Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 November 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 07 November 09 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samina Khalid[edit]

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

There's no single reliable source with significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BBC News website (Urdu-language service) reference was translated in English from Urdu and formatted properly. The other reference is from Pakistan Television. I am sure both of these sources are independent reliable sources. Samina Khalid is a veteran award-winning actress...Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Also added an archived profile of Samina Khalid...Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:44, 10 November 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. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Campbell[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACADEMIC. Being an editor at The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies does not make him notable, there are no reliable sources talking about him that I could find. Everything that needs to be said on this guy is already covered in the journal's page. SparklyNights 21:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't see any substantial coverage of him personally, he doesn't appear to qualify for any of the options in WP:NACADEMIC, and I'm not finding enough coverage of his books to suggest notability as an author. (I note that the WP account User:RLCampbell is self-declared to be Robert L. Campbell. It has no edits related to this article, but I'm mentioning him here in case he wishes to comment. Since the account has no edits since 2014, I doubt whether he will.) --RL0919 (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Music, Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. His book Knowing Levels and Developmental Stages has 569 citations in GS, so will probably have reviews. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking for actual reviews has not confirmed that assumption in my experience. If anyone has found reviews, please let us know. --RL0919 (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if it (in 1986) falls into one of those holes that our library databases don't cover? I tried one of the hits in Ebsco, and got: "After I recommended Robert Campbell and Mark Bickhard’s monograph on the reflective construction of developmental stages (Campbell and Bickhard 1986), he said it had the most influence on his thinking of anything he ever read." which suggests it was influential. [3] Espresso Addict (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's also an example of a passing mention rather than substantial coverage, which is why GS hits alone can't establish notability. Regarding the possibility of a coverage hole, I just did WP:LIBRARY searches for some notable 1986 academic books: Weapons of the Weak, The Fragility of Goodness, The Dream of Reality, and most relevantly Social Foundations of Thought and Action (a psychology book). I immediately found multiple reviews for each. So, no, I don't believe the lack of reviews is a data artifact. The book just doesn't seem to have gotten a lot of reviews. And this is his major work in psychology – his other two books in the field are translations. Unless there's evidence he really moved the needle as a part-time jazz critic, I think the case for notability is getting worse, not better. --RL0919 (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Editing a "major, well-established academic journal", more than 3700 citations on Google Scholar with an h-index of 25, and the library holdings all in all show notability according to WP:PROF. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sifting out the Google Scholar results for all the other R. L. Campbells, I don't think there's enough to justify a pass by WP:PROF#C1. And I don't think the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is weighty enough to qualify for WP:PROF#C8. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The journal editor seals the notability, seems to be a respected journal. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons given by XOR'easter. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is indeed not a hugely important journal. --Randykitty (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The citation record (3730) in a low citation field is also a pass of WP:NPROF C1. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes criterias 1 and 8 of WP:NACADEMIC. Saying otherwise just isn't accurate, and boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments that are ignoring facts in evidence.4meter4 (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Right now I see no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The combination of citations in a low citation field, acting as editor of both the aforementioned journal and as an editor[4] of New Ideas in Psychology seems to add up to PROF. —siroχo 09:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have struck my earlier !vote. The editorship of New Ideas in Psychology makes this bio pass PROF. --Randykitty (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes more than one criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. Also has more than 2,000 citations and 65 publications per Research Gate. Wozal (talk) 16:15, 11 November 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. No valid P&G-oriented rationale has been offered as to why this page should be kept, hence the consensus here is delete. Daniel (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Johnson (journalist)[edit]

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

The references cited contain many mentions of him, but I can't see any substantial coverage about him as a person. This in HuffPo is probably the most detailed coverage but his role still only merited a relatively small chunk of the source. My own searches have not turned up anything better, so it doesn't appear as if WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE are met. SmartSE (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Coalah (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've read Johnson and am unclear why this particular entry would be targeted. Johnson's career is wide-ranging, from leadership to publishing. I'm curious as to what would even bring a deletion like this to someone's radar. Quotesout (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, have to say that I wonder, as well. From a number of venues and situations (such as his work at Think Progress/Climate Progress, his blog / newsletter HillHeat (https://hillheat.news/), founding executive director of Climate Hawks (https://theintercept.com/staff/brad-johnson/)), Johnson's writing/work has had influence on domestic U.S. climate-science/-policy discussions. Many phrases / ideas / issues / framings first raised by Johnson have been later echoed / repeated in more traditional/larger outlets over the years. He's had influence and reach even as/if he has (yet) been profiled in the NY Times. SiegeAD (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP ... oops ... should have started comment above with that. Johnson seems legit, to me, for a Wiki page. SiegeAD (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I see from the reply I am supposed to put a "KEEP" in the comment. I am still confused as to why this would be a page marked for deletion. I've seen a lot less important pages on Wikipedia. Could this be a targeted effort? 66.44.16.222 (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to login! Quotesout (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quotesout, the best argument to Keep an article is not making ridiculous charges of an article being targeted but finding reliable sources that will establish notability. Claims without evidence are just opinions and are not persuasive. For what it's worth, there are about 100 articles nominated for deletion every single day and I doubt they are all someone's targets. Liz Read! Talk! 07:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also, these keep votes seem strange. DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 15:25, 9 November 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! 23:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicaragua–Syria relations[edit]

