Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< May 06	May 08 >

Guide to deletion

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EBikeGo[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE search did not unearth any significant coverage for this startup that isn't a routine announcement of fundraising, partnership, acquisition, product launch, etc. At best, it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. Maduant (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and India. Maduant (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My search only showed passing mentions and a partnership announcement, fails NCORP and GNG. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 23:49, 12 May 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. It has not been demonstrated that WP:NSPORT has been met, despite the predictions of WP:NCYC. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saymon Musie[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Continental champion, therefore meets NCYCLING. Seacactus 13 (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Seacactus 13, that is an invalid rationale. NSPORT requires subjects meet GNG and have at least one GNG source cited in the article. Have you found such a source? JoelleJay (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found several which I have expanded the article with and will continue to look for more. Seacactus 13 (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The subject meets an SNG and therefore the fact that they meet GNG is presumed Jack4576 (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:ATHLETE: "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline"

As an SNG is met, meeting WP:GNG is not required Jack4576 (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do not understand the notability guidelines. JoelleJay (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Continental champion, therefore meets criterion #4 of NCYCLING "also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship"

arguably also meets criterion #5 on a purposive interpretation of that rule

As they meet an SNG, a presumption arises that they meet GNG Jack4576 (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As part of WP:NSPORTS, notability is not presumed under NCYCLING; it only tells us that significant coverage is likely to exist, multiple sources must actually be found in order to establish notability. Right now we only have one SIGCOV source, Sprint Especial, which is not sufficient. –dlthewave ☎ 02:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: because NCYCLING has been met, the correct approach is to keep on the presumption that significant coverage likely exists, even if those sources haven't yet actually been located. Jack4576 (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it passes NCYCLING though, giving rise to a presumption that SIGCOV exists. Jack4576 (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't presume that SIGCOV exists, it says it is likely that SIGCOV exists. The inability to find sufficient sources in this debate has disproven that assumption. BilledMammal (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am still entitled to presume that sources likely exist, and maintain my keep vote, on the basis that NCYCLING has been met. Jack4576 (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first sentence of the NSPORT SNG says the sport-specific criteria are used to estimate whether an athlete is likely to meet the GNG. The second sentence of the SNG says athlete articles should cite the evidence that the subject meets the GNG. The first section repeats that athletes need to meet GNG. SPORTSBASIC repeats that athletes need to meet GNG. No one has demonstrated the subject here meets even SPORTSBASIC let alone GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article in Spanish that's been added just now amounts to SIGCOV Jack4576 (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This one:[1][2]? WP:BLOG. Just because something is online doesn't mean it's useful on WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The blog that consists almost entirely of quotes is neither RS nor SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 13:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elyas Afewerki[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Sources exist, but they are all trivial. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Continental champion, therefore meets NCYCLING. Seacactus 13 (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is required to meet GNG and the article must cite at least one GNG source. It is also not clear that he is a UCI category continental champion. JoelleJay (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is not required as the subject means an SNG. Reading 'UCI category' strictly is inappropriate here, as the subject is African and the African Continental Championships is equivalently as prominent as UCI events Jack4576 (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plus it meets criterion #4 Jack4576 (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:ATHLETE: "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline"

As an SNG is met, meeting WP:GNG is not required Jack4576 (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~See below: meets criterion #5 of WP:NCYCLING Jack4576 (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also meets criterion #4: "also includes races like the World University Cycling Championship" Jack4576 (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As part of WP:NSPORTS, notability is not presumed under NCYCLING; it only tells us that significant coverage is likely to exist. Multiple sources must actually be found in order to establish notability. We don't even have the bare-minimum single source required by WP:SPORTBASIC. –dlthewave ☎ 02:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: because NCYCLING has been met, the correct approach is to keep on the presumption that significant coverage likely exists, even if those sources haven't yet actually been located. Jack4576 (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:SPORTSCRIT #5 and WP:GNG. If sources are found, ping me. BilledMammal (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and NCYCLING? Jack4576 (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is irrelevant if it fails SPORTCRIT. BilledMammal (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am still entitled to presume that sources likely exist, and maintain my keep vote, on the basis that SPORTSCRIT has been met Jack4576 (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What source are you referring to when you say that SPORTSCRIT has been met? BilledMammal (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This one. Jack4576 (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you provide the correct link? That one only includes passing coverage of Afewerki, in a list of players (The defending champions led by Team Dimension Data new signing Mekseb Debesay inspired the trio of Tesfom Okubamariam, Amanuel Ghebreigzabhier and Elyas Afewerki as they covered the 59km distance in Benslimane in 1:15:07.53, 58.18 seconds ahead of second-placed Algeria.) BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a reliable source to demonstrate that SPORTSCRIT has been met. Per the link:
"Eritrea won the men’s elite team time trial gold" , and in context Elyas was a part of that team.

Because I can reliably establish that it is the case that SPORTSCRIT has been met, I am entitled to presume that sources are likely to exist that would satisfy GNG, even if I haven't actually seen those sources Jack4576 (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To demonstrate that WP:SPORTCRIT #5 has been met you need at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. If you don't have that one source then we cannot keep the article. BilledMammal (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point changing vote. Jack4576 (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although (1) its plausible this entry is of value to Eritrean, African, or Cyclist Wikipedians, (2) the claims contained in the article are supported by reliable sources, and (3) retaining this entry would assist in addressing WP's systematic deficiencies in coverage...

... the lack of coverage, both in-depth, and assessed collectively means that this entry doesn't meet SIGCOV requirements of GNG or an SNG. I have made WP:BEFORE searches yet none were found

Sadly, this is an instance where applying guidelines requires destruction of a knowledge source, irrespective of other considerations; including collateral damage to this website's wider mission and purpose Jack4576 (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If SIGCOV cannot be found on the subject, an article should not exist. No one has demonstrated GNG here. JoelleJay (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should, but it can't under the guidelines Jack4576 (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lush (Mitski album)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLARed this a while back but I can see that ruffled some feathers. Finally had another look now and can see that things look just the same as I remember them. Most of the coverage here is career retrospective stuff which touches briefly on this album but doesn't have a huge amount to say, and what is useful could be merged into Mitski without much trouble. I doubt the reliability of Vinyl Me, Please (a blog attached to a digital storefront), and the PodBean-hosted podcast which likely falls under WP:SPS. No appearance of an NMUSIC pass. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Japan, and New York. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there's just enough in the Nylon magazine & Atwood Magazine sources to justify the existence of this article. Hatman31 (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is padded with references to some unreliable blogs and streaming sites, but that stuff can be removed via the editing process. While this album was initially an unknown early release by someone who became notable later, it is still discussed significantly in the reliable sources mentioned by the last voter, and retrospective coverage is still coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even though the album doesn't have much coverage due to it not being very impactful upon release, it is still an important part of Mitski, a now very culturally significant artist's, discography as her debut album. Retrospective sources are still reliable sources and this article just needs to be edited to remove unreliable sources and add more information. ilyukika (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This page meets notability guidelines, as it has received significant coverage from Rolling Stone, Atwood Magazine, and Nylon. Memories of (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There may be a possible canvassing from here: [3] Carpimaps (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I want to make clear that I am not accusing people of being canvassed. I just wished to communicate that canvassed users may vote here. I changed the wording above to communicate this. Carpimaps (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think this is canvassing. Their twitter page is dedicated to updating information relating to Mitski, and the previous deletion of the article garnered quite a lot of attention on their page. They are only continuing to update users on a relevant topic. Everyone who has voted so far has established editing histories so I doubt this is much of an issue. ilyukika (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is now necessary to declare that I voted to "Keep" based on policy. I'm not a Mitski fan (though I am familiar with her) and I don't even use Twitter. The allegation above requires some evidence that the voters here are also active at that Twitter page, and that they voted while disregarding WP policy. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:34, 10 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlo Petrov[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable photographer, I'm not showing coverage in detail in any RS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Journalism, News media, and Ukraine. Skynxnex (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I think it would be important for a user who can do research in Ukranian sources to weigh in here before making a decision. Moreover, the article indicates that his photographs have been featured in a few exhibitions, which might meet WP:PHOTOGRAPHER if those exhibitions were significant; it's hard for me to know as someone who can't easily access Ukranian sources. Additionally, I found at least one reliable source in English which is arguably WP:SIGCOV. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Petrov is not the main subject of the listed sources, so the article does not meet WP:GNG. 128.6.36.94 (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC

Draftify. I've reviewed every source listed in the Ukrainian wiki page for the subject, as well as tried searching for news articles and books in Ukrainian for his name. It seems that the only significant coverage of the subject is the Time article mentioned by @Voorts. With just one qualified source, honestly not much can be written about him. I recommend having the other sources and claims not supported by the Time article deleted, draftify the article, and only publish it into the main space when there are more coverage of the subject. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Tutwakhamoe! Given your review of the sources, and the potential for the subject to become notable at some point in his career, I agree with your proposal to draftify. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Tutwakhamoe and my reply to his comment. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pavlo Petrov's photographs have been published in The Times, Der Spiegel, and UNDP. Максим Огородник (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Tutwakhamoe. Not enough in-depth secondary coverage in reliable sources. Simply having your photos used in notable publications does not make you a notable photographer. The awards and exhibitions help a bit, but they still aren't enough to establish notability. Could be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Mooonswimmer 15:58, 10 May 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Women's Bandy World Championship squads[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially a list of full names and, in some cases, DOB of non-notable people. Does not seem to meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG as the statement has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources does not seem to apply. It also doesn't even have any navigational purpose since there is only one blue link in the entire article. I don't even think that it warrants merging into 2018 Women's Bandy World Championship as it's just too much information about non-notable people. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Lists of people. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China, Estonia, Finland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, Switzerland, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every single entry is non notable. LibStar (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulrahman Al-Dhefiri[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG according to searches in Arabic. Best sources are Akhbaar24, a loan announcement based on a tweet with zero detailed coverage, and Arriyadiayh, an image caption. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than those two sources listed by the nominator, nothing shows up out of a BEFORE search. Translating Arabic sources of this player doesn't show anything worthy of passing GNG, either. Delete per nom. Tails Wx 23:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found no significant coverage of the subject. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kallol Mukherjee[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The awards do not seem sufficient for biographic notability, and the claim to having discovered an endangered species is weak, at best. He has been published, but it's not enough Star Mississippi 18:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and India. Star Mississippi 18:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd really like to !v keep, but I can't see any sources that show N. If anyone adds multiple sources to the article from independent reliable sources with SIGCOV (WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV, addressing the subject directly and indepth, ping me. You'd be pushing at an open door, but the sources do have to credibly be IS RS SIGCOV. If the closer sees no one has replied with new sources, my !v should be considered Delete. // Timothy :: talk 12:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 18:15, 7 May 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 Crown Estate. Because material was moved, I think we need the redirect for attribution. Otherwise this would have been clear consensus to delete. If we don't since it's the same editor, happy to re-close. Star Mississippi 13:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Estate in Wales[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:POVFORK of Crown Estate. As the lead says, the Crown Estate is not separate by country, although, in fact, it is devolved in Scotland as Crown Estate Scotland, but it is not devolved in Wales. As such there is no specific subject of Crown Estate Wales, although Crown Estate England and Wales, could be argued for. The problem with this POVfork is that it is essentially just a page on which arguments for devolving the estate can be rehearsed. This looks like advocacy. We already have Welsh Devolution and discussion in Crown Estate, and specific page just to rehearse these arguments, that adds nothing that cannot be covered in the parent article, is a clear POVfork. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and Wales. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (2nd choice: Merge) - This is clearly a topic of significant debate and WP:Notability in Wales. This is a WP:RELAR and/or WP:SPINOFF to Crown Estate. The Crown Estate also publishes annual "Highlight of Wales" report. (It's also worth noting that Crown Estate is already quite long.) Titus Gold (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Titus Gold (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
It can't be a spinoff when you only added the devolution information to that article for the first time today.[4] The Crown Estate articles size is about 4,200 words, which, per WP:SIZERULE, does not justify division. Also to note that while the first edit says this is a translation of a page on Welsh Wikipedia, you made that article on Welsh Wikipedia just before creating this article here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. There has been a recent history of the creation of these POV forks to separate Wales and welsh topics from the rest of the UK with no rational basis. Unhelpful. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's already covered sufficiently in the Crown Estate and Proposed further Welsh devolution articles. This is basically a COATRACK for a "Calls to devolve the Crown Estate to Wales" article. Sionk (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an encyclopedic topic in its own right; as it stands it's mostly about about calls for devolution, better, if not already, covered elsewhere. Llwyld (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned this is clearly a topic of significant debate and WP:Notability in Wales and so has a significant rational basis in my view. The devolution is only one large aspect of the page following much media reports, but it is not the main focus. I do think that WP:RELAR and/or WP:SPINOFF applies but respect majority opinion. (The Crown Estate does publish annual "Highlight of Wales" report as previously mentioned.)

