and [15]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: I archived that link for you so we can see it. To see a paywalled link put the url in archive.ph and it will usually archive a full copy like this link. It works for the NYT also Lightburst (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the ABA article is about Hardin. It's SIGCOV. Oaktree b (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unreferenced BLP, no IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Literally nothing in this article is sourced and the sources above have very little and no info about the subject. The second source above is to a law journal, I don't think (could be wrong) its about them; either way a single source behind a paywall without V info would not pass N. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse.  // Timothy :: talk  23:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think WP:NEXIST must direct us to reject this type of justification to delete. CT55555(talk) 21:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And even if it didn't, the article has been improved since then, so this analysis is now obsolete. CT55555(talk) 21:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Indeed the article was badly sourced, but that's not a reason to delete (it's a reason to improve). I've not spent enough time to say if it amounts to significant coverage, but plenty about him in Google books where he seems frequently identified as an expert in his field and someone that authors of outdoor books appear to have written about several times. This does suggest notability, even if I've not really dug into this deeply. Leaning keep. CT55555(talk) 21:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comment. He was described on 20/20 (American TV program) an an expert tracker here: MUIR, D.; ROBACH, A. 30 Years Searching. 20/20 (ABC), [s. l.], p. 1, 2020. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bwh&AN=143601667&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 28 mar. 2023.
    Link to episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2PvC7wiD_8&ab_channel=reelDotun CT55555(talk) 21:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Keep. Significant coverage exists and can found easily by searching in the Wikipedia Library.
    HANSEN, M. He Tries Men’s Soles. ABA Journal, [s. l.], v. 96, n. 5, p. 3, 2010. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=52585242&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 28 mar. 2023.
    Meets at least WP:BASIC and maybe WP:GNG. CT55555(talk) 21:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He meets our notability guidelines. He is commonly referred to as an expert in his field. 1, and referred to as world renown, 2 and 3 and debunking a Bigfoot hoax 4. Police hire him as a tracking expert 5.There is more but we have enough to show that he is an expert in his field anybio#2. Bruxton (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • One clear Keep this, considering the amount of sources supporting the subject's notability as a person. The sources might not be international publications but are reliable and adequate in number. -The Gnome (talk) 08:06, 29 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 23:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FamousNiki[edit]

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

A complete fail of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, just one of many people/cats on the Internet doing things. SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Internet. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse.  // Timothy :: talk  23:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I believe I can responsibly say that the Yandex.Zen mentioned in the article is a clickbait dump whose verification really doesn't mean much. Furthermore, it's worth noting that the page was originally created by a single-purpose account (WP:SPA). Therefore, a COI in its creation cannot be ruled out, too. Suitskvarts (talk) 12:07, 25 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 23:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Jan Faizi[edit]

Ali Jan Faizi (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)

Due to a complete lack of coverage outside of databases, this clearly fails WP:SPORTBASIC#5 and WP:GNG, despite playing 46 minutes of a single international game 20 years ago then disappearing without further coverage, it would seem. Even searching in Persian (علی جان فیض) yields nothing decent. I oppose redirecting as he is not mentioned in any other article nor is there any article where he should be mentioned. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:44, 21 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 00:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Annet van Egmond[edit]

Annet van Egmond (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 be undeclared WP:COI editing with no evidence of notability, poorly-sourced. Draft:William Brand, by the same contributor, has also been declined twice. Greenman (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Perhaps "Brand Van Egmond" brand is notable:
https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/netherlands-lighting-atelier-brand-van-egmond-opens-first-us-showroom perhaps also PR. But worth looking into in case anyone has more enthusiasm than me. CT55555(talk) 00:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
/agree with above. Worth looking if anyone is interested.  // Timothy :: talk  16:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That may be paid placement native advertising - it's not in Architectural Digest Magazine (AD), it's in AD-PRO, which, I am not mistaken, is a subsidiary of AD for "AD PRO members" who want to grow their business. See more here:[16], [17]. Netherzone (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP. Sources are primary, promo, failed V. Does not meet GNG or any BIO, no IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse.  // Timothy :: talk  16:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article as well as the Draft:William Brand on her partner seem like promotional pieces created by a conflict of interest editor, as all of their edits promote these two partners and their business. Having said that, the sourcing in weak, and may be paid-placement/PR. Fails WP:GNG. Perhaps in a few more years the firm itself will be notable, as it is WP:TOOSOON for Van Egmond, Brand, and "Brand VanEgmond". Netherzone (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:PROMO WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:55, 25 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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SnoBar Cocktails[edit]

SnoBar Cocktails (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 deprodded this in 2012, but in hindsight I don't think the notability guideline for organisations, products and services is met. Of the three sources cited, only the CNBC article seems likely to satisfy WP:ORGIND, and I haven't been able to find any better sources. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Angel, Ilana (2015-06-12). "SnöBar: The Perfect Cocktail". The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. Archived from the original on 2023-03-13. Retrieved 2023-03-13.

      The article notes: "SnöBar Frozen Cocktails are alcoholic popsicles and ice cream. Don't kid yourself on the punch these babies pack because they are potent and a popsicle has the same amount of alcohol a real cocktail. They are powerful, but more important, really delicious. The Cosmo is perfection, Mojito is excellent, and Margarita is worthy of every single drop. How lucky am I that the three popsicle flavors they make are my favorite drinks? Almost as lucky as SnöBar because I've been to my Gelson's three times to buy more they are so good. Based in Los Angeles, SnöBar is the creation of Eddie and Shannon Masjedi. Not only are there popsicles, but also ice cream! The ice cream flavors are Grasshopper, Pink Squirrel, Brandy Alexander Chocolate Chip, and Brandy Alexander."

    2. Rogell, Eric (2013-02-19). "SnoBar Alcoholic Ice Cream Has a Full Cocktail in Every Serving". KEAN-FM. Archived from the original on 2023-03-13. Retrieved 2023-03-13.

      The article notes: "We were skeptical about how alcoholic ice cream would taste, imagining it to be something slightly less enjoyable than fermented yogurt, so we tried SnoBar for you. Every flavor. Purely in the interest of thorough journalistic investigation. The results were surprising; SnoBar is actually a great flavored ice cream, with a just barely-noticeable alcohol burn."

    3. McBane, Rebecca (2012-11-26). "Alcohol-Infused Ice Cream: It's Here!". New Times Broward-Palm Beach. Archived from the original on 2023-03-13. Retrieved 2023-03-13.

      The article notes: "SnoBar is gracing Florida with its entire line of alcoholic ice cream indulgences. This isn't a frozen daiquiri or a slushy treat with malt liquor in it. These are high-quality frozen pops and rich ice creams with actual distilled spirits as part of the ingredients. ... There's the Grasshopper (brandy with crème de menthe and crème de cacao), the Brandy Alexander (brandy and crème de cocoa with cream), the Brandy Alexander with Chocolate Chip, and the Pink Squirrel (brandy, amaretto and crème de cocoa with cream)."

    4. Rotunno, Tom (2012-06-27). "Best of Both Worlds? SnoBar Infuses Alcohol Into Ice Cream". CNBC. Archived from the original on 2023-03-13. Retrieved 2023-03-13.

      The article notes: "SnoBar, a line of ice pops and ice creams, don’t just replicate the flavor of alcoholic cocktails, they actually contain a full serving of alcohol. ... It took nearly 100 attempts, but the duo perfected the ice pop and ice cream mixes and the product debuted in Arizona restaurants, bars and liquor stores in December before hitting the Las Vegas market this spring. In addition to liquor stores and bars, SnoBar is making its products available at Las Vegas clubs and resorts such as Tao, Wet Republic, Bellagio, MGM Grand and Caesar’s Palace."

    5. Dean, Sam (2012-03-26). "Liquor-Filled Ice Cream and Pops, Coming Soon to a Bachelorette Party Near You". Bon Appétit. Archived from the original on 2023-03-13. Retrieved 2023-03-13.

      The article notes: "Alcoholic ice cream is nothing new, but the boldness (and umlauted-ness) of SnoBar Cocktails is surely unprecedented. ... After debuting in "the bar scene in Arizona," the ice cream will soon make its way to Las Vegas. If the intended Girls' Night Out audience wasn't clear enough from that provenance alone, know this: the pops come in Cosmo and Margarita flavors, while the ice creams come in Grasshopper, Pink Squirrel (a grasshopper with almond liqueur instead of creme de menthe), Brandy Alexander, and Brandy Alexander Chocolate Chip."

    6. Shatkin, Elina (2011-12-09). "SnoBar: Boozy Popsicles = Cocktail of the Future?". LA Weekly. Archived from the original on 2023-03-13. Retrieved 2023-03-13.

      The article notes: "Is the cocktail of the 21st Century destined to be frozen? SnoBar (and every sorority ever and possibly Grant Achatz) hope so. The company (no relation to the SnoBar froyo shop in West Hollywood) rolls out its line of boozy, cocktail-themed popsicles today at 5 p.m. — but only in Arizona."

    7. "Alcohol-laden popsicles hit AZ store freezers". KTVK. 2011-12-05. Archived from the original on 2017-12-02. Retrieved 2023-03-13.

      The article notes: "Have you seen the billboard in Phoenix advertising SnoBar? It's a new, popsicle made with alcohol, and CBS 5 News wanted to investigate."

    8. Gabriele, Amanda (2018-07-02). "The Best Boozy Popsicles to Buy". Thrillist. Archived from the original on 2023-03-13. Retrieved 2023-03-13.