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

This article is based on 2 factoids, rather than meaningful bilateral relations like trade, state visits. The fact that one president sent another a congratulations cable is hardly encyclopaedic. Neither is voting against a UN decision. LibStar (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added an article adding cooperation.
-- MaliMail (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The additional article is not in-depth coverage of relations with Syria. LibStar (talk) 09:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources covering this topic in any sort of detail could be found. Yilloslime (talk) 06:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Foreign relations of Ukraine#Oceania. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Micronesia–Ukraine relations[edit]

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

There really isn't much to these relations like actual trade, state visits, agreements or migration. Micronesia is just one of many countries that supported United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 and supports Ukraine in its current war. Fails GNG LibStar (talk) 22:46, 8 November 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. leaning Keep via WP:HEY due to improvements made to the article during this AFD discussion. I don't think prolonging this discussion will lead to any further resolution as opinion is pretty strongly divided. I do not recommend a quick trip back to AFD as I think it will have a similar closure or even a Keep.

This isn't the first heated AFD discussion I've closed that concerned GEOLAND guidelines and I think a well-worded RFC might help adjudicate these disputes. Liz Read! Talk! 04:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red Bank, California[edit]

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

Another stub on a non-notable dot that once appeared on maps of California. PROD declined because of 3 references, but none of them establish notability or even that this was ever a populated place, thus failing WP:GEOLAND. Existence of a post office, as has been decided in several previous AfD's, does not count for notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and California. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's enough — barely, but enough – in the histories here to support an article. Uncle G (talk) 21:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The question here is whether the article is appropriately sourced. It is not a GEOLAND pass as there is no evidence of legal recognition (simply positioning a post office there is not legal recognition of a populated place, as post offices can be located outside communities, as can schools, and more basically post offices are not automatically or presumed notable), so it needs to meet WP:GNG, especially, we need to be able to show significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. The sources are as follows:
    • Tehama County Place Names - This is a self-published work and thus unreliable per WP:SPS. The authors have no evidence of expertise on the topic. The researchers involved in creating it include local high-school students. This is not a reliable, independent source.
    • LA POSTA: A JOURNAL OF AMERICAN POSTAL HISTORY - The sole coverage of the actual location here is two single-line entries in a list that read as follows:
        • "Eby 4 23 Apr 1894 23 Jun 1904 Was Colyer; M. to Redbank"
      • "Redbank 3 23 Jun 1904 31 May 1918 M. to Red Bluff"
    • This is the very essence of a trivial mention of the topic.
    • The USPS register - Again, the sole coverage of the location is:
      • "Redbank, Tehama: Beall, Chas S, PM $117 Red"
    • This is not significant coverage of the topic in any meaningful sense.
  • As such this article is a straight-forward failure of notability. FOARP (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your analysis of the Hislop and Hughes source is fallacious, and I have already debunked it at length at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Camino, California. To précis: The authors are not high school students, and the sources that they cite, 9 pages of them, are not high school students either. Reading just one acknowledgement on the acknowledgements page and then claiming that that means that the thing was written by high school students is really quite a poor show. Uncle G (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Uncle G - Sorry, but you haven't actually addressed the substance of my point here: this is a self-published book by non-professionals based on information collected in part by high school students . It doesn't matter who it cites, the problem is, without fact-checking of the kind that an established and reputable publishing house gives, we do not know if the content we are trying to cite this self published work for is accurately sourced. Especially in this case, the authors tell us that some (all?) of the information about Red Bank comes from one Opal Thornton Mendenhall, apparently a local, - that was their source.