I've moved info over to Crown Estate in anticipation of a delete. Titus Gold (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Thonipurakkal Manoharan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was recently hijacked and I reverted this vandalism. I also reverted an old edit where false stats were added to the infobox. When doing this, however, I noticed that none of the sources comply with WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. This appears to be a footballer that played a cup game for Chirag United then disappeared into the lower levels and didn't come back. I couldn't find any decent coverage under his full name nor "Manoj Manoharan" nor "TM Manoj". Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:03, 7 May 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. Sandstein 09:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Algiers (1710-1830)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear duplicate of Ottoman Algeria, bypassing discussion at Talk:Ottoman Algeria where consensus does not favour a split (see e.g. Talk:Ottoman Algeria#Splitting proposal). Aside from the needless duplication, the article is full of inconsistencies and WP:OR, its scope is unclear, and it might simply be an attempt to introduce a WP:POVFORK that avoids the scrutiny of editors at the long-established Ottoman Algeria article. R Prazeres (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Algeria. R Prazeres (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As one example of a recent POV fork issue: the flag used in the infobox of this article ([5]) was previously added by an editor to Ottoman Algeria ([6]) but reverted by another editor claiming it was WP:OR, with some subsequent edit-warring ensuing there (see that article's history in early April 2023). R Prazeres (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IIRC an article with a similar title was deleted last year. Useless fork of Ottoman Algeria at best. The fact that a few European sources used the term “kingdom” among others to describe the regency doesn’t provide a basis for a stand-alone article. Mccapra (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ,

the article has nothing to do with ottoman algeria, on the contrary the article concerns the kingdom of algiers created by Baba ali chaouch in 1710-1830 this article contains reliable sources and absolutely does not concern the ottoman empire since after you the regency of algiers = 1500-1830 while the regency of algiers is 1516-1710 and kingdom of algiers completely independent of the ottoman = 1710-1830 it is a bit like elayet of egypt and independent kingdom from Egypt so this article must remain and not be deleted 105.235.135.214 (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

almost all the sources of this period mention kingdom of algiers, regnum algerium, and royaume d’alger , this kingdom totally independent of the ottomans to itself was cited by the kingdom of france and the ottoman empire and other country in this time , the name is not a reason, out of history confirmed by all historians confirms that the kingdom of Algiers, an independent kingdom was founded under the reign of Baba Ali Hamza3110022 (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 105.235.135.214, are you one of the main contributors to the article (Alg1567, Hamza3110022, Tayeb188, or Seddik909)? If so, please log into your Wikipedia account. R Prazeres (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, dunno if I’m allowed to reply as i was the one who made the kingdom of Algiers flag and tried to put in the Ottoman Algeria page, this was refused.

so i would like to put some rectifications here, the kingdom of Algiers actually started not in 1710 but in 1659, or the so called the agha period, the pasha appointed by the Ottoman empire was fired and the janissaires took control of Algeria, this was viewed as rebellion by the grand vizier mehmed kuprulu pasha and denied Algerian corsairs any acess to ottoman ports, the Algerian officials regained the favours of the ottomans only after his death and replacement by grand vizier Ahmed fazil kuprulu pasha who sent another official in Algiers, yet they were deprived of any significant political powers, this agha period saw also the first ever peace and trade treaty written in arabic between charles the 2nd and chaban Agha of Algiers in 23 april 1662, also Hussein mezomorto dey prohibited the pasha again from entering Algiers and was the first dey to have helt the titles Dey-pasha

according to turkish historian aziz sameh ilter’s book, Ottoman turks in north africa (arabic version).

So the agha period was the period of real political independence from the Ottoman empire, and it was preceded by a period of anarchy in which the ottomans failed to effectively manage matters in the regency

i hope i can contribute more to this page. Nourerrahmane (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the Agha period was a turning point pretty much, both in foreign and domestic policy, the european powers started to deal with Algeria directly without adressing the ottoman porte, the agha and early dey period saw a lot of military and diplomatic activity in the mideterranean, real buisness started with france in this agha and early deys period with the war in jijel and Algiers ending up with the conclusion of the 100s years peace treaty between King louis 14th and dey chaban (not to be confused with chaban agha mentionned earlier), also major political changes happened inside as the military was now in charge represented by the divan which is an assembly that elected the ruler whith the benediction of the porte, the aghas and deys only payed homage to the sultan since he was considered the caliph of the islamic world.

So baba ali chaouch was only a man who ended a short period of anarchy after the maghrebi war with tunis and morocco-fez, and the first recapture of the city of Oran from the spanish, he reorganised matters in the state and deprieved the janissaries of political power with the help of the pasha sent from istanbul, since the pasha despite being deprieved of power was behind many assasinations of prominent officials and even deys, yet chaouch was not the one who made the big change in the Algerian political status. Nourerrahmane (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I see you logged in to make your second comment. R Prazeres (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument does not stand, it is literally mentioned everywhere during that period. Tayeb188 (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello there,

I understand that you are proposing the deletion of the article in question, citing it as a "clear duplication of Ottoman Algeria's article" and suggesting that there is no consensus in favor of a split. However, I must disagree with your reasoning.

Firstly, the article in question is not a "clear duplication of Ottoman Algeria's article" because it discusses the Kingdom of Algiers, which cannot be defined as "Ottoman Algeria." In fact, the main article itself should be split because the Kingdom of Algiers has nothing to do with the early Ottoman presence in Algiers. From 1671, Algiers began its independence process from the Ottoman Caliphate, to the point where it was independent in every aspect, only recognizing the spiritual leadership of the Ottoman Sultan as he was considered the Caliph of Islam. The Kingdom only printed the Sultan's name on the Algerian coins (a practice used in the Muslim world since the Abbasid Caliphate) and helped the Ottomans in their wars, considering it a jihad by Algerians (similar to the Pope's call for war against the Muslim world during the Crusades).

Furthermore, the Kingdom was entirely independent in its diplomatic, administrative, and political affairs. This justifies why European diplomats referred to it as the Kingdom of Algiers. More than that, the main "Ottoman Algeria" article needs to be split because, by not doing so, you are ignoring a complete century of the history of Algeria. This period has nothing to do with the majority of information cited in the Ottoman Algeria article as you are generalizing that period and completely ignoring the fact that there were two periods with the Kingdom of Algiers being an independent state.

In conclusion, I strongly suggest that the article in question should not be deleted, and instead, the main article needs to be split to give proper attention to the Kingdom of Algiers. Thank you. Tayeb188 (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it is important to note that discussing the Kingdom of Algiers in an article titled "Ottoman Algeria" is misleading as it does not apply to the Kingdom and can be confusing for those who are seeking information about the history of Algeria in the 18th and 19th centuries. Therefore, a separate and proper article is necessary to cover this period, as there is a lot to talk about.

The current Ottoman Algeria article is mixing the two distinct periods in one article, which can lead to a misunderstanding of the history of Algiers for those who do not have a deep knowledge of the subject. It is similar to combining the Ottoman Egypt and Khedivate of Egypt in a single article. Thus, I believe that deleting this article because we don't want to screw up the "long established Ottoman Algeria article" would not contribute to the development of the history of Algeria and would mislead people.

If there are any concerns regarding the citations or information used in this article, I invite you to conduct proper research and make the necessary edits to further develop this new article. Tayeb188 (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside all the WP:OR here, you just explained yourself that this topic is already covered at Ottoman Algeria. Hence, it duplicates the scope of that article, or is otherwise an undiscussed topic split based on WP:OR. Every issue you just argued, whether it's about scope, article title, or topic splitting, belongs first in a discussion at Talk:Ottoman Algeria, which did not happen. R Prazeres (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article currently lacks coverage on Ottoman Algeria and it is suggested that a separate article be created for it. This is similar to the situation with the Beylik of Tunis or the Eyalet of Egypt, where each period has its own distinct article. Separating the periods into individual articles can benefit those with basic knowledge of the subject by providing a clearer view of each period, instead of blending them into one period. Additionally, editors can focus more on each period and provide more appropriate information. It is important to note that these periods are completely distinct from each other, and therefore require separate articles. Tayeb188 (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does not benefit readers, precisely because it would force them to look in multiple places for information they could find in one place, and divides the efforts of editors unnecessarily. That's why we don't split topics all the time. Ottoman Algeria, which covers this entire period, is neither long enough nor developed enough to warrant a split; and again, the place to argue otherwise would have been at the talk page. So now we have two lower-quality articles instead of one.