      The article notes: "SnoBar Ice Pops ($100 for 24): These cocktail-inspired pops come in three different varieties that pay homage to classic drinks: Margarita, Mojito and Cosmopolitan. You can buy SnoBar products online, but they also serve their frosty treats at events across the country, so be on the lookout for their logo at a summer bash near you."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow SnoBar Cocktails to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"

    Cunard (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGIND requires us to discount sources in which content produced by the subject is copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties, and to instead prioritise sources displaying original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking. None of these sources seems to clear that bar; they all read to me like paraphrases of press releases. Some are also probably too brief to be considered significant coverage (#5, #6 and #8 have less than 200 words on the subject) and at least one's very unlikely to be a reliable source (#2 again, which takes its content from GuySpeed, which advertises its areas of journalistic focus as including "girls," "sex," "hot gifs" and "cleavage"). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of have to agree these seem to have been generated from press releases, and even then unless there's much more coverage than you're quoting, none seem to rise to significant coverage w/re NCORP. Which 3 do you think we should be looking at to assess notability? Valereee (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator said in the nomination statement "Of the three sources cited, only the CNBC article seems likely to satisfy WP:ORGIND". Angel 2015 is an independent review of SnoBar Cocktails. From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews: "Significant reviews are where the author has personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth, provides broader context, and draws comparisons with other products." The reviewer "personally experienced the product" as she writes, "SnöBar Frozen Cocktails are alcoholic popsicles and ice cream. Don't kid yourself on the punch these babies pack because they are potent and a popsicle has the same amount of alcohol a real cocktail. They are powerful, but more important, really delicious. The Cosmo is perfection, Mojito is excellent, and Margarita is worthy of every single drop." The article provides further background information about SnoBar Cocktails, "Based in Los Angeles, SnöBar is the creation of Eddie and Shannon Masjedi. Not only are there popsicles, but also ice cream! The ice cream flavors are Grasshopper, Pink Squirrel, Brandy Alexander Chocolate Chip, and Brandy Alexander." Cunard (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources above all sound like regurgitated press releases. Promo. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The subject meets WP:GNG per the sources identified by User:Cunard, although given the nature of the brand the reviews and sources are particularly weak. Just over the line for me; I would prefer as an editorial matter to redirec to a list of similar products. Suriname0 (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep While I hear (and share) concerns that reliance on press releases may have tainted the sources, User:Cunard’s thorough source analysis sufficiently demonstrates to me that Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews is satisfied by these sources, which while somewhat repetitive, several do appear to be independent reviews by the authors. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think the sources in the article and those put up here by Cunard are sufficient to satisfy the notability requirements. None are indepth, detailed and comprehensive reviews as required by WP:PRODUCTREV. To qualify, I'd expect to see comment on texture, aroma (if any), flavour, visual, bitterness, sweetness, product storage, calories and packaging etc.
Take no. 1. Ilana Angel. First 3 paragraphs all we learn is how much she loves cocktails and how she's affected by drinking them. Next 3 paragraphs. Names the owners, provides a product list and a commentary that doesn't amount to a proper review. The author has used mostly bland descriptive words throughout - "deliciousness", "really delicious", "perfection", "excellent", "worthy of every single drop", "so good", "perfect", "fun", "delicious" (again), "favorite discovery", "delicious (yet again), "fun" (again), "really great". The only area of the product she has really commented on is the alcohol effect, as "powerful" and "potent". It's not a review, but a promotional piece to attract readers to buy the product - as the author has admitted.
Only the Tom Rotunno, CNBC news piece passes muster as a satisfactory source, all the others are trivial and/or promotional. Insufficient significant coverage, so fails, WP:NCORP, WP:PRODUCTREV. Rupples (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The review from Angel 2015 meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews. The author "personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth". The review notes: "In trying this product however, I cannot image anyone would not love it. ... SnöBar Frozen Cocktails are alcoholic popsicles and ice cream. Don't kid yourself on the punch these babies pack because they are potent and a popsicle has the same amount of alcohol a real cocktail. They are powerful, but more important, really delicious. The Cosmo is perfection, Mojito is excellent, and Margarita is worthy of every single drop. ... The ice cream is a delicous desert and the popcicles are a fun way to enjoy a drink." The author's statements clearly demonstrate she has "personally experienced the product" and convey her thoughts about the different products that make up the brand. Editors critique her writing as "commentary that doesn't amount to a proper review". The author's writing style is not on par with high quality food reviews from publications like The New York Times. But her commentary and background about the company are sufficiently detailed to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews. She has no affiliation with the company. Her review is very positive. She writes, "I hope this company grows and does well because they have created something really great." This positive review does not detract from her being independent of the company. Cunard (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews ALSO states that the review should provide broader context, and draw comparisons with other products. "Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product or function without broader context (e.g. review of a particular meal without description of the restaurant as a whole) do not count as significant sources.". Substitute the restaurant example with frozen cocktails and ice cream with alcohol. No comparisons made. No broader context. Therefore, does not count as a significant source. Rupples (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the guideline to mean comparisons and comment on other companies competing products, is this not correct? Rupples (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The review does not compare SnöBar to other products, but that is just one example of how the review would be considered significant coverage. The review is significant coverage because it provides broader context by discussing how SnöBar is based in Los Angeles, was created by Eddie and Shannon Masjedi, notes that the product includes both popsicles and ice cream, notes the ice cream flavors, discusses that "each serving of all the products have a full cocktail", and notes that SnöBar is available in California, Arizona, Florida, the Carolinas, and Las Vegas. Cunard (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Impasse. There's a difference of opinion between us as to what constitutes significant, indepth coverage per the guideline. That's fine, guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Rupples (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't agree that the reviews linked above are enough significant coverage of the company to reach WP:NCORP. Ongoing coverage is thin. We don't lose anything by deleting this stub. -- asilvering (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stubs are explicitly welcome and marked as serving Wikipedia's encyclopaedic purpose. Deleting text when it merits a place in Wikipedia is equivalent to losing information. -The Gnome (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep quite clearly per sources cited above by Cunard, which are more than enough for the subject to possess strong, independent notability. The onus of demonstrating that the sources cited are not reliable, numerous, or adequate falls on those dismissing them. We only need to add the umlauts in the title. -The Gnome (talk) 08:20, 29 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 redirect to Albanian mafia#United Kingdom. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 08:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hellbanianz[edit]

Hellbanianz (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 in its current state is a mess. A quick Google search reveals that the topic is notable, however it needs major improvements. I tried to draftify it 3 times but due to an unknown error I wasn't able to. I propose to either WP:TNT this article or draftify it. This should be a speedy WP:SNOW close since I believe there isn't much in it anyways. Or if editors desire, they can improve it in real time (I'm aware that AfD is not cleanup, just hoping for the WP:HEY effect). ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 13:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Albanian_mafia#United_Kingdom. The current state of the article seems to be mid-edit-war. There was some reasonable-looking content there a couple of weeks ago, but better to merge it into that main article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to crime in London, or as suggested above. As it stands now, it's a few words on a page, nothing notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There appears to be an older version of this article here which appears well sourced and has not been discussed yet. I don't have the time to look into this myself now, but since this AfD is due to close today I'd request a relist so that this version of the article and the sources it contains can be discussed. WJ94 (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per WJ94's request
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The revision that WJ94 found looks good (it's certainly an improvement over the current version), and the article can be improved from there. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with nom, there is a notable subject here, but nothing in this article is worth saving in any way, the history is worthless, TNT would make way for someone to actually create an article instead of a half finished stub. No objection to the redirect above after delete (there is nothing here to keep).  // Timothy :: talk  00:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore to the version I linked above - The old version of the article, while certainly in need of improvement, contains enough reliable sources to pass GNG. There is this Guardian article which has four paragraphs on the group, and this Observer piece which is predominantly about them. There is also this paywalled piece in The Times which I can't access but looks like it gives significant coverage too. These two sources also discuss the group but I am unsure about their reliability. I've also found this in The Telegraph - again paywalled but potentially useful for someone with access. TNT seems premature - although the present state of the article might seem to warrant that, there's enough in the history for someone if they wanted to improve it. WJ94 (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A subject lacking independent significance, let alone Wiki-notability. The articles invoked are not even about the subject specifically, e.g. : The Guardian piece is about all criminal gangs (title: "21st-century British criminal underworld"); the Evening Standard piece is about a specific Albanian serving time in prison, who is "thought to be member" of the group. Afloat is the aroma of bravado and promotion. And the fact that the text has been created and curated mostly by a couple of quite suspicious accounts, one a semi-kamikaze and the other currently globally blocked does not help. Wikipedia used to be, unfortunately, a lot more tolerant, or perhaps more casual, about such low-quality uploads but, thankfully, not any more. -The Gnome (talk) 08:31, 29 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian Airlines International destinations[edit]

List of Canadian Airlines International destinations (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 one seems like a page that is unverified and unverifiable. There are no refs on the page (since 2007) and it is hard to imagine a ref that would show a list of airports a defunct airline flew to "during the 1980s and 1990s until its demise" as claimed in the lede. Which to me makes no sense anyway.