        If there is a more reliable source for this information, then cite that, not this source which, again, and underlined simply to stress this point, is self-published. FOARP (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        • Nonsense. As I said, this wholly fallacious analysis is all debunked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Camino, California, including your floundering around trying every which way, switching from mischaracterizing it as the work of high-school students, as you just did here again while falsely claiming that you aren't doing it, to how two professional historians are "non-professionals". This is a very poor show of not even actually bothering to read the author's names from the citation, even though I added them to it. Uncle G (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • So who published this book? Not the Tehama Department of Education. FOARP (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is yet another very poor show of not even bothering to read the top of the page that I pointed you to where it is published to this day, and not self-published. I have no evidence that Donald L. Hislop or Benjamin M. Hughes even have their own publishing houses or their own WWW sites to self-publish on. You want to claim that this is self-published? Point to Donald L. Hislop's or Benjamin M. Hughes's own publishing house or WWW site. This really is the most shameful try-anything-from-"kids"-to-"not historians"-in-the-hope-that-it-sticks-and-ignore-what's-staring-you-in-the-face repeated attempt to discredit a perfectly alright history by some historians. I suspect that the goal is driving the reasoning, not the evidence. Because having to explain to you four times over that the authors are on the title page, not the acknowledgements, and having to go into the very basics of what Hislop and Hughes publishing something themselves would look like, is ludicrous. Uncle G (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in addition to the Red Bluff Chamber of Commerce saying it existed, and the map I just added, and source saying it's essentially the area that used to be Rancho Barranca Colorado ("Red Bank Ranch"), there are 14,336 Matches · "Red Bank" from 1848 - 2020 in Tehama County, California in Newspapers.com. I'm about to dive in. jengod (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Red Bluff Chamber of Commerce saying it existed" - The quote describes it as a "center", not as anything else. Simple existence does not confer notability. Notably the other sources describe it as a "farm center", farms have to pass WP:NCORP.
    • Similarly a one-room school house does not demonstrate a GEOLAND pass, schools are not given presumed notability per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. FOARP (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. reason is WP:GEOLAND. बिनोद थारू (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @बिनोद थारू - GEOLAND requires 1) a legally-recognized 2) populated place. Neither has been demonstrated here. FOARP (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would you say a post office is a legal recognition बिनोद थारू (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I would not. This is something that has been discussed many times at AFD: Post offices can be located inside stores, stations, farms, mines etc. and need not be located in an actual populated community. FOARP (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • The passage I believe to prove Geoland is:
            A 1909 guide to Tehama County published by the Red Bluff Chamber of Commerce stated "Being strictly a rural county, there are not many towns of much size...Paskenta, Henleyville, Manton, Lyonsville, Kirkwood, Proberta and Red Bank are smaller centers in different parts of the county
          • This is from article itself and sourced. बिनोद थारू (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • It describes the Red Bank as a "center", nothing else. Notably another source calls this a "farming center" so I wouldn't assume it refers to a town. It is also worth looking at the original source to see the multi-page gap between the word "size" and the word "Paskenta" that are separated by "..." in this quote - whoever posted this is taking distinct liberties. Red Bank was not a town and this source does not say it was one. FOARP (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • Grammatically, the sentence assigns the word town as well as the word center to Red Bank. बिनोद थारू (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                • Grammatically the original source does no such thing. The two phrases that have been misleadingly coupled with "..." are not in the same sentence. FOARP (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Hey @FOARP I hated the idea that I confused anybody by knitting those quotes together (it made sense in my head at the time!) so I just turned the advertorial of it into a image, cf File:Smaller centers of Tehama County.jpg|thumb|In 1909 a Red Bluff Chamber of Commerce brochure marketing Tehama County described Red Bank as one of the "smaller centers" of the county - Cheers jengod (talk) 00:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • I read the Wiki article and there is just too much separate sourcing that suggests this is a inhabited place to categorically deny the sources one-by-one as self-published or unreliable and at the end claim it's not inhabited. One or more source being self-published does not prove the place is not inhavited. In fact, there is a school named Red Bank, post office named Red Bank and one can verify (WP:V) today in street view that there is a Red Bank fire department at this exact site.

            I find the opinion that this is not a inhavited place very unconvincing overall. बिनोद थारू (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

            • The "post office" was the home of CS Bell, the "library" was also the home of CS Bell, the "school" was a one-room building which may also have been the home of CS Bell for all I know. Given the liberties taken with the sourcing I would check the original sources before coming to a conclusion - the self-published source was not published by the Tehama Dept. of Education but for some reason that was how it was posted, and the quote from the board of commerce is quite silly - the start of the quote isn't even on the same page or even the neighbouring page from the end of it.