Beylik of Tunis is precisely the example not to follow, because as already discussed here, it overlaps tremendously and unclearly with Ottoman Tunisia and has led to an unclear, semi-arbitrary scope, creating a mess that will now take a lot of work to fix. If you want to improve coverage of Algerian history, avoid this. R Prazeres (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's your point of you and don't try to impose it on others you are trying to fit two separated periods into a one messy article witch is illogical it's like putting almoravid and almohad kingdom's into a one article mixing everything around,also article's must treat on something specific otherwise it would be complicated to further develop it because it would be very dense and THAT would certainly not benefit the readers.and when you said poorly developed, obviously what did you expect from a brand new article that will certainly be developed in the near future but again your solution is illogical you can't put this period of the kingdom with the other one and please think of it from a logical aspect other than a personal one because, i'dont know why but you are taking it very personal 37.169.165.210 (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said above, please log in to your account when commenting and editing. You are obviously not a random IP user and commenting here while logged out could appear like sockpuppetry, which I'm sure is not your intention... R Prazeres (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just noting that there is a possibility of this discussion being influenced by off-wiki canvassing ([7]). Historically, new editor accounts semi-regularly pop up to promote this kind of POV either on this topic or related topics, with varying degrees of disruption, and off-Wiki discussion is possibly involved in those as well (e.g. see end of this discussion). Hopefully that won't be the case here. R Prazeres (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely don't understand why you brought this up but to clarify, I simply invited him to discuss further development of the article because it is new and requires more research and citations. Tayeb188 (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not planning to use it to influence consensus, then it won't be an issue. R Prazeres (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV fork. Srnec (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
instead of saying two words please give valid reasons why this article should be deleted Tayeb188 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article Ottoman Algeria should really be expanded with this info properly sourced. Equine-man (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag for improvement -- but this may need tagging for improvement. The potential merge target Ottoman Algeria is currently a bad article as it says nothing on this period. It is possible that this is the result of material being removed from that target (a matter that I have not investigated). That article ends its coverage to 1713 with a short conclusion "Coup of Baba Ali Chaouche, and independence", which is then followed by accounts of attacks by European powers, mostly in the period after 1710. Note that 1713 seems to be a random date in relation to Algeria. It then ends with a section on the French conquest in 1830. There is apparently no account in that article on the internal affairs of Algeria in the period in the period 1710-1830, only of foreign wars. One of the "wars" is largely about much earlier conflicts and is out of order. The rest would make together a section on foreign wars of Algeria, if the Ottoman article should end at 1710. I am not qualified to know whether the content of the article is right or contains errors, but in either case the appropriate course is to Keep, correct, and link as a main article to Ottoman Algeria, a "main" article dealing with the period 1710-1830. Conversely, the account on the pre-1710 period in the article under discussion may need to be pruned. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by Ottoman Algeria "ends its coverage to 1713" or "it says nothing on this period": there is clearly content dealing explicitly with issues and events after 1710 throughout multiple sections, and the scope is explicitly stated in the lead. There is even a section explicitly about the post-1710 status here, and many of the subtopic sections like "Education", "Healthcare", "Architecture" etc have been composed to cover the whole period from 1516 to 1830, not artificially before or after 1710. So the issue remains why would one create a largely unsourced content fork, when you could simply improve the main article. R Prazeres (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV fork Whatever748 (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me that this is a POV fork. I cannot decide. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there is no POV fork over here,we are just doing our best to cover the history of Algeria without miss-leading people as its not a one period so it cannot be covered in a single article otherwise it would be very difficult to develop the article as it would be very dense and messy because the period is extremely rich in history and there is a lot to talk about,just as same as Khédivat d'Égypte and many other examples. Tayeb188 (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's useful at this point, let's address some of these issues more directly:
The POV of the article is not the main problem but may be an underlying factor. The IP's earlier comment above ([8], I assume Tayeb188), stating the new article "has nothing to do with ottoman algeria" contradicts any review of reliable sources on the matter. That kind of comment suggests the article's recent creation is motivated by an objection to the scope and current title of Ottoman Algeria, rather any actual need for a new article. If the word "Ottoman" is actually a concern, this can be brought up at Talk:Ottoman Algeria instead, but it doesn't justify a content fork. Among other references to consult:
Philip Naylor's Historical Dictionary of Algeria (p. xxxviii) explicitly identifies this period as "Ottoman Algeria", "1516-1830" (p. xxxviii), and his A History of Algeria covers the period in the same way (see Chapter 1, p. 9 to 58). See also his History of North Africa, Chapter 5 (p.109 and after), and his comment on p.153 about the onset of the French conquest: "Indeed, France seized Algiers, ending the Ottoman regency in 1830."

Likewise, Abun-Nasr's, A History of the Maghrib in the Islamic Period (p.151-68) treats this as one, evolving period, the Regency of Algiers (the common name in many references, indicated in Ottoman Algeria's lead), from 1516 to 1830. You can read Abun-Nasr's summary of the most important political changes over this period prior to 1830 on p. 160 ([9]).

Encyclopedia of Islam Three's article on Algiers treats the period from the 16th century to the 19th-century French conquest as "Ottoman rule".

You can find a similar identification mentioned in various references: p.119 here, p,19 here, p. 111, Ottoman section here, and so on, limited only by what's accessible online.
The later de facto independence of the state, while still under nominal Ottoman suzerainty, is explained in many of these references. Cutting off one part of its history after 1710 and labelling it a separate, unrelated state, has no basis in the sources. That the new article cites nearly no sources throughout should make that clearer.

Nor are there any sources claiming that from 1710 onward the same state became known as "Kingdom of Algiers", this is pure WP:OR: the entire "Name" section in the new article is predicated on some old French maps showing the words "Royaume d'Algiers", and that's all. No historians make any such claim.

Additionally, the Economy and Architecture sections of this article (and perphaps others) copied parts of the same sections in the Ottoman Algeria article, without attribution and without the citations of the original material, and despite the fact that these were written with the whole period (1516-1830) in mind. That's another way in which the new article merely duplicates Ottoman Algeria in order to try to give it the appearance of a full topic of its own, which it isn't. R Prazeres (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is simply not enough material here to support a stand alone article. Once you remove the duplicate info, unsourced content, and POV, at best you have an unnecessary StubFORK. // Timothy :: talk 19:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South Hopkinton, Rhode Island[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, could not find anything to establish this as a real or notable place. –dlthewave ☎ 16:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Rhode Island. –dlthewave ☎ 16:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any evidence this existed - no hits on Newspapers.com. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haygarden, Rhode Island[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, could not find anything to establish this as a real or notable place. –dlthewave ☎ 16:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any evidence this existed - no hits on Newspapers.com or GNIS. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neufa, Connecticut[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, could not find anything to establish this as a real or notable place. –dlthewave ☎ 16:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Connecticut. –dlthewave ☎ 16:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was almost prepared to call this a hoax until I saw this listing on Google maps. I didn't find anything when I search for Neufa on the Town of Woodbury site https://woodburyct.org/ or on the state website at https://portal.ct.gov/ Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which doesn't mean that Google didn't get their information from Wikipedia. This hoax has been sitting around unnoticed for a decade. --Jayron 32 11:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any evidence this existed - no hits on Newspapers.com or GNIS. That Google Maps listing seems to be taken from Wikipedia. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spurious GEOLAND. (Chiming in as a former adoptive resident of the Brass City; this otherwise unencountered toponym may find its way into my geofiction someday.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 04:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not even the town of Woodbury calls it Nuefa. They just say "Intersection of Route 6 and Quassapaug Road"

https://woodburyct.org/vertical/Sites/%7B59751637-3DF2-41D3-B20A-866E470B1D1D%7D/uploads/3-10-22_BOS_Minutes.pdf PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 20:49, 11 May 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ninth grade[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposing deletion as none of the tags have been fixed in 2/5/8 years; not just that, WP:TNT may even be an option. A WP:BEFORE search returned some sources, but no evaluation of anything to make it seem a worthwhile topic. Even so, the page as it stands would certainly not pass WP:AFC and thus I see deletion as a sufficient option. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much of it is unsourced, I don't see how this isn't already covered in the equivalent high school education articles for each country. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know much about the education systems of these countries but I imagine that some sort of sourcing must exist in their native languages. I'll tag the relevant nations to see if editors that patrol those countries' AfDs can add relevant sourcing to hopefully rescue this one. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan, Hong Kong, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Australia, Canada, Argentina, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Kuwait, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Scotland, Wales, New Zealand, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New Zealand links and a reference added - NealeWellington (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Personally I'm not sure I understand the WP:DEL-REASON behind the nom. Is it WP:DEL#6 (neologisms and OR?) or WP:DEL#7 (thorough search for sources failed)? If so, can the nom expand a bit? (Certainly I don't see how it can be for any of the other DEL-REASONs?) In terms of WP:TNT, I don't really understand that argument either. Surely at least some of the content is redeemable? Beyond that, to my mind, the topic/concept of Ninth grade (even if just constrained to countries that have such a grade that is so-named - like the US, Canada, Philippines, etc) has some notability and is surely referenceable to the extent that content could be kept. Normally WP:TNT is limited to cases involving copyright violation, advocacy, promo, SPAM, PAID, SOCKing, etc. Otherwise deletion is typically not a step towards cleanup. And, if TNT is to be applied, why limit to to the this article in the (apparent) series? Guliolopez (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: why just ninth grade in particular, and not each of the other articles we have on first through twelfth grade? I feel like content issues applying to one grade would likely apply to the others as their scopes are very similar, and any improvements, rewrites, restructuring, or any major changes made to this article should also affect the rest of the series. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:25, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources can just be imported from articles about the education systems of each respective country, and the article can be restructure without deleting the whole article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with caveats. There do seem to be reliable sources discussing ninth grade (I have added some into the article) and I think it's worthwhile to have a standalone article, albeit that it needs a lot of tidy-up to address the current tags. I also think the article shouldn't include countries like New Zealand or the UK where the expression 'ninth grade' isn't used; it seems very US-centric to assume that 'ninth grade' is the default, and Year 10 already exists and could be added as a 'see also'. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 05:33, 15 May 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Tesei[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local politician and businessman. Greenwich isn't a very large town and he was a member of the town's board (basically a town council), non-remarkable business career. I don't find sourcing about him, other than hyper-local descriptions of typical government things. Oaktree b (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Connecticut. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Objection. He was the First Selectman (Mayor) of Greenwich. The RTM is the town council (and one of the oldest legislative bodies on a municipal level in the US). This should justify a Wiki entry. Theanonymoustypist (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

additionally there has been wide media coverage (incl. state wide media such as Hartford Courant). He was a political candidate and is generally known beyond the Greenwich borders Theanonymoustypist (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of whether their job title was "councillor", "mayor" or "selectman", people at the local city/town/municipal level of political office are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because it's possible to verify that they exist, and rather the notability test for local politicians hinges on actually writing and sourcing substantive content about his political impact — specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his time in office had on the development of the city or town, and on and so forth — but there's absolutely no content of that ilk shown here at all. And unsuccessful candidates for statewide office also don't get articles on that basis either — even at the state level, the bar for inclusion in Wikipedia is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and this article doesn't show any credible reason why his candidacy should be viewed as a special case of significantly greater notability than other people's candidacies either. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a Mayor alone may not make him qualify per guidelines, but there is plenty of coverage on him, so he meets WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC. At least 3 citations are behind paywall, which I cannot access, but the titles imply coverage about him. Coutant mentions him 14 times. Hkkingg (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have implied coverage, but no indication of depth.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. "First selectman" is equivalent to mayor, supervisor, or chairperson in a local government. For towns of the size of Greenwich, they are not automatically notable. Willing to look for other sources. The current article needs a lot of work. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources and references provided the article appear to meet WP:GNG requirements. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 17 May 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 change scope and move‎ to Migrant nail salon workers in the United States. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Korean nail salon workers[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS

I do believe that this article is far too specific and falls under "What Wikipedia is not." I believe that merging the article is a good choice of action, but I am unsure what exact article it can be put into. Reading the article itself, it seems more of a comment on general discrimination that Korean nail salon workers have committed rather than an article on Korean nail salon workers, neither of which I believe deserves an article (can be divided into Racism in Korea, Asian Americans/Korean Americans respectively). However, seeing that the article is unable to fit into any of the articles mentioned due to it's highly specific and niche "newspaper"-like topics, deletion is not an unreasonable course of action.