I can believe that there may be sources of destinations at certain points in time. I think there is going to be a level of WP:OR required to produce a list of destinations spanning 30 years, but even if it is acceptable there needs to be more than assertions to reference it. JMWt (talk) 07:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If I understand this nomination correctly, the nominator is stating that the reason for deletion is that there are not, and can not ever be, any reliable sources for any of the locations listed on this page. This page shows Canadian Airlines International timetables from 1987 to 2000 that reliably list destinations for the airline. I'm sure there are more timetables out there, it's something people like to collect and share. The other portion of the deletion nomination are copyediting suggestions. So I'm not seeing any valid reasons to delete the article. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are no references on the page and have not been since 2007. Producing a list of destinations collating information from timetables would synthesis of information. Knowing that paper timetables exist also does not help with the lack of verifiable information on the page if nobody uses them to reference it. JMWt (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that an airline timetable is not a reliable source as to whether an airline flies to a particular destination? RecycledPixels (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that a paper timetable is only of use here if it is actually used to write the information on the page. Also as the timetables only show the routes at a given point of time, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR would be necessary to write a properly referenced page in its current form. JMWt (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey JMWt, I see some abondoned routes so not only one point in time. gidonb (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The airline is no longer flying, so they are all abandoned routes. If there was, for example, a timetable showing routes in 1985, that does obviously not show routes in 1999. So there would need to be sourcing from a number of dates to produce this WP page. And, as far as we can tell, there is no indication that any timetables have been used anyway because there are no references on the page and thus the information is entirely unverified. JMWt (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get that? This article is a list of destinations that the airline flew during its history. It's not a history of destinations in 1985, 1988, or 1999, and there is no assertion that the airline flew continuously to any of the destinations on this list. The only such assertions are those like Hong Kong, which seems reasonable to say that the airline stopped flying to Kai Tak Airport after it was closed and operations were moved to Chek Lap Kok International Airport so the reader isn't confused and think that the airline was flying to both destinations at the same time. I'm still not seeing a reason to delete this. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a bunch of unverified assertions that are not referenced. It literally states things as fact that have no inline references whatsoever. JMWt (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reason to improve the article, not delete it. Your original nomination statement said that the information contained in the article was unverified and unverifiable. I've suggested just one potential easily-obtained source of information in an attempt to demonstrate that the information is, in fact, verifiable. Its current state of poor sourcing, copyediting are reasons to improve the article, or, if needed, tag it for improvement, per suggestions at the Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup essay. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to stop now because it seems like we are talking past each other. If you have an easily-obtained source of information which encompasses all of the content of the page, I invite you to add it as a reference. JMWt (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Canadian Airlines International until a point reliable sources can be found. Ajf773 (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The table does need some work in terms of referencing, and it is also overlinked. gidonb (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Any IS RS that show this meets LISTN?  // Timothy :: talk  16:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – completely unsourced and unneeded, per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTAGUIDE —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced list for a defunct airline. I don't find any sources and timetables (if they exist) would be primary sources. Odd piece of Canadian trivia perhaps, but nothing we can use here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with a primary source here. Per WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." That's all the timetable is being used for. Nobody's trying to make any interpretations of the data, such as location X must have been the airline's most profitable route because it had the most daily flights, or something like that. Defunct airline means nothing. Pan Am is a defunct airline, yet we still have List of Pan Am destinations. "Unsourced" is a temporary condition. Reliable sources exist, as I pointed out above. RecycledPixels (talk) 07:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Canadian Airlines International: redirects are WP:CHEAP and this would preserve the page history better than deletion. Once reliable sources are found, the article can be recreated. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Listcruft, unsourced and trivial (defunct airline schedules are not an encyclopedic topic), WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTAGUIDE. Any sources that could would be primary and not establish notability. Fails LISTN, no evidence this has been discussed as a group by IS RS. At best this is an unsourced and completely unneeded FORK. // Timothy :: talk  16:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this piece of utterly useless information about a defunct airline's destinations. We need forks like this in Wikipedia as much as we need grenades in our kitchen. This notion that Wikipedia can be some kind of a collection of randomly selected information has been defenestrated. -The Gnome (talk) 08:37, 29 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. Star Mississippi 21:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do Ajnabee[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NFILM. References are promotional, mostly about the release of a poster. Nothing meets SIGCOV direct and indepth from independent RS. Possibly TOOSOON, no objection to Draft  // Timothy :: talk  13:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Film already completed as per reference and detailed secondary sources found and release date also announced Christopheronthemove (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 20:22, 21 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anantha Babbili[edit]

Anantha Babbili (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:SIGCOV, WP:NPROF. Potentially notable though. Coverage is Slim Pickens. Been on the cat:nn list for five years. Refs never been updated. Full prof at major university. scope_creepTalk 22:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Draftify. I think removal is probably too radical in this case. The article deserves its chance. Suitskvarts (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a draftify case. If there is references, put them so we can look at them per WP:THREE. Its had a notability tag for five years. Now's the time to determine if its notable. scope_creepTalk 15:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability requirements are also placed on drafts. In fact, they are even stricter. I'm not against removal, but I just thought that if sources that meet the notability criteria are found, the text of the article won't be lost in this case. Suitskvarts (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I have the page reviewer permission. But this where we decided whether its notable or not per WP:V. Its a 14 years old article. scope_creepTalk 18:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is the decision with the draft bad? Extra junk that will just take up the reviewers time, you think? Evilfreethinker (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he fails WP:NPROF very clearly which is where his main contribution will be but there isnt much notability there. A little bit of coverage saying he got appointed to a board is not what SIGCOV looks like. --hroest 20:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The closest he comes to WP:NPROF is the Provost job - I don't see anything else that could even remotely apply. And no WP:GNG either. -- asilvering (talk) 02:38, 29 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 no consensus. and no indication any further input is forthcoming. While this could be a soft delete, CT55555 doesn't serve up poor sourcing, so while they aren't saying keep, that seems to be what they're implying. No objection to a re-nom for better participation at another time Star Mississippi 02:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bairwa[edit]

Bairwa (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)

Effectively unsourced. The only source is a JPG, which does not support the claims in the article. cagliost (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see they are mentioned in Jatav. If they are indeed a scheduled cast there must be plenty of sources about them, including policy documents, official stats and reports etc aside from news items. Without searching in some key Indian languages it’s hard to know, but I think deleting without that kind of thorough search would be a mistake. At worst draftify. Mccapra (talk) 13:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 13:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:49, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. We should be assessing this based on sourcing that can be found, not the article. I added one already and see more here: Pathak, B. (1993). Rural Violence in Bihar. India: Concept Publishing Company. p192 CT55555(talk) 05:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not a big expert here, but even the new added source is about a "leader of the Bairwa community" (and the eponymic one), not about the ethnic group in discussion. It still could be a real thing, but out of proportion or something. Btw, I don't see much sense in draftifying, coz the article is quite short and already has issue templates. Redirect to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes doesn't sound good, too, because that arcticle doesn't mention it. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:06, 25 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 Linguist List. A redirect seems an acceptable ATD. Any content worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Aristar[edit]

Anthony Aristar (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:NPROF. References are of the most tenuous. Potentially notable. scope_creepTalk 19:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Language. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It would seem that this fellow would squeak by in terms of NACADEMIC but I'm not finding it. He and his wife did get the Victoria A. Fromkin Distinguished Service Prize from the Linguistic Society in 2003 for founding Linguist list. There's just a couple of sentences, however. I don't think that's enough and his publications are not heavily cited. Finding some independent write-ups about the list and with information about him could provide GNG. Lamona (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice that as a lifetime achievement award, fundamentally for turning up every and working. scope_creepTalk 09:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just added half a dozen references, some from newspapers and some from scholarly journals, to text already there. The article certainly needs work, but I think there is plenty of room to expand on Professor Aristar's career. LINGUIST List, E-MELD, and Multitree (projects that he co-founded) are all pretty influential within his field. Cnilep (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you are aiming for is #4 of WP:NACADEMIC: "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions." If so, it doesn't come through in the sources. The quotes you added don't put this over the top to notability, IMO. Managing a list is not the same as making a significant discovery in ones' field. It isn't "academic work" per se. I looked up E-MELD in G-Scholar and it's mostly meeting reports with few published papers and very low citations. It does surprise me that there isn't more recognition of this person's work, but unless we find it there's not enough to support an article. Lamona (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was questioning this, over the weekend. I went over the sources, that ones that I could access and it was definitely a mixed bag of what I would consider at the lower end of quality. I couldn'tt see anything that I could attach to as viable secondary source. It rotated around the question of "Is he notable for creating a bibliographic database". I don't see it, to be honest. Many of these types of database are created all the time. I don't it is possible to clarify it as something that is standalone notable and it all stems from that. scope_creepTalk 15:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 19:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to The LINGUIST LIST seems the best option, I can't find much for this person though. He could earn a brief mention there, the list seems rather popular based on hits in Gscholar. Oaktree b (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I !voted to keep the article, above, but as LINGUIST List is one of Aristar's major contributions a merge would also make sense. See also the objections under my argument above. (I still think he is notable, but the contrary arguments of Lamona and scope_creep are also valid.) Cnilep (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does anybody else have anything to say about this? The question rotates around "is he notable for creating a biblio database" which is too low a bar. scope_creepTalk 15:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the Linguist List with a Redirect. The list is evidently notable; its creator is not, i.e. neither independently nor adequately. -The Gnome (talk) 08:41, 29 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! 05:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assales Fatumaca[edit]

Assales Fatumaca (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 can't find any WP:RS about this school at all and it has been unsourced since 2010. In my searches, all that I could find, other than Wikipedia mirrors, is what appears to be the school's own Facebook page. If this is the best that there is then this school fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG by quite some way. I oppose merging to Baucau Municipality because there is currently no reliably sourced content that we can merge - I oppose merging any WP:OR. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the article is unsourced and I can do no better than the nominator on my search for sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 19:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unscorced and looking on multiple browsers, I could not find anything to establish NSCHOOL or GNG.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 22:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find any sources either, and the text of the article gives no hint of anything notable. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:11, 25 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. Aoidh (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Tag Nation[edit]