              And let's remember: to pass GEOLAND legal recognition is required. No proof of such is provided here. FOARP (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

              • Even towns with one person or zero person population have their place on wikipedia (GEOLAND). बिनोद थारू (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                • Only if they have legal recognition, which there is no evidence at all of here. GEOLAND does not confer a presumption of notability on every inhabited place. FOARP (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                  • USPS register also proves legal recognition. बिनोद थारू (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                    • USPS lists Post Offices in mines, stores, farms etc. - are these legally recognised populated places? FOARP (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                      USPS proves "legally recognized" only. The "populated" part is proven by other sources, like:
                      • She was born July 30, 1909 in Red Bank, a small ranching community outside Red Bluff. She was raised in Red Bluff area and was a 1926 graduate of Red Bluff High School (Indian Valley Record. Apr 10, 2002. pg 14)
                      बिनोद थारू (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                      "Legally recognised populated place" requires that the location is legally-recognised as a populated place. Simply having some government agency at a location does not do that. For that you're really talking about incorporation or another form of legal recognition. FOARP (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                      This proves WP:GEOLAND legal recognition:
                      A 1909 guide to Tehama County published by the Red Bluff Chamber of Commerce stated "Being strictly a rural county, there are not many towns of much size...Paskenta, Henleyville, Manton, Lyonsville, Kirkwood, Proberta and Red Bank are smaller centers in different parts of the county
                      Recognized as a community by Chamber of Commerce. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                      बिनोद थारू, in North America, a local Chamber of Commerce is just a business association. The members are local businesses; in a rural county most of them are very small. They are not government organizations. Nothing they do meets WP:GEOLAND
                      --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's FOARP taking liberties with sources, here. Xe has taken the acknowledgements page, which thanks some schoolchildren, alongside the "staff of the Tehama County Assessor’s Office" and some others who make a far less convenient false narrative than "the great kids at Red Bluff Union High School and their teach Mr. Osbourne who I'm sure did a great job at their class-project for US history", and presented that again and again. When that's debunked, xe switches tack to how this isn't professional historians. But the names of the authors were the first thing in the citation and they are (or were, since one is dead) credentialled professional historians, with publication records going back to the 1970s in one case. Xe switches tack again to how Gilliam put the Tehama County Department of Education into the first version of the article five years ago, but doesn't bother to check, and doesn't discover the publication by the Tehama County Genealogical & Historical Society. Make no mistake, it is FOARP who hasn't got things even remotely right, here, and the taking of the acknowledgements as authorship is only one of the bunkum shifting and try-ing-every-which way attempts to discredit a perfectly alright historical work written by two local historians with advanced degrees (also on the title page, but again conveniently not read) in the field. Uncle G (talk) 08:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                • Was this book published by the Tehama Department of Education as was originally claimed? Was it published by the Tehama County Genealogical & Historical Society as you are claiming now? It wasn't published by either of them - they merely hosted it on their website: this is what I'm talking about when I say "liberties". And yes, the book credits school-children as contributors. FOARP (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                  • See above. It's put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is time. Point to the author's self-publishing WWW site or publishing house. The onus of proof is on you. Also, I didn't claim anything about the Tehama County Department of Education, at all, anywhere. You're shifting and squirming again. Uncle G (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
                    Sorry, are you asking me to give you the publisher for something that had no publisher? It doesn't work like that. FOARP (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Additional mentions of Red Bank:
    • She was born July 30, 1909 in Red Bank, a small ranching community outside Red Bluff. She was raised in Red Bluff area and was a 1926 graduate of Red Bluff High School (Indian Valley Record. Apr 10, 2002. pg 14). This proves that it was inhabited.
बिनोद थारू (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It was certainly a place a lot of people thought they were from, including presumably these kids and their teacher at Red Bank School. Local newspapers ran little news briefs about residents under the headline Red Bank Notes from at least 1905 to 1930, there was a Red Bank Fire in 2019, this guy's family says he was born in Red Bank in 1914, it had a seasonal fire station in 2007. Etc. jengod (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Also, it hosted a game bird hunting club in 2006, in 1893 "the people of the neighborhood of the Red Bank district school" were thinking of starting a literary magazine they would call The Hornet, the Red Bank farm center had 46 members in 1927 and they were very excited, there was a lawsuit involving Jackson Eby and the Red Bank School District in 1888, and church trustees forbade tap dancing in 1936, and so forth. I mean it's just a countryside zone outside of Red Bluff in the thinly populated county of Tehama, but it's definitely a place! jengod (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I added a section for Red Bank Fire with a brief summary and a link to our article Red Bank Fire. jengod (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. This is very much no longer a stub, and the purportedly self-published work seems to have received implicit recommendation by the Tehama County Genealogical & Historical Society (see: here), which contributes towards reliability in light of WP:UBO. I'm also able to find a ton of information on that Red Bank School closure (see [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10], etc.) as well as indications that there were indeed land transactions that made this something of a defined area ([11]). There's also coverage of the school district and its associated elections that take place throughout the 1890s and the first half of the 20th century ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]). At minimum, what we have here is a WP:GNG-passing-but-defunct school district, though it's also frankly quite clearly a historically populated place with a whole vibrant community that may well have had significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources over the years. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:UBO - ”The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence.”. How does a local historical society hosting this self-published book on their website even nearly begin to get near to a UBO pass that requires “widespread and consistent” use to evidence strongly? FOARP (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Meh. The local historical societies tend to be quite good in these respects. And the plethora of additional news sources show that an article can be written about this, whether as merely a school district or as an unincorporated community. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • But they're not actually using this source? The same site gives you links to a whole load of sources that we regard as non-reliable (Findagrave.com, rootsweb, Wikipedia) - are these reliable now because of their "implicit recommendation"?