comment added by Edward hahm (talk • contribs) 11:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strange combination of OR and combining several articles to suit a story idea. Nail salons are a thing, not sure why Korean workers there are notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is primarily what I wished to discuss. I could see sections of the article being moved to Korean immigrants, nail salons, and Asian Americans, but at the end of the day, I fully agree with this. That's what I mostly mean to say. Edward hahm (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you think the choice topic is a result of synthesis? Please look at the number of sources at the bottom of the article that have the exact same focus. small jars tc 16:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Korea, South Korea, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose the NOTNEWS criticism rests on the question of the endurance of the situation described. Apart from that, the title is missing an "in the US" qualifier. It feels a bit WP:UNDUE as it's only part of the situation of Immigrant workers in the United States, but since we don't have an article on that topic, I can't propose a merge; maybe it could be draftified and parts of it used as a basis for one? small jars tc 09:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, WP:NOTNP, and WP:UNDUE. CastJared (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The NOTNP/NOTNEWS argument needs to be defended here: do you just think that the style is too newspaperish or are you saying that the topic itself is unencyclopedic? Note that the earliest source referenced in the article that directly adresses the topic is from 2007, and the latest is from 2019, meaning the coverage spans more than a decade. small jars tc 11:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this article, like Balesh Dhankhar, is not a newspaper. CastJared (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer any of my questions? small jars tc 11:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that this article is not a newspaper, because there doesn't seem to be anything that is news-like in the first place. However, this article has other problems, such as WP:SCOPE issues (e.g. There are ingredients in nail products that are known to cause cancer and have been linked to reproductive issues. Dibutyl phthalate, toluene, and formaldehyde, alternately known as the "toxic trio," are three of the most common chemicals used in nail products is hardly exclusive to Korean nail salon workers). We also have unsourced, essay-like expositions like Customers can feel that they are being slighted and excluded by workers when they do not speak English, or that it is improper to speak Korean when they are around Americans. Clients also tend to feel suspicious that they are being talked about or made fun of by workers. Customers often think of workers speaking Korean over English as a choice and a show of obstinance instead of something necessary for them to easily communicate. I mean, there might be an encyclopedic topic here, but one would have to sift through the chaff in order to determine what is and isn't encyclopedic. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The decider between (a) expanding the stated scope of the article (imo to just "migrants") and (b) shrinking the scope of the content to just Koreans should be the relative weight placed on Koreans by RSes on US nail salon workers, which will take further Googling to determine. small jars tc 23:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Finding further sources providing WP:SUSTAINED coverage from as early as 2003 [10] has made the idea that NOTNEWS applies to the topic seem very silly to me. If people think there's a NOTNEWS problem in terms of style, the best response is cleanup, not deletion. I also found several similar sources on other, mostly Asian, migrant groups in the same business, [11][12] showing that our current coverage of these issues is heavely unbalanced and biased towards to particular case of Koreans. (The article does mention this: there are also Latina and Chinese immigrants employed by these shops) However, the way we fix balance on a WP:NOTDONE encyclopedia is by writing up the missing pieces, not deleting the little coverage we have on a notable topic. small jars tc 10:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A specific course of action I recommend is to move the article to "Migrant nail salon workers in the United States," rework the lede around this title, and leave a {{globalize}} template (not exactly what it's meant for but close enough) so that someone who has the energy can eventually improve the scope the article, and readers can understand it's limitations in the meantime. small jars tc 11:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm And now I realise the 2003 was on the page all along and I just missed it. small jars tc 12:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but trim the size of the article significantly. The fact that an article is very specific is not a valid criterion for deletion, as many of our featured articles tend to be quite detailed. Further, I don't see WP:NOTNEWS violations in the article; being a newspaper and talking about a news development are two very different things. There is WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this topic, even though it seems to be super-precise. Some of the sources, e.g. this and this, do talk about Korean nail salon workers at length. However, the scope of this article really needs to be whittled down to Korean nail salon workers in the US. Several sections ("Income and wage theft" and "Health risks" in particular) are not unique to Korean nail salon workers and can probably be removed. Other parts of the article (e.g. the paragraph Language is also a source of tension ... necessary for them to easily communicate.) are original research and really need to be removed as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Migrant nail salon workers in the United States" per small jars. I disagree that the article "seems more of a comment on general discrimination that Korean nail salon workers have committed rather than an article on Korean nail salon workers". The first three sections discuss Korean nail salon workers themselves, including how they enter the industry and how workers are organize / what their practices are. Even if it were the case that the article is more about discrimination against Korean nail salon workers, that topic itself meets WP:GNG since the references cite multiple studies about that issue going back to 1997. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. Expanding the article to include migrant nail salon workers could work pretty well. To that extent though, couldn't we expand this to Migrant Workers in the United States in general? I feel that would be more appropriate than specifying nail salon workers. The article currently does not exist, but I believe that it's a topic worthy of an article, especially given how much migrant workers in the United States general are such a major topic. Edward hahm (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the larger topic probably warrants an article, but I think small jars' proposal is a good interim solution since this article has already been written. Then, if the "Migrant workers in the United States" article is ever written, they could be merged. I would recommend starting a discussion on the WikiProject United States talk page to see if there's any interest. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I think that works! Edward hahm (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do want to add one more comment however. Wouldn't this fall under WP:UNDUE as per someone else has previously mentioned? Edward hahm (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason I made the proposal to expand the scope was that the alternative seemed to give undue weight to Korean workers. small jars tc 20:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point Edward hahm (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric William Barnum[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous PROD was removed. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:CREATIVE. Unable to locate any biographical details in reliable secondary sources. No indication of notable awards. The sources cited are press releases or self-sourced. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BASIC, ANYBIO, CREATIVE, and the WP:GNG. Most "sources" in the article are just different tabs of his Wordpress. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 16:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only hits in Gnews are obituaries for unrelated people, Gbooks is a dead end. No sourcing of any kind, fails CREATIVE or MUSIC,no charted singles, no awards won that we recognize. Oaktree b (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG I believe. Article was created by a single purpose account. If notable you would have expected more coverage in the years between creation and now. Equine-man (talk) 07:52, 14 May 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) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 03:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DXMJ-TV[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Television station lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Perhaps a redirect to GTV (Philippine TV network) might be an WP:ATD? MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 08:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These should be merged into 1 AfD, so people aren't spread thin trying to fix them. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello QuicoleJR. Either way, the most involved task is checking the references. So I don't think it matters whether the articles are nominated separately or together. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is one of the oldest TV stations in the Philippines outside Metro Manila, and it's one of the major originating TV stations of GMA Network, given that this TV station is located on a major City (Davao). -WayKurat (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NTV and WP:GNG per WayKurat's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No sourcing has been presented to backup the assertions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NTV, GNG, and all above. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 16:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WayKurat and deletion not actually being asked for at all. Nate • (chatter) 23:54, 7 May 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Krňávek[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Olympic athlete. Fails WP:NSPORT, searches for English and Czech sources only turned up routine coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Czech Republic. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure this guy is notable. He seems to get a fair bit of press coverage in RS such as Rozhlas Česká televize and HN. Leaning towards keep. The ČT source mentions he won a world championship race, though he isn't listed on the World Triathlon Cup page, so I'm not sure how to interpret that. I am, admittedly, completely ignorant about the inner workings of triathlon – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He won an individual WC race, but not the World Cup series. JoelleJay (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable, has coverage per above and won multiple World Cup titles as well as two national championships and a bronze medal at the European championsips. This passes the notaibility guideline. Article needs to be redone, but that is not a reason for deletion. Seacactus 13 (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how being a bronze medalist at the European championships, as well as nultiple World Cup wins does not meet GNG or NSPORTS? Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read either of those guidelines? JoelleJay (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not as they quoted a criteria I didn't even mention. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with filelakeshoe and Seacactus 13. This retired Olympic athlete is notable and there's a room for improvement/expansion. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the sources linked by Filelakeshoe would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It fails WP:GNG, WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:SIGCOV. Agreed with other editors. CastJared (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Looking at the sources presented in the first comment, CT about his retirement has about four paragraphs, including the statement Před dvanácti lety vyhrál Martin Krňávek jako první Čech v historii závod světového poháru v triatlonu. Jeden z našich nejúspěšnějších triatlonistů ukončil svou kariéru právě dnes na mistrovství republiky v Brně, translated as "Twelve years ago, Martin Krňávek became the first Czech in history to win a world cup race in triathlon. One of our most successful triathletes ended his career just today at the national championship in Brno." Rozhlas looks decent, with about eight paragraphs. Then the other piece is paywalled but the title makes it seem like potential SIGCOV: Nemůžu ani sedět, směje se Krňávek, který na MS v dlouhém triatlonu vybojoval 5. místo ("I can't even sit, laughs Krňávek, who won 5th place at the World Championships in the long triathlon"). Considering this plus the accomplishments for a foreign country about two decades ago (two Olympics, several national championships, medalist at the European championships), I think we have enough for a weak keep. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BeanieFan11. The reasons for keeping outweigh. FromCzech (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per filelakeshoe's sources. –dlthewave ☎ 03:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. BilledMammal (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Novichenko[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable person LusikSnusik (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Women, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The corresponding article in Russian ru:Новиченко, Тамара Дмитриевна has been deleted. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - meets at lest one criterion of WP:ANYBIO as Novichenko received a state honorary title (Merited Artist of the Russian Federation). ThegaBolt (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOCKSTRIKE. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe it's in part because of the language barrier, but we have no reliable in-depth sourcing to give a pass of WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Footnotes 3 and 4 of the nominated version do appear to be reliable and in-depth, but they're in-depth about other people and only mention Novichenko in passing. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vika Falileeva[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

the model is not notable. she was photographed for many magazines, but that is not a notability is about LusikSnusik (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the author is blocked by the way (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mishae/Archive) LusikSnusik (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing found for sourcing other than photos of the person. One article in Hola that looked promising but it's a photo montage of her. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as far as I can tell, she has little to no notable coverage in Russian or English. Jaguarnik (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

24 moral (Afrobeat Musician)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. The few sources out there are promotional PR copies. Mvqr (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Mvqr (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable musician. The subject doesn't meet any criterion outlined in WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the sources from The Punch and ThisDay is insufficient to establish notability. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because subject fails our notability guidelines, specifically WP:MUSICBIO. Sources are unreliable and don’t support the article. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Poor quality sources, not enough to show WP:MUSICBIO has been met Ravensfire (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Antonio[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable. Does not pass GNG. Sources are PR-stuff. See related AFDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aiona Santana, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farandula Records, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael McGuire, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clemente Romero. PROD'ded but template was promptly removed by article creator. Bedivere (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Eduardo Antonio has different facets in his career that organically relate him to Wikipedia articles. Below it will detail the most important to demonstrate relevance, apart from receiving approach by "CNN en Español", People Magazine, Billboard, among other media.

1. Eduardo Antonio has more than 10 albums, one of which entered the Billboard charts, specifically, for the single "Chikibombo", and he represented Cuba at the OTI Festival in 1996.

2. As an actor, he has participated in minor roles in many mostly Mexican telenovelas, as well as appearances in movies such as Before Night Falls, and the music video for Celia Cruz's "La Negra Tiene Tumbao." In addition, he was a presenter with Don Francisco in his program "Don Francisco Presenta" and "Sabado Gigante".

3. Mostly as a composer, he has written and composed more than thirty songs for soap operas and television shows, among them, "Mujer: Casos De La Vida Real".