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

This is a one-off documentary programme by a local NBC affiliate about a news story. The news story in itself might just about be notable; I don't see that the documentary programme is. There are no third-party sources in the article about the documentary itself. Black Kite (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete BK beat me to the punch here, but I was trying to also nominate this for deletion. I can't find sourcing to show this passes the GNG. The underlying concept probably is notable, but this documentary is not. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The story may be notable (no comment on that), but the documentary does not appear to be based on a lack of third-party coverage. --Kinu t/c 19:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is it okay if I draftify the page? Shim119 (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to Vehicle registration plates of Texas#Temporary tags It is a pretty prominent story of local interest (which spread nationally because of how comically easy it was to get a temporary Texas tag) with award wins, but should be mentioned more generally within the station's article state license plate article detailing what was going on. Nate • (chatter) 00:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. No objection to a redirect if a CONSENSUS forms for one.  // Timothy :: talk  13:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or delete. Also, it seems more logical to me to create a page about the story itself first. And then probaly add the info about the documentary to its section. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:20, 25 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. Aoidh (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United Nearshore Operations[edit]

United Nearshore Operations (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)

Cannot find any sources to establish notability under NCORP. Only links are to nonreliable sources, sources that don't have sigcov, or business journals. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:42, 21 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 have ignored the "hold fire" !votes, for the reason that that is turning things on their head: we wait until a subject is notable to write an article, we don't let an article on a non-notable subject linger around to have a look at it later. Basically, a "hold fire" !vote acknowledges that at this point in time, notability is not met. Once those !votes are removed from the equation, I find that the "delete" !votes have the stronger case. Randykitty (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 global banking crisis[edit]

2023 global banking crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested WP:BLAR. The article is essentially a WP:OR/WP:SYNTH that combines the March 2023 United States bank failures with the single Acquisition of Credit Suisse by UBS in order to create the novel conclusion that the 2023 global banking crisis emerged in March 2023. Examining the sources does not provide coverage of this event as being some top-level banking crisis that is affecting the entire globe, and this article should be blanked-and-redirected to March 2023 United States bank failures#Broader impact as an inappropriate WP:CFORK that endorses the particular point-of-view that there exists such a thing as a "2023 global banking crisis". While such a crisis may emerge, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we cannot make articles on events that have not yet occurred. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The nominator has merely asserted that, not made a compelling case. This article is not a "WP:CFORK that endorses the particular point-of-view", as asserted by nom. It is not a POVFORK as the other article is explicitly about several U.S. bank failures, and had Talk page discussion at the time that the Credit Suisse and the Swiss government angles on the crisis were explicitly out of scope for the U.S. banking failure article. Further, when the article was created (old version 20 March), there were multiple sources that called it a "banking crises" that included both U.S. and European banking systems, one source that called it a "global banking crisis," and another that referred to banking regulators attempting to shore up the "global banking system."
  • Delete : It does seem like a case of "too soon" and synthesis. The sources provided state things like "prevent a crisis" or "US, global crisis" so it's not clear that it's really a crisis at this point, nor is it necessarily global as the sources provided clearly state that Asia is mostly unaffected. BirdValiant (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintain, the article has many references that agree with an event that is taking place, for which the article in question must be maintained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.244.210.196 (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold fire for a month. Given high global inflation, supply chain bottlenecks, Ukrainian-Russo war, et al, it may just be waiting for the next domino to fall for the global financial system to fold akin to 2008, which has a reasonable possibility as advanced economies are still accelerating interest rates despite the strain on banks and businesses. 92.9.45.55 (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no basis to peer into a crystal ball and hold this on the off chance that a domino might fall and actually cause this. Either sources exist that are describing an ongoing global financial crisis, or they do not. In the latter case, this topic is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and it would make no sense to keep the page in mainspace. I've yet to see any arguments for the former. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold fire for a month. Same reasons as above. Johnson.Xia (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought I would add more information to be previous deletion support:
We now have a couple of articles which denote the more fearful scale of the looming financial crisis:
  • Bloomberg is saying that the Federal Reserve has to choose between a hard recession and an inflation crisis.
  • Financial Times is also saying that the Federal Reserve has to deal with a looming credit crunch (which for me seems to hark back to the tone used during the Great Recession)
This is primarily a US banking crisis currently for the following reasons:
  • There have only been notable bank runs and pre bank runs on American banks, except for Credit Suisse which was experiencing trouble stemming from its US headquartered investment banking unit (First Boston) well before the US banking crisis flared up. If you were to plot the incidents on a graph then the Credit Suisse debacle would be viewed as the exception and statistical anomaly, stemming from issues that had been discussed well before the current US banking crisis.
  • The spillover of the banking crisis also seems to be limited to the western world except for notable but not exceptional stock market changes. There have been numerous articles explaining the strength/stability of the banking systems in Asia especially in China, Japan and Singapore... If there were a notable spillover of the banking crisis, it would probably be limited to the western world, and only recession may somewhat overspill into Taiwan/Japan/Korea (as it did with the Great Recession).
  • It also seems to be a shortage of US dollars that are fueling the fear of the credit crunch. The central banks of Asia have been less aggressive with interest rate hikes and hence there is more liquidity available in various other currencies. India and numerous of other countries have also made significant efforts to diversify away from the USD in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine war, so there is also less likelihood of the Sri Lanka style crisis because US dollars are now less used in Asia.
Septemberisnottheseptmonth (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think it is better to have a single article covering the wider banking crisis because
  • The banking crisis seems to be affecting the Western World at its greatest extent, with market shares being messy but not particularly note-worthy. There have been a few articles stating that Asia is doing fine:
  • If you were to plot the banking crises on a graph, the UBS buyout would be the anomaly and outlier, and hence it would not result in the creation of a "global" banking crisis.
  • The initial controversy at Credit Suisse was at its First Boston subsidiary HQd in New York, which may have then spread to the rest of the bank, but it originated in the US. While there is a global link, it is still a substantially US problem. UBS is planning to mostly shutter the First Boston operations.
Septemberisnottheseptmonth (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Septemberisnottheseptmonth:Do you want to keep this article?--Johnson.Xia (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want it to be deleted! Septemberisnottheseptmonth (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree with you on the reference but it served a point. The situation is more nuanced than a yes or no - we only have the CS collapse which was due anyway, but the US article doesn't indicate much about the effect globally and the link with liquidity problems caused by the bond market. French banks got hit for example. I'm minded that there should be two articles and don't wish to see this page deleted for now. Cheers Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, impacts on a global scale can be mentioned in March 2023 United States bank failures#Broader impact. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold fire for a month Credit Suisse is not out of trouble yet. Like people have said above, there may be more dominos to fall.PatrickChiao (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is only the second major global banking crisis after the one in 2008. And the present crisis is indeed affecting many countries of the world. It only remains to be seen which other dominoes are going to fall. There can be no other outcome than to keep this article. Telekvin (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not to mention what is happening with Deutsche Bank right now, this is certainly not a US only situation and to pretend so is absurd. However, I also don't think it is accurate to call it a crysis yet (although much better than outright deleting the article), perhaps the article should be renamed to "2023 global banking crisis fear" or something like that until a non-US bank actually collapse. KristofferR (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the article about the US banking crisis, which should use the title of the current one. The global banking system is very interdependent and it's a crisis that already spread outside the US. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just updated this article with more of today's news and should point out that there would be absolutely no place for it in the US article. It isn't the case that any of this can be described as US only. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thelisteninghand I think you misunderstood my point. I think that there should be a single article titled "2023 global banking crisis", which should include the US cases and the one in the current article. But since the US article is the biggest I think it would be best to merge the content of the global article in the US one and then rename the US one to global. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree that's an option. Cheers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Central banks say that the system is solid and that there is no contagion, but the facts say that every day a new bank emerges that is in difficulty or under stress. A case opened today in Deutsche Bank resulting in a downturn in the European market. There are now many banking cases. Peter39c (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge that's my vote. Just updated on Japan. The crisis can be seen as correction levels of losses in banks I would say. Thelisteninghand (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is Wikipedia, and we don't censor for political reasons. While central bankers and president's may say the system is sound and things have calmed, Wikipedia should simply explain encyclopedically whatever verifiable sources are reporting about it. And use the common names. Here are what sources in the article are saying:
So it is a "banking crises" and it is "global". No AfD is warranted. But if someone wants to change the name, that is an entirely different discussion and does not require article deletion. N2e (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@N2e @Red-tailed hawk - I've boldly added links to the articles I assume are being referenced above. I haven't done an in-depth read through them all but a cursory look doesn't change my opinion. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can suggest alternative names here, but I am mindful not to let Wikipedia become a rumour mill, because one big mistake and our reputation is at risk. --Minoa (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect I agree completely with Red-tailed hawk's analysis. A fair amount of SYNTH has been used to justify this as a coherent topic. Many of the keep votes above are WP:CRYSTALBALL with a dash of OR. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article mashes together unrelated banking news stories from 2023. The vast majority of keep votes are making unsubstantiated assertions that it is a single event or predicting that it will become one. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the assertion that editors are "mashing together unrelated banking news stories.." Here's Reuters doing same: https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/ecbs-enria-says-deutsche-banks-selloff-is-concern-2023-03-28/ Prices for Deutsche Bank's credit default swaps , have eased since Friday but remain far above levels preceding the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank There is absolutely nothing 'unrelated' about the citations in the article. Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold fire for at least a month. Some indisputable facts: There exists quite evidently a widespread banking crisis. It is, at least for the time being, claiming most of the notability about economic and financial crises. These are facts. On the basis of these facts, having text independently informing users about the banking crisis unarguably serves tyhe encyclopaedic purpose of the project. In a few weeks or maybe a couple of months, a merge could well be the preferred option. Both in terms of Wikipedia as well as the well-being of finance. -The Gnome (talk)
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. Aoidh (talk) 01:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Occupational Health Science[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Occupational Health Science (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 last AfD resulted in a "no consensus", but the debate was marred by canvassing and non-policy-based "keep" !votes. The delete rationale was "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Nothing has changed since then and the delete rationale still stands. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:JOURNALCRIT asks if any of the following are satisfied:
Criterion 1: The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area.
Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources.
Criterion 3: The journal is historically important in its subject area.
I do not see evidence for #3.
Regarding #1, Journalcrit C1.b says the most typical way of satisfying C1 is to show that the journal is included in selective citation indices, indexing services, and bibliographic databases. Examples of such services are Science Citation Index etc… I went ahead and checked, it is indeed listed in Science Citation Index: https://mjl.clarivate.com/search-results. It is only in Emerging SCI, not the main SCI, and Journalcrit doesn’t list Emerging SCI. I do not have access to check C1.c in CJR or Scopus, but if somebody does, that would provide a quick in the alternative answer under Journalcrit.
Regarding #2, I did a search based on the citation abbreviation for the publication, rather than just the publication name as published, due to the publications somewhat unfortunate name for searching, since it’s both the title and a whole topic area. This search (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C21&q=%E2%80%9COccup.+Health+Sci.%E2%80%9C&btnG=) turns up 426 hits to this journal. I also got 34 results in Wikipedia Library. Some of them are obviously the journal itself, but I do see this journal being cited. What I don’t really see is a ton of cites by RS.
Since C1.b of Journalcrit is met by listing in Science Citation Index, I’m saying keep.
Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You are mistaken. The journal is not in the Science Citation Index, but in the Emerging Sources Citation Index, which is much less selective and does not satisfy JOURNALCRIT#1. Neither is it in Scopus. 426 citations would not be enough (by far...) to make a single person notable, let alone a whole journal. --Randykitty (talk) 18:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand corrected. You are right, it’s in ESCI not SCI. As a result, I’m now weak delete.
    ECSI is still selective, just far less selective, do we have a policy cite that it doesn’t satisfy C1.b? I see there’s discussion of it in the talk page, but I don’t see firm policy in Journalcrit. I’d like to have something to lean on for that beyond “it’s not selective enough” without the reader knowing where the line is on selectivity.
    Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me clarify a tad, as I’m not satisfied I put that clearly enough…
    I don’t necessarily think ESCI should satisfy Journalcrit C1b, but since I didn’t personally see a clear policy on ESCI, only talk page comments, I’m asking if anybody knows of clear policy guidance regarding ESCI we can cite here, in case somebody asks for proof it is not selective enough. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Shortly after (then) Thomson-Reuters started ESCI, it was found that it included even some rather shady (read "predatory") journals. To the best of my knowledge, inclusion in ESCI has never been taken as indicating notability. It's so ingrained, that I'd be hard put to find the discussion about that. In any case, nobody has ever challenged this (with the possible exclusion of some COI editors). Perhaps Headbomb remembers where this was discussed. --Randykitty (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a couple of examples of Thomson-Reuters's ESCI, which only started in 2015, including predatory journals. I am curious to know that because most of us want to avoid using such journals. If T-R did include predatory journals, I suspect it is a correctable mistake made by a start-up indexer.Iss246 (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense, their criteria do appear to be extremely permissive, and if they have a history of including questionable journals, that knocks them down another level of being usable. (I took a lengthy break from editing and um…ESCI didn’t even exist the last period I was active, so I wouldn’t have seen those conversations, sadly.) Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 2 reasons. A)per discussion above and B) lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Cinadon36 19:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ESCI is for Emerging sources, which is basically of interest to Librarians to tell them 'Hey, this publication might be going somewhere' according to various growth metrics etc. But it still falls well below what inclusion in SCI proper would involve. This is the difference between a professional sports player, and someone that's mentioned in a recruiter's notebook as a potential recruit for 2028. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It could alternatively be merged at Society for Occupational Health Psychology if someone wants to do the work. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I vote against deletion. Here is my perspective. Occupational Health Science is a peer-reviewed journal. The editorial board publishes research on psychological, social, and behavioral factors that bear on relationship of work to health. The journal publishes empirical papers, meta-analyses, review articles, and qualitative research on workplace health and safety. Contributors come from a variety of disciplines, including psychology, public health, and medicine, which I believe is a strength.
You can check and find out that I initiated Wikipedia entries for several journals that publish on papers on the subject of work and health. These include the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, Work & Stress, the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Social Science & Medicine, and the Journal of Health and Social Behavior. I have published in some of them and have read papers in all of them. I can say that I know them well. As an insider I can say that Occupational Health Science, a journal in which I have not published, belongs in the company of those other journals. OHS is a relatively new journal that perhaps makes editors question its notability. The journal publishes high-quality research and is associated with the Society for Occupational Health Psychology, which although it has the word "psychology" in its title is also crosses disciplinary boundaries. Iss246 (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All you said here is that OHS is a peer-reviewed journal and does the things a peer-reviewed journal does, then argue that because other peer-reviewed journals are notable, this one should be notable too. But you fail to make a case for why this peer-reviewed journal is notable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The journal has done good work during the COVID pandemic as you can read from this link in PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7266131/ Iss246 (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OHS is indexed in Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, Emerging Sources Citation Index, and PubMed. It is worth keeping in Wikipedia. Iss246 (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citations for those? Because OHS (if you looked for OHES, that's a different journal) is only indexed in ESCI as far as I can tell, and is not in SCI, SSCI, nor AHCI. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OHS because it meets criteria 1 and 2 but not 3 (too new). Iss246 (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: Iss246 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's your evidence for this? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The journal OHS is indexed in a variety of databases, including Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, and Emerging Sources Citation Index. An OHS article I found by way of PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32838031/) indicates that it is focused the serious problems related to the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., occupational health of medical personnel, anti-Asia bias, work-family stress). OHS is a journal worthy of maintaining in the encyclopedia. Iss246 (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the second time that you say this. However, this journal is not indexed in any of those databases, except for ESCI. An article published in this journal itself does not contribute to notability at all. And "worthy" is not a criterium for notability either. --Randykitty (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally omitted that OHS is also indexed in PsycINFO. Iss246 (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • As is mentioned in the article. And, no, PsycINFO is not selective enough to satisfy NJOURNALS. --Randykitty (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Randykitty, with all due respect, you are wrong about PsycINFO. First of all, it does not include predatory journals. Second, the editors are discerning. The editors take their time in selecting journals for inclusion. They are concerned about a new journal's track record. Owing to their selectivity, the editors of PsycINFO reviewed five years of OSH publications before deciding to include the journal in the database. Iss246 (talk) 00:47, 25 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. Aoidh (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Touriya Haoud[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NACTOR. She only has one significant role in Five Fingers. Needs to have two or more significant roles to be eligible for mainspace. The Film Creator (talk) 15:20, 21 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. Aoidh (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BWC: British Wrestling Weekly[edit]