Comment: I think that this is important, and his trajectory is very extensive. It would be good if the article was read well and judged for what it is, not because there is a relationship between the other articles mentioned above. Thanks. ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Chucho, who are you trying to fool? He presented Sábado Gigante? Really? If he did (which I doubt) that does not make this person notable anyway. --Bedivere (talk) 06:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what my argument depends on? ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Define "relevance" because I no longer understand your rationale for wanting to remove Alex Zurdo as well ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion needs more participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments since last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 13:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Athena SPACs[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article doesn't define what SPAC is, and all sourcing is press-release material or funding announcements. Beyond proof the thing exists, I can't find sources discussing it at length. Not meeting notability for companies/business entities. Oaktree b (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure ADMASQ with no sign of notability; could be also speedied as A7/G11. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here again, there is no payment being taken for the creation of this article. Boosquet (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to be paid for it to be PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note added updated sources, definition of SPAC, deleted press releases and links to articles Boosquet (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see issue, or they have been fixed. Ardenous (talk) 16:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article explains that SPAC = Special-purpose acquisition company. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
still non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added a definition of SPACs Boosquet (talk) 20:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a week, this article was tagged for AFD the day it was created and there has been much editing since. Please consider whether recent contributions make the deletion rationale still valid.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments since last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears to be about funding announcements, people joining companies, people leaving companies, all routine business things. The SPAC explanation is fine, I'm still not showing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Nearly every source used in that article is composed of routine coverage. I'm also not able to find sources containing non-promotional, independent, or actual significant coverage online. Yet another PROMO article. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:00, 9 May 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 Honeymoon (Lana Del Rey album). Daniel (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore (song)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG, no notability on its own. Sricsi (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Sricsi (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Honeymoon (Lana Del Rey album) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Honeymoon (Lana Del Rey album) as {{R from song}}. Not interdependently notable. ✗plicit 12:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Highlander cast members[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No apparent NLIST pass (sourced solely to IMDb) and just restates information from articles on the different films and series of the franchise. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost unnecessary. Orientls (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Together we can: South Africa’s Youth against AIDS[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Okay, this is a well-written start article, with multiple sources. However, almost all of the sources do not even mention the film. Only two, both primary, talk about the documentary. Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Health and fitness, South Africa, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: at first glance, this article seems to well-supported with sources, but so far I can't find that any of them mention the film at all, let alone the statements they supposedly verify. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG, in my view. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per UndercoverClassicist. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:06, 9 May 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. ✗plicit 12:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stationary[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Stationary" is just another adjective. This page is not a valid disambiguation page: it's full of WP:Partial title matches and doesn't list articles that might otherwise be known as "Stationary". A {{wiktionary redirect}} might be appropriate as an alternative to deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as least-worst option. It is generally considered reasonable to create a redirect to link from a song to an album track listing. So there needs to be something to connect "Stationary" to Copacetic (Knuckle Puck album). It would be less-than-ideal to have this general adjective and common mis-spelling linking to an obscure-looking album. So on balance the reader is better served by a slightly WP:IAR dab page which has a few Partial Title Matches, a useful reminder about the possible spelling error, a Wiktionary link, "Look from" and "In title" links, and that song title. Leave it be. PamD 10:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts I've trimmed the page to remove the PTMs: I think the song and the spelling justify the existence of the dab, and the "Look from" link leads to all the many PTMs including those which weren't listed in the dab page (Stationary orbit, Stationary engineer etc). PamD 10:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks. I'm content with @PamD:'s drastic edit as an alternative to deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per submission. Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as currently exists after the clean-up. There's a few partial title matches that maybe should be included but the search links are really sufficient in general. Skynxnex (talk) 20:34, 7 May 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. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adriaan Luteijn[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced, highly promotional article about a choreographer. Submitted *after* massive copyright violation removal by an account that appears to be his current employer. Does not appear to meet notability requirements. Risker (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Expanding: He is one of 20 choreographers at Introdans Arnhem. Not even the artistic director of that organization (Roel Voorintholt) has an article in either the English or the Dutch wikipedias. (Luteijn's article on Nederlands Wikipedia appears to be the same massive copyright violation as was found here, and is up for deletion.) Risker (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Risker (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ignoring the fact of the article being up for deletion on the Dutch wiki, at best the subject could be described as on the fringe, therefore fails WP:GNG in my opinion. Equine-man (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I started this page in May 2012 as a spin-off from an article on Introdans. Since then it has suffered badly from link rot and self promotion. It could use a rewrite, as could the Dutch version. However, a quick web search shows that the subject is a notable choreographer. Some possible sources for a rewrite: Dutch Culture, Theaterkrant, Alchetron, De Gelderlander, Rambert School of Ballet and Contemporary Dance, ArtEZ Studium Generale, Theater Encyclopedie, Dans Magazine, Introdans. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage is trivial [13], rest of the sources found are about as long as that one. Delete for lack of extensive sourcing. Not at GNG.Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aymatth's sources indicate he's notable, the article just needs improvement.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references does indicate notability, indeed. Per WP:GNG. Sure needs improvements but AfD is no clean up service.BabbaQ (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://dutchculture.nl/en/organisation/adriaan-luteijn		? Doesn't contain any readable material.	Contains his Linkedin profile.	✘ No
https://www.theaterkrant.nl/tag/adriaan-luteijn/			Not a single article in the list focuses on him. Trivial mentions at best.	✘ No
https://alchetron.com/Adriaan-Luteijn		Brands itself as a "free social encyclopedia" and references this Wikipedia article for its entry.		✘ No
https://www.gelderlander.nl/arnhem/adriaan-luteijn-benoemd-tot-ridder-in-de-orde-van-oranje-nassau~a4cbc388/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2F			Barely one paragraph of regular news coverage; nothing special and doesn't indicate he's notable.	✘ No
https://www.rambertschool.org.uk/fresh-friday-introdans/	"This week we’re welcoming" indicates its written because he's visiting the school; this is therefore not independent.	? Not sure since there's a COI between them.	Very short biography about a person visiting the school. Doesn't qualify as "significant" or as "coverage."	✘ No
https://studiumgenerale.artez.nl/nl/studies/people/adriaan+luteijn/	? It's not clear, although it's possible there's no connection.	? Barely any readable content.	Badly written, PROMO-style paragraph that contains no real information.	✘ No
https://theaterencyclopedie.nl/wiki/Adriaan_Luteijn		? Refers to itself as the "Theater Encyclopedia" and yet doesn't cite its sources.	Doesn't contain any biographical material; instead, a long list of his works occupies the article.	✘ No
https://dansmagazine.nl/choreografen-en-dansers/adriaan-luteijn		The article links to a website containing his name (indicating it uses that as a source). For some reason, the external link hyperlinked to "Luteijn" leads to a website that contains some odd content. Don't access it without an antivirus program.		✘ No
https://introdans.nl/en/choreographer/adriaan-luteijn/	He works for Introdans.	? Since there's a COI between them, I can't be sure.		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment – Pinging those who !voted keep. As you can see, I have created a source assessment table examining the links provided by Aymatth2. I thank him for his effort; however, none pass GNG. Other sources online also don't pass GNG from my observations. I feel like these unreliable, passing mentions and non-independent sources incorrectly make him appear as though he is notable. However, I am not able to find any source online indicating this. Also, none of the sources cited in the article pass GNG. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "source assessment table" is inaccurate and misleading. For example, dans magazine is clearly a reliable independent source that covers the subject in some depth. The fact that it gives a link to the subject's website is irrelevant. Theaterkrant is also reliable and independent. The list of articles tagged to the subject includes, for example. this one discussing in some depth his work with people with disabilities. The news item on him becoming a knight in the Order of Orange-Nassau is relevant, as is the long list of his performances given by Theater Encyclopedie. These sources come from a quick web search, from the first two or three pages, enough to show that the subject is a well-known choreographer. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The table is neither inaccurate nor misleading. I'll address your points here:

1. The fact that any website links to someone's webpage indicates it possibly used that as a source. Perhaps they forgot to ask him something during the interview and found it on his webpage instead. I'd also like to know why a link to his website yields spam. (What is "Dans Magazine" anyway? Why should we consider it to be reliable?)

2. This theaterkrant article focuses only on his charity work. That does not demonstrate WP:SIGCOV; WP:ROUTINE at best. Why is the bar so low here?

3. This article on him receiving an award also fails WP:SIGCOV. At barely a paragraph in length, it falls under WP:ROUTINE and can't be used to determine notability.

4. The Theater Encyclopedia does not cite its sources and contains no biographical content; instead, it contains a list of his works, which it probably aggregated from one of the other websites linked at the top. This cannot be used as a reliable, secondary source. If that were the case, I could create a website and my website would instantly be considered reliable.

—Nythar (💬-🍀) 19:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dans magazine is a reputable online magazine published by Virtumedia. Theaterkrant is a website and trade magazine for the Dutch performing arts published by the Foundation for the Promotion of Performing Arts in the Netherlands (Stichting BPN). Both are reliable independent sources, and both have published various in-depth articles about Adriaan Luteijn's life and works. These two sources alone are enough to show notability. Together with details from sources like De Gelderlander and Theater Encyclopedia (which reproduces the Production database from the University of Amsterdam's Theater Collection) there is enough material for an extensive and well-sourced article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aymatth2 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete Because Poorly sourced Kitrsjlhf (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reasoning above. The source assessment table isn't only there to determine the reliability of the sources; its purpose is to determine whether the subject passes the GNG, and in this case he does not. Every source turning up online is either too short, WP:ROUTINE, barely reliable, lacks SIGCOV, or isn't secondary. I do not believe these are enough to prove notability. An excess of sources does not result in notability, as has been demonstrated in the past. Nythar (💬-🍀) 08:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The central issue is whether we consider Dans magazine and Theater Krant to be reliable and independent. They seem to be the two main specialty journals covering the Netherlands dance scene, and both have published biographies of the subject and articles on his activities and works. If they are reliable and independent, the subject is clearly notable. Journals like this depend on their reputation for interesting, relevant and accurate articles . If they are seen as biased or sloppy in their reporting, readers will turn away and they will be forced out of business. For this reason, they tend to stick to facts that can easily be verified, and make it clear when they are quoting anyone who may be biased. I see no evidence that either magazine is in any way linked to the subject, or that any of the information is inaccurate. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Wikipedia articles citing these magazines include The National Ballet Academy of Amsterdam, Jiří Kylián, Igone de Jongh, Gayatri Patel Bahl, Stichting De Stilte, Halina Reijn, Beschuit met muisjes (play), Sahand Sahebdivani, Anne (play), Arts Union (Netherlands), Jefta van Dinther, Arco Renz, Olga Peretyatko, Floris Visser, Henri van Zanten, Five Easy Pieces (Milo Rau), Freek de Jonge, Maya Arad Yasur, Emmanuel Ohene Boafo, Club Guy & Roni, Kurt Vandendriessche, Lucas van Lierop, Fumiyo Ikeda, Ula Sickle, Alexandra Flood. Let's hope they are reliable. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Aymatth2, my only concern with the Theater Krant articles is that they lack SIGCOV. For instance, the article you linked to, about his charitable contributions, cannot alone indicate that he passes the GNG because it lacks "significant coverage". Its focus is on Luteijn's charitable contributions and it barely touches on his actual career, or his life, or something that would indicate he is notable. It also appears to be a ROUTINE article published just for the sake of publishing something. This list of the other Theater Krant articles does not yield a single article where he is discussed in detail. Moving on, one of my concerns with the Dans Magazine article is that the website that links to "Luteijn" at the start of the article, contains pornographic spam for some odd reason. I'm also not too satisfied with the fact that a single article that is quite short and that links to a spam website is the only article left from which we are supposed to determine notability. What I gather from these sources is that he is a non-notable choreographer; even if the Dans Magazine article doesn't link to that spam website, the article is still too short and contains too little information that would indicate he is notable. This is why we don't have an article for every one of these people who have been featured in minor magazines and websites. Nythar (💬-🍀) 15:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Dans magazine gives a 6-paragraph bio of Luteijn, links to a 30-minute video about his recent work by the public TV channel NPO 2 Extra, and links to 13 articles that mention him. Some are passing mentions, and some go into more detail. The bio and video are in depth coverage from two reliable independent sources, and the other articles are useful. (The link to the spam site will be because Luteijn or a friend started and then abandoned an adriaanluteijn.com site. Some spammers revive dead urls like these, which draw traffic from people searching for the name.) The 9-paragraph article in Theaterkrant is in-depth coverage of the work Luteijn has done with disabled people, work for which he was made a knight of the Order of Orange-Nassau. In-depth coverage of the artist's work demonstrates notability of the artist. Again, Theaterkrant lists 10 articles that mention him, providing useful detail for an article. The 4-paragraph bio from the Rambert School of Ballet and Contemporary Dance would count as in-depth coverage from a fourth reliable independent source. And then there are many news items, such as this list from de Volkskrant that give useful snippets for an article. The subject is clearly notable, with plenty of well-sourced material available for an article. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nik Halik[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Elttaruuu (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Greece, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Elttaruuu: no reason is given for deletion in nomination. LibStar (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this AFD can be justified as 1) promotional (albeit about someone for whom promotion is his main activity) 2) lacking in sources. One of the few seemingly significant sources - the Forbes one - is written by the co-author on his "5 day weekend" book, so I don't think that can be considered independent. That book was published by a small press, and the one other book of his that I can find was self-published. The one remaining article that I can find is the Sydney Herald one. It is pretty much a "lifestyle" piece and it does not appear to have done research to verify his claims. In fact, it says that he "claims he has been a professional musician, run with the bulls in Pamplona, rocketed to the edge of the Earth's atmosphere in a MiG jet fighter, climbed some of the world's largest mountains, chased tornadoes, written a book and joined the ranks of TED talk gurus." So I don't think that we have actual verifiability of most of those claims, except maybe the TED talk (TEDxBucharest, 2010). Lamona (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't met WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO more broadly. Overly promotional. LibStar (talk) 04:22, 8 May 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. ✗plicit 12:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kocheriv, Zhytomyr Oblast[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was a contested draft without improvement. No indication this is a legally recognized place, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All Ukrainian villages are notable as actual or potential battlefields. See the corresponding article in the Ukrainian Wikipedia and expand using those references and text. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is no source showing this is a legally recognized village.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://radmr.gov.ua/news/1559656382/ Radomyshl hromada, government webpage.

http://ukrssr.com.ua/zhitomir/radomishlskiy/kocheriv-radomishlskiy-rayon-zhitomirska-oblast electronic version of the History of cities and villages of the Ukrainian SSR.

https://tsn.ua/ato/gumanitarni-koridori-dlya-meshkanciv-naybilsh-poterpilih-vid-viyni-regioniv-vereschuk-rozpovila-pro-mashruti-13-bereznya-2007685.html Listing village on road for humanitarian aid in March 2022 Ceriy (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hi. Thanks for those. The first and second appear to be about a different Kocheriv, in the Radomyshl Raion, not this one in the Zhytomyr Raion. And the third doesn't give a specific location.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 08:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one village with that name. It is the one from former Radomyshl Raion. In 2020 there was a reform of raions, Zhytomyr oblast went from having 23 to 4. Now it is in Zhytomyr Raion. https://www.zhitomir.info/news_192685.html

Third link does list populated places along the evacuation route. So it is the same village when following the map. Ceriy (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative divisions of Zhytomyr Oblast this wiki article shows the changes in 2020. Ceriy (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The corresponding uk-wiki article gives the KATOTTH code as UA18040450200037286, which is evidence of legal existence. Let’s be cautious with deletions of Ukrainian place articles: there is confusion due to recent reorganization, and lack of resources because the Ukrainian government’s geographical databases seem to be offline due to the Russian invasion. —Michael Z. 17:13, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a separate, recognised settlement, so meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kvitneve, Zhytomyr Oblast[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was a contested draft without improvement. No indication this is a legally recognized place, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An earlier version of the article at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kvitneve,_Zhytomyr_Oblast&oldid=1152065745 was significantly longer. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Please expand the article from the corresponding article in the Ukrainian Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - longer does not mean better, and it had the same 4 sources. And does not address the issue of no official source showing it is a legally recognized entity.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to be clear which Kvitneve are we talking about? Kvitneve (Q4218730), Kvitneve (Q4218732), Kvitneve (Q4218735), Kvitneve (Q7242765), Kvitneve (Q4180942), Kvitneve (Q4218731), Ukrainian: Kvitneve Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 23:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It appears to be uk:Квітневе (Коростишівська міська громада), Wikidata Kvitneve (Q4218730), KOATUUU 1822583001 (the latter being evidence of legal/government existence).

Let’s be cautious with deletions of Ukrainian place articles: there is confusion due to recent reorganization of hromadas, and lack of access to authoritative resources because the Ukrainian government’s geographical databases seem to be offline due to the Russian invasion. —Michael Z. 17:18, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a separate, recognised settlement, so meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sota case[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While it received coverage at the time, there is no enduring coverage of the event. Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Crime, Events, and Spain. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. Just a news story, no WP:SUSTAINED analysis. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the little green man; no lasting significance. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stelios Kypreos[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find any decent coverage in Greek or Cypriot sources. Currently looks to fail WP:GNG and even WP:SPORTBASIC #5. The best that I can find are Stoplekto, a transfer announcement directly copied from a club press release, and Sportsup, a transfer announcement based on the Stoplekto article. Topiko24 is another transfer announcement, although not a good one as it doesn't even mention the date of the transfer and lacks depth in general. Please ignore articles like 12sports (translated) which clearly relate to a namesake. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Cyprus, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Found no significant coverage of the subject. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:14, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Heyking[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing anything that would satisfy WP:NACTOR. A minor role in Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory may be the pinnacle of his success. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swastika curve[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable mathematical curve. sourced only to the creator of the curve's book (the external link references that book). search for sources yields nothing. lettherebedarklight 晚安 09:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. lettherebedarklight 晚安 09:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Mathematical Models, the book in question by Cundy and Rollett. The claim is not notable in itself but is worth a mention in the book article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would this be worth a mention at your proposed target? It would be a substantial part of short article devoted to a comparatively minor part of the whole book. Giving such attention to just this but nothing else would seem to be WP:UNDUE. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's reliably sourced, certainly sufficiently for a brief mention in Wikipedia's usual "summary style". There is no suggestion of keeping the entire article text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only thing I can find about this is from open wikis, the mention on Mathworld, and one in a CRC book, which is simply a bare listing along with tons of others with no further information. Looking at other articles on plane curves, this doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. I'd also oppose a merge/redirect per my reply above. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an exhaustive repository of all functions that people have plotted somewhere. I concur that a merge to Mathematical Models would be giving this topic undue weight in the target article. It could be mentioned there if, hypothetically, a book review called attention to it, but that doesn't appear to have been the case. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have two sources (Cundy & Rollett, and MathWorld), but the MathWorld source merely repeats that this is from Cundy & Rollett, so it doesn't provide the independent coverage needed for WP:GNG. No redirect, no merge: this is too minor an aspect of the content of Mathematical Models to include there, so much so that any mention of it in that article would almost have the appearance of Nazi trolling. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no merge or redirect), per all above Delete-!voters: non-notable, non-GNG, too minor a part of Cundy & Rollet's book to feature in the article about it. By comparison, think of all the really interesting bits in Gödel, Escher, Bach... that we don't discuss in the article about the book. People can read the books if they want to see all the bits. – .Raven ^.talk 02:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of telephone area name changes in the United Kingdom[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't see a way in which this list is encyclopedic. It seems to be a reformatting of consultation comments from 2003 over what names area codes in the UK should have - very much minutiae. The article is sourced, the information exists, but in my view its content doesn't seem notable - WP:IINFO. The "status 2012" column looks rather like WP:OR to me, where one editor has decided to assess whether names contain "errors" and what they "should be". I think this is content more suited for a specialist website, rather than Wikipedia. Flip Format (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Lists, and United Kingdom. Flip Format (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note that there is no article titled Telephone area, suggesting that this is a list of name changes for something of purely internal use by telephone companies. It doesn't even appear that all of these telephone areas actually did have their names changed; I don't even know what column is supposed to represent what the name for each area is now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This list seems to be based on primary source documents, and has all the problems that articles based on primary sources tend to have. Where are the secondary sources that say, for example, which entries are OK and which are not? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 10 May 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. Falls under WP:SK #1, no reason for deletion. (non-admin closure)‎ JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 04:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Electronic Arts[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is full of discrimination against its subject. — PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Organizations. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep (as creator) - the nomination falls under WP:CSK #1 with no policy based rationale given. The entire article is sourced, and there are no assertions not backed up by reliable sources. I've no idea if nominator is associated with the company, but Wikipedia is not censored simply because someone disagrees with fully sourced content. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:18, 7 May 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. Withdrawn by nominator. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Cycling Federation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) English name, Italian Cycling Federation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Italian name, Federazione Ciclistica Italiana

Not-Notable Organisation: No Sources, Article Is A Stub. — PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: organisation appears to be notable as it is the peak national body for a major sport Jack4576 (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one news source from a not so reliable news site. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google shows many sources which talk about the FCI. There are sources in the Italian version which can be used here too. Paulpat99 (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Italy. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article can be expanded with references and text from the corresponding article in the Italian Wikipedia at it:Federazione Ciclistica Italiana. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The corresponding article in Italian has a few references that could be used, and there likely are sources in Italian as it is a national sports body. Nom, please conduct WP:BEFORE searches before nominating. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 07:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the article is in a poor state the organisation is notable as previous editors state. WP:BEFORE would have prevented this AFD even existing. Paulpat99 (talk) 07:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Paulpat99 (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple independent and reliable sources providing significant coverage. Nom should have tagged the page instead of AFDing this. Timothytyy (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organisation is notable, and the Italian article provides a good starting point for expansion. Mauls (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nom failed to do any WP:BEFORE. Seacactus 13 (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•Nomination Withdrawn- Due to information from Italian Wiki. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elk County Catholic High School[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-Notable School: Only 1 Source, Contains Promotional Wording. — PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: organisation is referenced by multiple independent sources Jack4576 (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools says:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria.
Sources
1. Weidenboerner, Katie (2015-09-22). "ECCHS students take on major tree planting project". The Courier-Express. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
2. Abraham, Chuck (2016-05-29). "Elk County Catholic graduates 48 during Sunday ceremony". Bradford Era. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
3. Davis, Alex (2014-09-24). "Elk County Catholic students look to beautify Million Dollar Highway". Bradford Era. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
4. "Elk County Catholic band students to perform at Pearl Harbor anniversary". Bradford Era. 2016-04-03. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
5. Cherry, Amy (2021-06-15). "ECCHS celebrates the Class of 2021 at commencement". The Daily Press. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
6. Fleming, Brianne (2020-05-18). "Elk County Catholic High School hosts 'virtual prom' for students". The Courier-Express. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
7. De Martini, Tom (2022-10-28). "Pa. high school football team opts out of playoffs after 7-2 season". The Patriot-News. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
8. Funk, Joshua (2008-10-19). "Five Elk County Catholic seniors score touchdowns in rout of Ridgway". The Patriot-News. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Elk County Catholic High School to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so now there is more sources for the article(only five listed on the articles reference list), but the article still does not qualify for a wikipedia article, it is too short & still contains promotional wording. No sources for the "notable alumimi". PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Neither "too short" nor "promotional wording" are reasons for deletion. Deletion is about notability and the availability of sourcing, not about cleanup. See WP:DINC. Interestingly, however, the kind of coverage that's driving the inclusion here would for an athlete or a business organization probably lead to the article being deleted as having only routine coverage. --Jahaza (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Christianity, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous SIGCOV-providing sources exist, proved by Cunard. PaulGamerBoy360 should have done a WP:BEFORE first. Timothytyy (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is obviously numerous WP:SIGCOV-compliant sources that a quick internet search would have found. @PaulGamerBoy360: Please conduct WP:BEFORE searches before nominating an article for deletion, it wastes time for everyone to have to !vote and find sources for clearly notable topics, this has happened on at least a few AfD's that you have nominated. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 11:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is determined by what coverage exists for the subject, not the current state of the article. WP:BEFORE isn't optional. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main concern is that this articles wording is promotional. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

69.92.163.38, I wish BEFORE was required! — Jacona (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Available sources sufficient for WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Red Dwarf concepts[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A collection of trivia / plot summary related to an old if classic sf TV show. References, where they exist (as usual, maybe for ~20% or less of the total content) are pretty much primary. WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:GNG/WP:NLIST, I fear. PS. The best WP:SOFTDELETE alternative I cna propose would be a redirect to Red_Dwarf#Setting_and_plot. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the problem is, there's waaay too much in the main Red Dwarf article right now. Some sort of catch-all elements article probably ought to exist, and if not this one, which? Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that overview articles on fictional universes (either prose or in the list format) should meet our policy on notability or such. Otherwise this stuff belongs on fan wikis, not here. Red Dwarf universe does not appear very notable, sadly, so a section in the main article is all we can do, I fear. Anything excess is just, well, unencyclopedic fancruft. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ALLPLOT type material that would normally be seen in FANDOM. It serves no encyclopedic purpose to speak of. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:49, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zxcvbnm. There isn't enough third-party coverage to support a stand-alone article, and these concepts are already covered in context in the plot. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most, if not all, of the actual major concepts described here are already briefly defined on the main Red Dwarf article, either in the "Setting and plot" or "Hallmarks" sections. There is not much in the way of non-primary sourcing here that would really warrant a spinout article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:22, 11 May 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. Participants have proved that the articles pass GNG and SNG, and suggested ways for improvement. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome (band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not meet WP:MUSIC. The only criteria it may meet is #1, which is not highlighted in the article, except for a quote from a Seattle Times reviewer. violetwtf (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this and I agree that, in retrospect, they may not deserve an article. They were a local sensation at the time, but only stayed together a few years. At the time I wrote it, I had every reason to think they'd last longer.