BWC: British Wrestling Weekly (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)

Long version: The BCW acronym would appear to refer to "British Championship Wrestling", which appears to be an ongoing Professional wrestling business, though one that in 2023 would appear still not to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. It had a Wikipedia page, which was deleted in 2007 via this AFD discussion. The television show "BWC: British Wrestling Round-Up", asserted here to be the predecessor of BWC: British Wrestling Weekly was deleted via WP:PROD in 2017. I guess the question to be answered here is, "is this a notable television show"? It doesn't appear to be one that was broadcasted on terrestrial TV networks; the assertion made here is that it was on Fight Network, a Canadian pay-tv channel, which would seem incongruous in the context of UK TV show. As for the Daily Mirror reference: as mentioned before, British Championship Wrestling appears to be an ongoing concern. A passing mention there would appear not to assist an assertion of notability. Short version: no evidence given or found that this purported UK TV series meets WP:GNG. As always, please do prove me wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 15:14, 21 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! 05:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weskus Marathon[edit]

Weskus Marathon (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 refs on the page. The only sources I can find are mentions promoting the race, which don't appear to me to meet the GNG JMWt (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 15:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not every marathon is notable, and this one show no evidence of any coverage that would contribute to WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found something in media [18], but the mention is trivial. The event seems to be too local. Suitskvarts (talk) 17:58, 25 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! 05:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin J. Doyle[edit]

Kevin J. Doyle (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)

United States magistrate judges are hired functionaries, and are not inherently notable. In this case, the article appears to be a run-of-the-mill resume for a person in such a position, with no independent sources. BD2412 T 12:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails Wikipedia:GNG as having no independent sources Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 13:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 15:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails Wikipedia:BIO. Only biographical sources approaching independence I see are the brief bios from Bloomberg and ALI (probably not an RS), neither of which is in-depth in any meaning of the phrase. Most news coverage is of a different individual in the midwestern US with the same name who went missing and died after falling through ice with his two dogs, another individual with the same name who was wanted for a crime, or entirely routine coverage of cases where the was the magistrate a person in the news was scheduled to appear before. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An ophaned CV-style article with LinkedIn page as one of the sources. Also, created by an SPA with self-moving from the draft. Suitskvarts (talk) 18:09, 25 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! 05:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sensor Coating Systems[edit]

Sensor Coating Systems (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 exists to promote the company. What's more important though is that there are no independent, reliable sources which cover this company, even in passing. Hopelessly non-notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. gNews shows some mentions of the company, but they're all trivial. Suitskvarts (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 15:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete almost no secondary coverage of subject - fails GNG. --askeuhd (talk) 06:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no secondary coverage, all citations in article link to company website. Fails WP:ORG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locu (talk • contribs) 12:54, 23 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 withdrawn by nominator. Sufficient editing has taken place to render this NPOV (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 05:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Tel Aviv mayoral election[edit]

2023 Tel Aviv mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wholly POV electioneering pseudo-article. While an article on this may be valid WP:TNT is required 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is clearly notable, blank the campaigning section if you want, but it should stay as a stub with at least the list if currently declared candidates. Newystats (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved Huldai's announcement to the candidates section, removed a quote from him, and moved the list of issues to the campaigning section. I think this addresses point of views concerns sufficiently, but if other editors want to remove some of that section, go for it. With these changes, Keep. Newystats (talk) 00:01, 22 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. Aoidh (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Singersroom[edit]

Singersroom (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 can't find any evidence of notability. (Doesn't directly impact on notability but the content is largely spam and possibly autogenerated. https://singersroom.com/write-for-us-guest-posts-on-singers-room/ indicates that people pay to post articles to it for digital marketing purposes). JaggedHamster (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Websites. JaggedHamster (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The issue here has to be whether there is substantial, reliable, secondary coverage of the website/magazine itself to establish notability. The current references aren't at all helpful in that regard. The Stacks reference is simply a press release from Singersroom itself announcing an online poll. Interestingly, buried in that press release is the statement that Singersroom is rated “one of the Internet’s top music sources” by XXL magazine. That might be notable - XXL (magazine) appears to be a reliable source, but I cannot find any link or article that would confirm that as a fact. Being voted "Best Soul Site" by Soul Train viewers in an online poll a single time would not appear to be notable. The best source I have found is a profile of the founders from 2011 in Black Enterprise[19] but I can't find anything else at all that would qualify as substantial, independent coverage. I see lots of citations to its articles/listicles/surveys, sometimes even in reliable secondary sources e.g. [20] , but nothing else of substance about the site itself. Banks Irk (talk) 18:54, 21 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 keep. No argument for deletion has been advanced. Courcelles (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 pandemic in Jilin[edit]

COVID-19 pandemic in Jilin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not an article, it looked like a list or something like that. -Lemonaka‎ 13:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, list articles do exist. Maybe rename it to something like "List of COVID-19 outbreaks in Jilin? -I.R.B.A.T(yell at me) (The IRBAT Files) 14:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appropriate provincial level COVID article which we have for basically every province in the world. The article content issue seems surmountable and thus not appropriate for AfD. Jumpytoo Talk 18:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Suffers a bit from WP:PROSELINE, but that is something that can be fixed through editing. The topic clearly meets GNG. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article leaves a lot to be desired, but I don't see why it should be deleted. Suitskvarts (talk) 20:44, 25 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) 02:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinnacle Apartments[edit]

Pinnacle Apartments (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 apartment development. The one reference in the article only demonstrates its existence but not that it's notable. My searches find a ton of real estate listings and similar but not the kind of in-depth coverage which would suggest notability. Neiltonks (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I rewrote the page and added a few sources to the article (also removed the 1st person language). I can only find 3 sources that mention this property (none of which show it completed, all seem to be before the property was built) and the page is still a stub (3 sentences). 199.192.65.251 (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on User:199.192.65.251 comment "I can only find 3 sources", none of which are notable, fails WP:GNG MetricMaster (talk) 10:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]
  • Delete for lack of independent sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 12:25, 25 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. Sockpuppets have been ignored. Courcelles (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bane Hunter[edit]

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

While the misdeed (not sure it's a crime, since there were no criminal penalties) and civil penalty were noteworthy, this individual does not have enough in-depth coverage about the person themselves, outside the event, to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Referring to Wikipedia:BIO1E the guidelines allow for an article to be created for "both the event and the individual" if "media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger". Indeed I have created an article ASIC v GetSwift Ltd which covers the particulars of the single civil case in more detail, and I hope to express below why I believe Hunter's role deserves its own article.
My proclamation is that Hunter's role (as Director then later CEO) became more than just ASIC v GetSwift Ltd and was significant and a major contribution to the public discourse which followed the company GetSwift. His role became the story as evidence by Hunter himself receiving the largest penalty of the three individuals involved in the event, but also the largest penalty ever imposed by the Australian Federal Court. This is further supported by the Australian Securities Exchange changing public company listing rules requiring all directors to be of "good fame and character" as a result of Hunter's actions.
I have added comprehensive coverage from numerous and multiple national media outlets covering Hunter over the course of five years.
In summary, Hunter's involvement in ASIC v GetSwift Ltd was so significant and his personal contribution was covered in such detail by the media over such a long period of time and extends beyond a single event ASIC v GetSwift Ltd it satisfies the "single event" notability test allowed for by Wikipedia:BIO1E and justifies the creation of seperate articles.
Finally as commented separately, I'm a relatively new editor and I've tried to follow other articles in Category:Australian businesspeople and whilst I acknowledge some of the aforementioned linked articles could be flagged, Hunter is more notable than many.
I appreciate your re-consideration for deletion and welcome any further discussion JMichaelLee (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)— JMichaelLee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Weak Keep Referring to essay WP:What BLP1E is not, Article fails criteria (1), arguably fails criteria (2) but does not fail criteria (3) as individuals role was well cited in Article. MetricMaster (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC) This user has made 47 edits to Wikipedia. Their contribution history shows that 38 of these were to AFD discussions. The account exists for votestacking and has been blocked.[reply]
  • cu note to closer MetricMaster and JMichaelLee are  Confirmed to one another, and now indef blocked. Please take that into account when considering what weight to give their views. Girth Summit (blether) 11:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the AfC review who accepted the article, I thought it was borderline and knew an NPP reviewer would provide a secondary check. Given notability concerns, especially WP:BLP1E not to mention the socking, I agree it should be deleted. The legal issues and his involvement are covered at ASIC v GetSwift Ltd. S0091 (talk) 20:32, 27 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. A purely negative BLP, of essentially no notability? I'd have come close to just speedying this had I seen it before this moment. Courcelles (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feng Weihua[edit]

Feng Weihua (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)

Case of WP:BIO1E, no notability outside crime. Onel5969 TT me 11:48, 21 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) 13:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Dollhouse (professional wrestling)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Dollhouse (professional wrestling) (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)

Has been deleted twice through AfD, the last time in 2017, when they disbanded, and there is nothing new in this version of the article. While the individual wrestlers are notable, the stable is not. Onel5969 TT me 11:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete - it's no better than it was before. I would be ok with SALTing the article. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:42, 24 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. Courcelles (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EFront Alternative Investment Solutions[edit]

EFront Alternative Investment Solutions (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)

Hard to find coverage about this company, seems to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. US-Verified (talk) 10:17, 21 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. 2nd AFD deletion? There will be some SALT used. Courcelles (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IKeyMonitor[edit]

AfDs for this article:
IKeyMonitor (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)

Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Non-notable app. US-Verified (talk) 10:08, 21 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 11:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Finley[edit]

Rachael Finley (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)

BLP doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - coverage is either lacking depth or not independent (e.g. interview-based articles). MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete I was hoping the LA Magazine was substantial, but it's an interview. Pop sugar barely talks about her beyond a caption with a photo. Rest is celebrity fluff about her marriage. Oaktree b (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: spam. MarioGom (talk) 00:38, 25 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 11:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Attari[edit]

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

Notability doesn't established, fails to meet WP:NBASIC, no in-depth presence in reliable sources, primary and unreliable sources, few brief mention in reliable sources as delegation meeting with CM. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 08:12, 21 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. (non-admin closure) Adnan (ᵀᵃˡᵏ) 09:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jawan (film)[edit]

Jawan (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)

This is an unreleased film. There is nothing in this article that shows significant coverage of production of the film, only run-of-the-mill reports of rumors, development (director, producer), cast members, filming, etc that is written about every unreleased film. Unreleased films are notable only if the production itself is notable. Recommend moving to Draft: space where it can continue to be developed and when the film is released, it can be submitted for review for moving to mainspace.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 06:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 06:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Draft: per explanation as originator  — Archer1234 (t·c) 07:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This movie is definitely one of the most notable upcoming movie of Indian cinema in 2023. The teaser is releasing just a week later, we can move it to draft space untill the teaser get released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tousif.15 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: per nom. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 14:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Its a notable film. We can also expand article with more reliable sources. --SuperSharanya (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is one of the most awaited films in Bollywood. It also has noticable actors in it. Also many more updates are on the way related to Jawan. So don't delete it. -- User:MNWiki845 (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2023 (IST)
  • Keep: Jawan film is one of the most awaited films in Bollywood 2023, it's a very famous director and actor's film. So don't delete it, day by day expanding article with more reliable sources. Adnan (ᵀᵃˡᵏ) 08:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ItsMdAdnan, we are not talking about deleting it, but rather moving it to Draft: space. The article should only be in main space prior to the film's release, if the production of the film (not the film itself) is notable. After the film is released and it gets significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then the notability of the film can be established, and the article would be eligible to be main space. The question here is whether the production of the film is notable. Can you cite the top reliable sources that are independent of the subject (i.e., not interviews with cast or crew) that demonstrate significant coverage (i.e., not trivial, run-of-the-mill mentions). Things that might make a production of a film notable could any number of factors but ask yourself what makes this film notable (as written about in independent reliable sources) versus any other film production. Unless you want to argue that all film productions are notable, there ought to be some reasons why this production is notable, and another is not.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 11:46, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Check, all are independent reliable sources. Here what is not reliable source? It is most anticipated film of actor after Pathaan success. I also have tried to expand filming section with more reliable sources. SuperSharanya (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SuperSharanya.
    How is the coverage for the production of this film any different than any other film? That might point to some reason for notability. But just citing basic facts about the production like cast & crew, filming locations, etc, is just run-of-the-mill coverage that any film would have. To me, that does not demonstrate notability.
    You say "It is most anticipated film of actor after Pathaan success." Do you have an independent reliable source that says that? If not, I urge not to assert that as a claim.
    WP:NFF says:

    Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.