For what it's worth, much as with Ahamefule J. Oluo, they are on the border between music and theater, which means that WP:MUSIC may not be the right criterion. Lane Czaplinski, who is quoted in the lede, was probably the most important impresario in avant garde theater in Seattle for about 15 years, before moving on to the Wexner Center for the Arts in Columbus, Ohio.

Unfortunately, at the distance of 15 years, their "un-Google-able" name would make further research difficult.

I wouldn't object to a deletion, though I would still prefer a keep. - Jmabel | Talk 18:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One further remark: their main songwriter, John Osebold, is winner of a Stranger Genius Award, which had in other cases (but probably for theater, not music) been considered a sufficient reason for an article in itself. - Jmabel | Talk 02:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Jmabel | Talk 02:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2008-07 move to → "Awesome"

--Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As noted in above discussion, subject of article arguably meets WP:MUSIC #1, and main songwriter has won a nationally recognised award Jack4576 (talk) 06:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Stranger Genius award is a local, not a nationally recognized award, determined by the editorial staff of a local alternative publication. I'm not sure it meets the definition of a significant award in the field of music. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - It needs cleanup and there is not much to work with, but there may be enough for a basic stub page. They have been covered in several lengthy feature articles in the Seattle press (already cited). It might help to describe this act as a performance art troupe rather than a band, because theatrical shenanigans are the focus of most of their coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the Seattle Times and Seattle Weekly significant coverage in the article and there is also an album review and short bio at AllMusic here so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modern College of Management[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also nominated: Chanakya College of Management - both of these articles, which appear to be about the same school, have been unsourced since creation and present absolutely zero evidence of notability. A merge or redirect to Tribhuvan University is not a suitable alternative to deletion because it isn't mentioned there and that article is bloated enough with poorly-sourced cruft that it doesn't need more added. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom as it's not notable. DIV IN E 07:02, 9 May 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 Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case. Daniel (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dannielynn Birkhead[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails WP:BIO. The only reason anyone knows who she is is because her mother was a famous model. Dannielynn has done nothing noteworthy on her own and all of the articles that cover her and are cited here are silly puff pieces in things like People Magazine and Us Weekly, mostly covering things like her attending the Kentucky Derby and what dress she wore. She is not a working model, having appeared in a single campaign at age 6. The article contains a great deal of puffery and she simply isn't notable. If not outright deleted, this should be redirected to the article about her paternity case. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 02:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is adequately referenced. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The references don't establish how she is notable. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 02:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The current version of the article is much shorter than earlier versions, such as this one. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The current version doesn't contain all of the puffery, misinformation and uncited claims about her nonexistent modelling career. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 13:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was informative until you deleted half of it. Krotch Lockman (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Puffery is only informative to people who want to retain articles on non-notable BLP subjects. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 13:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that DB article should be removed because it's irrelevant. The girl is a teenager in high school, she's just a child of a very controversial woman. DB father desperately wants to be in the limelight, non stop "exclusive" tabloid interviews about his relationship with Smith, but they are not really notable people. Wikipedia is not TMZ, National Enquirer. Linearvector (talk)
Redirect to Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case.-KH-1 (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahamas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dannielynn Birkhead paternity case. Dekker2 (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - this appears to be an WP:INVALIDBIO due to the lack of significant coverage about her. Recent sources, such as Dannielynn Birkhead: Where is Anna Nicole Smith's daughter now? (Cosmopolitan, Apr 2023) seem to emphasize this with coverage focused primarily on the upcoming Netflix documentary Anna Nicole Smith: You Don’t Know Me, Smith, and the paternity case, before two grafs at the end noting where Birkhead resides, one modeling campaign in 2013 at age 6 with a promotional comment from the "co-founder of the fashion house", and the "Instagram account she shares with her father." The All About Anna Nicole Smith and Larry Birkhead's Daughter, Dannielynn Birkhead story by People in September 2022 is based on what her father says about her and Smith, and posts to Instagram, after several grafs reviewing the paternity case, and a graf mentioning her brother; a 2021 story from People, Dannielynn Birkhead Discovers Late Mother Anna Nicole Smith's Treasured Possessions for First Time has a similar focus on Smith and what Larry Birkhead and "Smith's childhood best friend, Jo McLemore" say. In 2016, Vanity Fair briefly reported: Anna Nicole Smith’s Daughter, Dannielynn Birkhead, Is Now 10—and Won’t Be Acting or Modeling Anytime Soon. The overall theme in sources I have reviewed is a lack of independence from what her father promotes, and tabloid-style interest in e.g. Anna Nicole Smith's Daughter Dannielynn Birkhead Is Cuter Than Ever at Kentucky Derby (ET, 2015), which does not support WP:BASIC encyclopedic notability at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete or redirect per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. She's a minor who does not appear to have sought out the spotlight (but has occasionally been thrust into it by the adults around her). No objection to recreating once she's an adult and if she starts attracting significant coverage on her own, rather than as a subject of her father's antics. pburka (talk) 23:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tvepiso[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a blatantly non-notable web-based TV series that is completely unsourced (previously only sourced with its own website). Per my WP:BEFORE there is a complete lack of independent reliable SIGCOV. I also considered numerous speedy deletion criterias, including A7. The only possible credible claim of significance is that there are 1,170,000 episodes. I do not think this is true, the website states that here that there are more than 900 pages. However, if you go to page 2 it does not work, instead, it displays the same thing as page 1. Given this, the fact that it's created by two high-school students, and the complete lack of English or Urdu coverage, I'm inclined to think that this fact is a hoax or false advertising and that the credible claim of significance is clearly false to an extent that A7 would apply. However, this might be controversial, so I'm taking to the AfD to decide. Additionally, this is moderately promotional but previously another editor, BoyTheKingCanDance, significantly trimmed the advertising, so this is probably bordering G11. Therefore, I'm taking this to AfD just in case. VickKiang (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Websites. VickKiang (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons detailed in the nomination. I reduced the unsourced information and found, as the nominator did, that in fact there's nothing notable here at all. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of villains in Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested WP:PROD. This is a straightforward WP:CONTENTFORK; the article's subject matter can be easily accommodated on Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman and/or the articles on the individual characters (indeed, the article was created simply by copy-and-pasting from these articles). No need to merge anything since again, the content has all been on the relevant articles since before the article was created. Martin IIIa (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an obvious content fork. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 00:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost entirely unsourced and very much unneeded. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lois_&_Clark:_The_New_Adventures_of_Superman#Cast. Where I'd just merge a list of them, since anything else is plot summary that belongs either in the overview of episodes (we have a list) or in the articles on said characters (many are notable like Deathstroke). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively. The proposed solution for a redundant contentfork is not deletion but merge back into the main article. Even if the material here should all be present in articles about individual villain characters, the connection is not completely present in the Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman article. Daranios (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is only appropriate when there's something there to merge. Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman already has all the relevant info on Lex Luthor and Tempus, none of the other characters appeared in more than a couple episodes each, and per MOS:TVCAST there's no need to list every single character who appeared in a TV series. Even if there were, merging this list would create an extreme WP:UNDUE issue where half the article is write-ups on one-off villains while the major recurring characters are omitted. Martin IIIa (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a list of notable villains - or more generally characters, for that matter - would be good to have. So this could be taken either way: Either expand, link, improve, source the current list, solving WP:UNDUE issues in the process. Or with regard to MOS:TVCAST make this a redirect back to the main show, if the non-recurring characters are treated within the respective season overview articles. Did you check that they appear and are linked there, Martin IIIa, so that there indeed is nothing to merge there? Daranios (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After reading over your post a few times I'm not sure what you're proposing (for instance, by "the current list" do you mean the one at Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman or the article which is the subject of this AfD?). To address what seems to be the gist, I don't see why you find the content in this article so precious that merging it would be preferable to improving Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman directly; again, anything that isn't WP:UNDUE is already covered there. I'm also not seeing the value in a redirect; who would type "List of villains in [TV show]" if they were looking for the article on the show itself? As to the season articles, I didn't check them because I've never heard that season articles are supposed to cover all the non-recurring characters. Are you sure that's the case, and if so, can you link me to the relevant guideline? Martin IIIa (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was indeed talking about our list of villains here when talking about the "current list". The list we have here could fullfill the functions of information and navigation: Which of the many notable DC villains made their appearances in the Lois & Clark TV series? (as many of the characters are notable in their own right, having their own articles or at least sections within List of DC comics characters). The list here has a steady stream of clicks, so there are readers who'd like to know about this topic, persumably beyond the very short section within the main article. If MOS:TVCAST suggests not all villains should be covered in the main article, what would be the solution? Either to improve the list. Or cover the topic elsewhere, which would be possible, and probably mostly already is, at the overview articles of the individual seasons. If it is decided that should be the route to go, then a redirect to the main article certainly makes sense, even if it is not an ideal, because slightly complicated, solution: In the absence of a list of villains, the 20 or so persons per day who are indeed looking specifically for this topic are referred back to very condensed version present on the main article. And if the search properly, with two clicks they can reach the series overviews. If we have no such redirect, the interested readers just come up empty. Daranios (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ALLPLOT with nothing to merge. Wikipedia =/= FANDOM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:47, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Zxcvbnm, as most of this is unsourced. I can support a selective merge as a compromise, focused on characters who are relevant to the subject matter covered in the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only characters/cast members from this list that should actually be listed at the Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman#Cast section should be the ones that were actually reoccurring cast members, and it seems that those character are already included at the main article, making a merge unneeded. The actual plot information describing what occurred in the various episodes these characters appeared in are likewise already covered fully at the different Season Lists for the series. Rorshacma (talk) 16:31, 11 May 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. ✗plicit 00:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not-notable, self-promotion, advert, out-of-date Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Cryptocurrency, Finance, Business, Advertising, Companies, Products, Education, Behavioural science, Economics, United States of America, and Washington. Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ascelyn (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even assuming it's not paid editing, the current page has two sources with passing references, failing WP:SIGCOV. 15:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- I wrote most of the current version of the article. I have no conflict of interest with the subject and was not paid to write the article. I found this article on 29 August 2016 after I supported retention at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futures (magazine). I rewrote the article because a notability tag had been added to it. Cunard (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Selection of four sources:
  1. The 1996 and 2009 editions of the John J. Murphy book The Visual Investor: How to Spot Market Trends:
    1. Murphy, John J. (1996). The Visual Investor: How to Spot Market Trends. New York: Wiley. p. 264. ISBN 0-471-14447-9. Retrieved 2023-05-06 – via Google Books.
      The book notes: "Technical Analysis magazine. One magazine that stands alone in this field is Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities (4757 California Avenue S.W., Seattle, WA 98116-4499). This monthly publication is a wealth of technical information. In addition to articles, it includes reviews of books and software products. The ads showing the different computer products alone are probably worth the cost of a subscription. Each January, TA magazine publishes a bonus issue that includes its Readers' Choice Awards. This poll of the magazine's readers rates various computer services in 20 categories, along with addresses and phone numbers. It is a valuable reference source in looking for products with high customer satisfaction. The 1995 Readers' Choice Awards (published in January 1996) is one of the sources used in choosing the services highlighted in the Resources section."
    2. Murphy, John J. (2009). The Visual Investor: How to Spot Market Trends (2 ed.). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. pp. 285–286. ISBN 978-0-470-38205-9.
      The book notes: "Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities is the premier magazine in the field of visual analysis (www.traders.com). It’s a great source of articles on that subject, in addition to reviews of books, software, and online products. Each January, S&C magazine publishes a bonus issue that includes its “Readers Choice Awards.” That poll of the magazine’s readers rates various trading-oriented computer services in 20 categories along with their contact information. It is a valuable reference source in looking for products and services with high customer satisfaction. The 2008 Readers Choice Awards named StockCharts.com “Best Technical Analysis Web Site” for the seventh straight year. Runner-ups included Worden.com, Traders.com, Yahoo!Finance, Investors.com, and Bigcharts.com. MetaStock (Equis International) and TeleChart 2007 (Worden Brothers) were named as the top standalone charting software packages. The “John Murphy Chart Pattern Recognition” (Equis International) was named as the top MetaStock Plug-in."
  2. Bassal, Omar (2008). Swing Trading For Dummies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 307. ISBN 978-0-470-29368-3. Retrieved 2023-05-06 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities is a magazine devoted to analyzing stocks and commodities from a technical perspective. The magazine is released monthly and covers charting, computer trading methods, and technical software products. The magazine also features interviews with trading professionals discussing their approach to the markets. The magazine isn't a resource for trading ideas. Rather, it helps traders improve their trading techniques by applying existing indicators or by using new ones. When computer code is necessary to implement an indicator that the magazine discusses, the formula or code is usually included. And I like the fact that figures are interspersed with the text to make concepts easy to understand. You shouldn't implement every strategy or indicator you read about in this magazine. Rather, look to refine your own systems by incorporating nuggets of information that arise from time to time."
  3. Heberlein, Greg (1988-11-07). "Jack Hutson - Stock Speculation Led Boeing Alumnus Into Magazine Future". The Seattle Times. p. D4. Archived from the original on 2023-05-06. Retrieved 2023-05-06.
    The article notes: "Hutson, 40, spent 11 years as a mechanical engineer at Boeing before breaking away to spend full time as publisher of Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities, a monthly magazine that has found a niche among investors. It has become an important destination for some of the biggest names in technical analysis. Such luminaries as Arthur Merrill and Robert Prechter contribute articles to the magazine. Hutson launched the publication in 1982. Within a year, at an annual rate of $250 a year, subscribers rose to 1,500. By 1984, with the publication price falling, subscribers soared past 10,000. ... The November issue contains articles on such issues as technical analysis of industry groups, half-day trading techniques and an Arthur Merrill article on cycles. The real buff can wait until early the following year, then buy a bound volume of virtually all of the previous year's articles - without advertisements - for $59.95."
  4. Colby, Robert W. (2003). The Encyclopedia of Technical Market Indicators (2 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-171162-3. Retrieved 2023-05-06 – via Google Books.
    The book notes on page 314: "The Inertia indicator was developed by Donald G. Dorsey and first introduced in the September 1995 issue of Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities magazine (www.traders.com). Dorsey’s Inertia indicator is simply a smoothed version of his Relative Volatility Index (see Relative Volatility Index)."
    The book notes on page 520: "Polarized Fractal Efficiency (PFE) was introduced by Hans Hannula in the January 1994 issue of Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities (www.traders.com)."
    The book notes on page 545: "Projection Bands were originally introduced by Mel Widner in the July 1995 issue of Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities magazine (www.traders.com)."
    The book notes on page 549: "The Projection Oscillator was originally introduced by Mel Widner in the July 1995 issue of Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities magazine (www.traders.com)."
    The book notes on page 583: "The Random Walk Index (RWI) is both a short-term overbought/oversold trend fading indicator and a long-term trend following indicator. RWI was introduced by E. Michael Poulos, “Of Trends And Random Walks”, Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities, V. 9:2 pages 49-52, www.traders.com."
    The book notes on page 590: "The Range Indicator (TRI) is designed to take advantage of an expanding normalized price range within an established long-term trend. TRI was introduced by Jack L. Weinberg in the June 1995 issue of Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities magazine, V13:6 (www.traders.com)."
    The book notes on page 618: "The Relative Volatility Index (RVI) measures the direction of price volatility and is used as a filter to confirm an independent price momentum indicator. RVI was developed by Donald G. Dorsey and first introduced in the June 1993 issue of Technical Analysis of Stocks and Commodities magazine (www.traders.com). A revision to the indicator was covered in the September 1995 issue."
    The book notes on page 697: "Triple Exponential Moving Averages (TEMA) uses three different Exponential Moving Averages (EMAs) in an effort to speed up signals and achieve a faster response to price fluctuations. TEMA was introduced by Patrick G. Mulloy in 1994, “ Smoothing Data With Less Lag”, Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities magazine, V. 12:2 (www.traders.com)."
    The book notes on page 702: "TRIX is a price momentum oscillator introduced by Jack K. Hutson, “Good Trix”, Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities magazine, V. 1:5, (www.traders.com)."
    The book notes on page 715: "The Ultimate Oscillator is a time-weighted price momentum oscillator introduced by Larry Williams, “The Ultimate Oscillator”, Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities magazine, V. 3:4, (www.traders.com)."
2. Additional sources:
  1. Gerlach, Douglas (1997). Investor's Web Guide: Tools and Strategies for Building Your Portfolio, Volume 1. Emeryville, California: Lycos Press. p. 49. ISBN 978-0-7897-1187-8. Retrieved 2023-05-06.
    The book notes: "Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities http://www.traders.com This monthly magazine provides traders with information on how to apply charting, numerical trading, and computer trading methods to trade stocks, bonds, mutual funds, options, and futures. The site includes excerpts from current articles; a Novice Trader's Notebook, which is a tutorial of technical analysis techniques; and an extensive search engine of related Web resources."
  2. Appel, Gerald (2005). Technical Analysis: Power Tools for Active Investors. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Financial Times Prentice Hall. p. 225. ISBN 0-13-147902-4.
    The book notes: "Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities, 4757 California Ave. S.W., Seattle, WA, 98116 (http://www.traders.com). This monthly publication publishes often highly sophisticated articles relating to stock and commodity market charting, research, trading strategies, money management, and other topics. Articles often require familiarity with advanced mathematical concepts and computer programming. It’s a favorite among research-oriented technicians, with interesting concepts even for relatively inexperienced technical analysts."
  3. Woy, James B., ed. (2000). Encyclopedia of Business Information Sources: A Bibliographic Guide to Citations for Publications, Organizations, and Other Sources of Information on Business-related Subjects (14 ed.). Farmington Hills, Michigan: Gale Group. p. 327. ISBN 0-7876-2733-X. ISSN 0071-0210. Retrieved 2023-05-06 – via Internet Archive.
    The book notes: "Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities: The Trader's Magazine. Technical Analysis, Inc. 13 times a year. $64.95 per year. Covers use of personal computers for stock trading, price movement analysis by means of charts, and other technical trading methods."
  4. Kaufman, Perry J. (1987). The New Commodity Trading Systems and Methods. New York: Wiley. p. 4. ISBN 0-471-87879-0. Retrieved 2023-05-06 – via Internet Archive.
    The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Writings on other technical methods are more difficult to find. The magazine Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities stands out as the best source of regular information; ..."
  5. Murphy, John J. (1986). Technical Analysis of the Futures Markets: A Comprehensive Guide to Trading Methods and Applications. New York: New York Institute of Finance. p. 486. ISBN 0-13-898008-X. Retrieved 2023-05-06.
    The book notes: "The best single source of information to help one keep abreast of developments in this rapidly changing area is a computer-oriented magazine, Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities (published by Technical Analysis, Inc.: 9131 California Ave SW, Seattle, WA 98136). Besides publishing computer-oriented articles on technical analysis, the magazine reviews current literature along with computer software and hardware services available to the futures trader."
  6. "Smart stops on the web". Journal of Accounting Research. 196 (2): 25. August 2003. Archived from the original on 2023-05-06. Retrieved 2023-05-06 – via Gale.
    The article notes: "Investors, traders and financial planners alike will want to check out the link to the free articles on the Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities magazine Web site. Recent titles include "A Rationale for Managed Futures" and "Market Profile Basics." Users also can find investment software product and Web site reviews, as well as take advantage of a glossary and subscribe to a free e-mail newsletter."
  7. Couch, Clayton A. (July 2006). "Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities". Library Journal. 131 (12). Archived from the original on 2023-05-06. Retrieved 2023-05-06.
    The review notes: "For sophisticated investors, stocks and commodities markets are notoriously volatile places, to be navigated with caution; for small independent investors, they can seem hazardous and incomprehensible. Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities eliminates the fear factor by educating investors large and small about the forces that drive apparent market capriciousness. Patrons interested in online trading, automated day-trading, current market patterns, and the like will want to pore over this superb publication each month."
  8. QFINANCE: The Ultimate Resource. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. 2014. ISBN 978-1-4729-1589-4. Retrieved 2023-05-06 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "This monthly magazine provides traders with information on how to apply charting, numerical, and computer trading methods to trade stocks, bonds, mutual funds, options, forex and futures, and examines both old and new trading methods, techniques and products."
  9. Fontanills, George A. (2005). The Options Course: High Profit and Low Stress Trading Methods. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 500. ISBN 0-471-66851-6. Retrieved 2023-05-06.
    The book notes: "The online site of Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities magazine has monthly featured articles and excellent educational information for the novice trader. A wide variety of links and resources make this a useful site."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Murphy wrote in 1986: "The best single source of information to help one keep abreast of developments in this rapidly changing area is a computer-oriented magazine, Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities". Murphy wrote in 1996: "One magazine that stands alone in this field is Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities ... This monthly publication is a wealth of technical information." Murphy wrote in 2009: "Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities is the premier magazine in the field of visual analysis ... It's a great source of articles on that subject ... It is a valuable reference source in looking for products and services with high customer satisfaction."
Perry J. Kaufman wrote in 1987: "Writings on other technical methods are more difficult to find. The magazine Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities stands out as the best source of regular information ..."
Cunard (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Cunard's sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cunard's sources are fine. Once notable, always notable Jack4576 (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not remotely paid editing, and the sourcing identidied by Cunard are more than fine. Whether it's up to date or not has no bearing on notability. Star Mississippi 15:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A slam-dunk WP:GNG pass based on the sources presented by Cunard. Sal2100 (talk) 15:41, 12 May 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.