     — Archer1234 (t·c) 15:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This source says about It is most anticipated film of actor after Pathaan success. Please read full article clearly. SuperSharanya (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see where it says "most anticipated film of actor after Pathaan success". However, there may be some of the article that could help establish notability. The article is basically an interview with one person, Ramesh Bala, identified as a "trade expert". Are there any other independent reliable sources that talk about the production of the film in ways that are not run-of-the-mill? The more that can be cited, the more likely the production could be considered notable.  — Archer1234 (t·c) 15:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't said about exact quote. I said about its content in the article. SuperSharanya (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This article says about publicly released theatre video. Thanks. SuperSharanya (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The production is indeed notable with multiple articles about the production which can be found with a search. As somebody mentioned, it is one of the most anticipated movies in India (this again can be seen in the number of articles about the production or just by entering the following search term on Google news - Jawan "most anticipated" which returns a plethora of references from major news websites). And just for perspective here is the link to the pageviews for Jawan and Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One - [22]. Western cough cough bias. Jupitus Smart 05:41, 26 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 List of PBS member stations. Courcelles (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Create TV affiliates (by U.S. state)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Create TV affiliates (by U.S. state) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfDView log</noinclude> | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article hasn't be completed for a long time, doesn't have all the affiliates, and does not have enough citations or reliable sources. MenaceShock34685 (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 13:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to List of PBS member stations Create TV is a part of PBS. Its "affiliates" are all digital subchannels of PBS member stations. There is no need for two separate lists which will essentially be identical IMO. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:13, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has extreme WP:NOTTVGUIDE content, including cable positions which were depreciated years ago (haven't visited this page for years myself), and oddly, ATSC 3.0 positions, which is venturing into finite detail. https://createtv.com/locate serves the same purpose and is better updated than this list. More importantly, it's only half-complete because of long-term sock activity. Nate • (chatter) 18:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the PBS list, it's a subset of PBS. Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has yet to be merged. MenaceShock34685 (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article looks at it's still hasn't been deleted despite being for merge or deletion for the past few months, what's going on? OWaunTon (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confessions of a Go-Go Girl[edit]

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

Procedural nomination from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 4#Lifetime films.

Donaldd23 had previously removed a notability tag saying it should be sent to AfD, but Bovineboy2008 boldly redirected it as non-notable. RfD consensus was to send to AfD as the redirect target did not mention the film and therefore inappropriate. Legoktm (talk) 04:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is a shame there is not more coverage of fare like this, and any internet coverage gets harder to find if not impossible after 15 years. There's a filmpedia fandom page on the movie but it only cites two reviews from sites i don't know.[23] The movie used to have its own lifetime page, here's the archive link[24]. Nothing too helpful there, but this one comment is an incredible reaction: "I recently retired from stripping for 12 years. I am 32. I have been in go-go as well. I can say from experience that there are way more drugs and drama in go-go as apposed to naked. I was stupid for a long time and ran with bad people, that stole from me, left me in the middle of nowhere drunk with $900 in my pocket. I wasn't smart enough to come up with a plan. I was obsessed with the "I'm better than you attitude." After my second DUI I realized what this job had made me, the influence those "friends" had on me. Everyone around me had their hand out. Then I got beat up by police, they tried to ID me walking in Atlantic City with a male friend. Thinking I was a hooker, and because I refused the female officer beat me up. And after a night in jail, $5 grand on a lawyer for 3 charges that were false, I got it. Just walk away, I was gonna RUN away from the whole job. My boyfriend of 3 yrs got put through all this - because I needed to make $1100 in one night?? It's not real, none of it. With this money- nobody ever talks about the strings it comes with. The price you pay. Making $2000 a week - IS too good to be true. This movie depending on your personal experiences is true.. And most of the girls I worked with were like Angela. I have $200 shoes I didn't buy. A dancer will tell and brag about that, but she won't tell that she has to go on a date or dinner once a week with the guy. To keep him spending. And when you stop the money stops. Walking away was very hard, I had to move in with my sister and my boyfriend and I are just dating now. I let the business take over my life. But I got out, penniless, but I am alive and not selfish, nice, and best all I respect myself for all I been through. Hopefully when I tell my story it touches one person , are puts one light on for a young girl that thinks there's no strings in dancing. It's starts with that first drink that leads to everyday."--Milowent • hasspoken 21:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the sources given below. Meets GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Korb, Michael (2008-08-14). "Law-school hopeful gets down to her briefs as 'Go-Go Girl'". The Daily News. Zap2it. Archived from the original on 2023-03-21. Retrieved 2023-03-21.

      The article provides 380 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "Starring Chelsea Hobbs (The L Word) as Jane, the aforementioned girl gone wrong, Confessions is a little more risque than traditional Lifetime fare -- considering that Hobbs and friends are dancing around in their underwear for a significant portion of the film. ... If it were to end there, we'd probably wind up with a happy ending - a confident young woman with a few dollars in her G-string. But no. As you might imagine, things get seamy when Jane's new friends turn out to be, shall we say, morally half-full. ... You'll have to watch the movie to see whether Jane snaps out of it, but one thing is for certain: With two hours of beautiful women go-go dancing, Lifetime's male viewership could be the highest it's ever been."

    2. Pratt, Steve (2013-06-03). "Pump action". The Northern Echo. Archived from the original on 2023-03-21. Retrieved 2023-03-21.

      The article provides 147 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "No full frontals in Confessions Of A Go-Go Girl (Really), a 2008 TV movie of numbing boredom – even in fast forward mode. Jane decides to give up law school for briefs of a different kind. “I want to act,” she says, go-going to pay her way through acting school after her parents take back her tuition fees.  “I wouldn’t know how to dance like that,” she says after seeing a gogo girl. Think yourself lucky, girl, it’s dreadful. ... Alas, these dancers go out with a wimper not a bang. Please, don’t wake me up before you go-go."

    3. Newsome, Brad (2009-03-02). "Pay TV - Thursday 5 March". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-03-21. Retrieved 2023-03-21.

      The article provides 111 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "This is a little racier than the usual Hallmark fare. Chelsea Hobbs plays Jane McCoy, an aspiring actress who gets into go-go dancing because her snobby parents will pay for law school but not for a drama course. ... Might we be heading into Requiem For A Dream territory? Based on a true story."

    4. Less significant coverage:
      1. Marill, Alvin H. (2010). Movies Made for Television: 2005–2009. Lanham, Maryland: The Scarecrow Press. p. 20. ISBN 978-0-8108-7658-3. Retrieved 2023-03-21 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "Confessions of a Go-Go Girl (Lifetime, 8/16/2008, 120 minutes). Chelsea Hobbs portrays a college grad who ditches law school for the limelight, and as an aspiring actress finds herself on the wrong kind of stage while awaiting her big break—but she also finds that that's where the easy money is." The book lists the production companies and cast.

      2. Philpot, Robert (2008-08-16). "Think outside the stadium". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2023-03-21. Retrieved 2023-03-21.

        The article provides 53 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Confessions of a Go-Go Girl: Lifetime continues its August series of lurid-topic movies with this new entry starring Chelsea Hobbs as a wannabe actress who tries to make a few extra bucks as a dancer, and winds up risking her soul in the process. Corbin Bernsen and Rachel Hunter co-star. 8 p.m., LIFE"

      3. "On TV Tonight". The Dallas Morning News. 2008-08-16. Archived from the original on 2023-03-21. Retrieved 2023-03-21.

        The article provides 60 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "A young woman (Chelsea Hobbs) defies her parents' wishes and chooses a show-business career over law school."

      4. Orr, Jasmin (2009-03-06). "Television". The Courier-Mail. Archived from the original on 2023-03-21. Retrieved 2023-03-21.

        The article provides 71 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "When Jane McCoy tells her parents she's ditching law school to become an actress they react by pulling their financial support."

      5. "Tonight's Review Of Tv". Coeur d'Alene Press. 2008-08-16. Archived from the original on 2023-03-21. Retrieved 2023-03-21.

        The article provides 77 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "It's a story that's been told before, but not your typical Lifetime movie. A young woman (Chelsea Hobbs) defies her parents' wishes and chooses a show-business career over law school."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Confessions of a Go-Go Girl to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: nice work finding sources by Cunard! How did you find these archived sources, if I may ask?--Milowent • hasspoken 18:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Milowent (talk · contribs). Thank you for reviewing the sources and for the kind words. I found most of these sources through NewsBank. In this comment, I discussed how I search for sources for articles that have been nominated for deletion. Cunard (talk) 06:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above including reviews so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:43, 28 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 Disambiguate. Salvio giuliano 12:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian Empire[edit]

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

There aren't any reliable sources that treat the First Bulgarian Empire and the Second Bulgarian Empire as one continuous empire. They were separated by more than 150 years. Sort of WP:SYNTH. It should become a dab page. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Article is OR SNYTH FRINGE, and should be deleted. Then it can be turned into a dab.  // Timothy :: talk  08:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Bulgaria. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate: Agree with the points above; the page itself would still be a useful a disambiguation point for the two empires. Moonreach (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to disambig per above. Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have no objection to converting the page to a dab page, but I do object to scrubbing its history and talk page from WP. Note that non-continuous imperial history is not unusual and we handle it different ways in the cases of the Persian Empire, Assyrian Empire, Babylonian Empire and Chinese Empire. Srnec (talk) 14:37, 22 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! 04:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Packer, Arizona[edit]

Packer, 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)

No evidence of a notable populated place; maps and ghost town website show only a few old buildings. –dlthewave ☎ 03:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 03:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Damn, I thought I had gotten through most of Arizona way back when, but there's still a lot of junk left. A few abandoned shacks is obviously not a notable community Reywas92Talk 04:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm always hesitant on deleting places that still have people, but this is clearly a ghost town. The only thing I could find was this obviously homemade page from 1998 ([25]) featuring photos of clearly abandoned buildings, and searching for anything else comes up with nothing about either its history or what it is today. Nomader (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: there is no evidence that this place passes WP:GEOLAND. Sources online do not establish notability/have enough significant coverage. As above comments have noted this is likely a ghost town with a few abandoned buildings. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:27, 21 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 Tucson, Arizona. Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polvo, Arizona[edit]

Polvo, 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)

This one isn't an easy search term, but maps show only a rail junction with a few buildings. –dlthewave ☎ 03:47, 21 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! 04:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Calderón[edit]

Joshua Calderón (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 Joeykai (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per sources below which show notability. GiantSnowman 21:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @GiantSnowman:, @Joeykai:, I found [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], among many more sources. Young player with ongoing international career (8+ appearances for Puerto Rico) and career abroad. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Of the sources that have been brought forward, I would say that these [31][32][33] are sufficient to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 00:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree that there's enough coverage to not require deleting this one Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, especially if we manage to improve the article as a whole by using the aforementioned sources. Oltrepier (talk) 21:26, 24 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! 04:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Shot (Ole Miss–Valparaiso)[edit]

The Shot (Ole Miss–Valparaiso) (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 Joeykai (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Per Fuzzy510's point on a cursory google search. This article needs cleanup and more inline citations not deletion.
TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:If I stay with articles I hope that will not deleted section. Because one of the most greatest shot in Valparaiso History Andrei Kenshin (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - See updated sources. I fixed all of the issues.KatoKungLee (talk) 21:17, 24 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. Not draftifying as there is already a Draft version of this article mentioned in the nomination statement. Liz Read! Talk! 04:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ponniyin Selvan: II[edit]

Ponniyin Selvan: II (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)

copy paste article from Draft:Ponniyin Selvan: II. This article is already declined through AFC Endrabcwizart (talk) 03:10, 21 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! 04:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Thakur (soccer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Current sources are trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:00, 21 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. Courcelles (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Quinane[edit]

Anne Quinane (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO. 2 of the supplied sources are primary. The Radio NZ source is very short. LibStar (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Bilateral relations, Malta, Oceania, and Australia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Most sources are primary, the ones that are secondary don't display WP:SIGCOV. // GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:GNG, as sources such as RNZ, Times of Malta, The Age and Diplomats for Change are independent sources. The subject's coverage goes beyond passing mentions. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    She is not the subject of the Age article, it is not WP:SIGCOV. In Diplomats for change, she is merely a signatory amongst many, many others in a primary source. LibStar (talk) 12:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Times of Malta article is a 1 line mention of Quinane and fails WP:SIGCOV, the article is actually about the next ambassador. LibStar (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then all the Other Australian Ambassadors to Kiribati should also be deleted as not inherently notable. Her predecessor, Jane Lambert, doesn't seem to be more notable than Quinane but you didn’t nominate her or even tag her as possibly not notable. Be consistent and don’t randomly pick articles to delete. If one ambassador is notable, others are as well. BostonMensa (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ALLORNOTHING. LibStar (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG and does not meet WP:NPOL.Onel5969 TT me 00:26, 28 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! 04:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asianfanfics[edit]

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

This seems to clearly fail WP:INHERENTWEB. A google search reveals almost no third party coverage of the site; the only third party source cited in the article fails to mention the site (and, in fact, was published 8 years before the site existed.) Suggestively, given the page's borderline unencyclopedic tone, almost all the content added to the page was by a user who popped up to create this single page then never contributed again. CogitoErgoSum14 (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • :Delete My own search turned up nothing significant in terms of third party coverage, in-depth or otherwise. It’s clear the site exists, and a few fan-based sites mention it and confirm its nature, but I’m not seeing anything that could satisfy wikipedia:WEBCRIT. Jo7hs2 (talk) 04:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • :Delete Also did a search, couldn't find much that could be considered notable. Lewcm (talk) 02:11, 24 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. Courcelles (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Greville[edit]

Virginia Greville (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. All the sources provided are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List_of_ambassadors_of_Australia_to_Spain(based on it being her last posting) on this one. I see a little sporadic press coverage (https://dsf.newscorpaustralia.com/couriermail/subscription/) consistent with what I’d expect for an ambassador and she’s certainly accomplished. HOWEVER… All biographical information not from the government I managed to turn up myself seems to come from schools she has attended (https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2015/05/uq-alumnus-named-ambassador-spain, https://law.anu.edu.au/alumni/alumni-profiles/virginia-greville, https://www.stmargarets.qld.edu.au/125/125-notables/virginia-greville) . So I’m not seeing in-depth coverage from a secondary/RS here. Fails Wikipedia:BIO absent such sourcing. Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She was also ambassador to Chile (And other South American countries), so I don't support redirect in this case. LibStar (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a fair point. I could see justifying the redirect based on it being her last posting and the largest country she was ambassador to, but it could also be confusing.Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Bilateral relations, Andorra, Spain, Australia, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom, Ambassadors are not inherently notable. None of the sources are really inline with WP:GNG // GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per WP:NPOL, as Greville held the regional position of Chief Executive Officer of Trade and Investment of Queensland. She has a notesworthy diplomatic career, being ambassador of at least 9 different countries. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Being chief of a government agency does not meet WP:NPOL. LibStar (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Being ambassador to several countries does not confer automatic notability, many of these countries she was a non resident ambassador. LibStar (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A "notesworthy diplomatic career" is not the same as a career that meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG and does not meet WP:NPOL.Onel5969 TT me 00:26, 28 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! 04:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Ovington[edit]

Mike Ovington (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 2 of the 4 sources are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:16, 21 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! 00:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zacari Hughes[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:53, 21 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. The consensus in this discussion is that the existing sources in this article are sufficient to meet GNG. Liz Read! Talk! 00:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Harries[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:50, 21 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! 00:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akpo Godwin[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:42, 21 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. Courcelles (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Celestine Onyeka Obi[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:39, 21 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. Not a useful redirect Courcelles (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Action Is[edit]

Action Is (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 typeface. ImperialMajority (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I am not seeing sufficient sourcing to support notability. The two sources in the article are all I was able to turn up in my own search. There’s some information establishing its history, but some of the claims in the article about which films used it I could not reliably source. More importantly, the article fails Wikipedia:GNG as only see two articles, one not in-depth on the font but is a bio of the creator from a non RS, one that’s just a cursory overview of the font with a few of the uses noted, with no continuing coverage. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no coverage for this font found. All I get are hits on the phrase or combination of the words. Oaktree b (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: has been re-directed to List of display typefaces by its original creator. XAM2175 (T) 18:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Because it exists does not make it notable. Not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 00:19, 28 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 Shakira. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copa Vacía[edit]

Copa Vacía (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 is based on pure speculation. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSINGLE. Doesn't use WP:RS. ItsMario97 (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shakira: WP:CRYSTAL. There's coverage but it's pretty minimal. I see articles talking more about her recent hit "Shakira: Bzrp Music Sessions, Vol. 53" than they have to say about this song. It sounds like the song leaked so I wouldn't be surprised if there's an official release coming soon, but the coverage isn't there right now. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And for what it's worth, I don't have any reason to immediately believe El Nacional is unreliable, but the rest absolutely is. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shakira. Notability isn’t inherited as Wikipedia:NSINGLE notes, and my own search failed to turn up enough coverage to justify independent notability for this yet-to-be-released single, just some speculative articles without in-depth coverage. Do think there is enough to justify redirect. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I already read the messages, but I think that this article does not need to be moved, I think it can be kept, just as days before TQG came out they had already created the article and I think they did not do a delete query Saúl Rodrigo Martínez (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to just make it a draft article again until there's enough evidence to actually make a substantial article? Dune-Dawg123 (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's necessary to delete or move the page Saúl Rodrigo Martínez (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shakira for now. Aside from WP:CRYSTAL, we also do not know if this new song would be notable enough to warrant its own article yet. Vida0007 (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need to redirect, as this article refers to a song to be released soon, and information in the article may change frequently. Saúl Rodrigo Martínez (talk) 20:09, 23 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_21&oldid=1147139164"