          Piecing together an article out of primary-source, run-of-the-mill news stories (e.g., stories about land-transfers, school closures etc.), none of which is directly about this supposed town, is the essence of original research. We're supposed to summarize what secondary sources say on the topic, not do our own research.

          You've focused a lot on the school - do you think you can write an article about the school that would pass WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES? Particularly since this requires a pass of WP:ORG which means we'd have to have at least one source that isn't a local news paper? If not, then why does it suddenly become a different story when you just change "school" to "location with a school"? FOARP (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

          • WP:NSCHOOL (the relevant part of WP:NORG) requires schools to pass the either general NORG guideline OR the general notability guideline, which doesn’t have that sort of non-local sourcing requirement. The use of or is of key importance, meaning that if it satisfies the GNG then it would be perfectly fine—there is nothing in the policies or guidelines that would require for to satisfy both GNG and (for example) the general requirements of WP:NGO. And, in that lens, yes I think that a reasonable article can be written on the since-defunct school/district given the newspaper sources. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 15:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reliable sources may make synthesis of unreliable sources. For example a NYT article may cite a Tweet, but twitter is an unreliable source. बिनोद थारू (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already have five sources that aren't newspapers, and all of this is yet another distraction. The right thing is to point to a proper reading of Project:published and then ask the money-where-one's-mouth-is question: What is Donald L. Hislop's or Benjamin M. Hughes's own publishing house or WWW site that they have self-published with/on? Point to it! Of course, FOARP cannot because there isn't one. Uncle G (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per this Google Earth image. No town there.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:GEOLAND presumes notability even for now-uninhabited areas:
Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. [...] बिनोद थारू (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
बिनोद थारू, you're right except this place was never legally recognized. It never had a local government or any other form of American legal recognition. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Everyone, please accept my apologies. I had no intention of starting a flame war when I nominated this article for deletion. Look, I sincerely appreciate the efforts of those who have added to the article since its nomination. It's much better now than it was a week ago. (I clearly need to work on my WP:BEFORE skills). Regardless, I don't want to withdraw my nomination because what we have now, though improved, is essentially a bunch of passing mentions taped together into an article-like shape, i.e. WP:SYNTH. Clearly this is/was a real place, but nobody has shown that this was a legally-recognized place (only that it had legally-recognized businesses, a school and post office), thus failing WP:GEOLAND. As for the Hislop and Hughes source, I think it's a distraction: even if it is RS, it's trivial, mostly just saying there was a school and post office there (and that it's a "District", which has no legal definition). The same goes for my other recent Tehama County nominations. But if this or those AfD's end up as keep, I won't be devastated...they are more informative than the ridiculous stubs they used to be. So can we all relax? This is approaching WP:LAME. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WeirdNAnnoyed, you did nothing wrong. You are not responsible for others. You acted in good faith.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I would have swore this was a delete after my cursory research a week ago. But I have now circled back to see the research by Red-tailed hawk, Uncle G, Jengod and Cielquiparle. It seems an easy keep now after the article was tidied up. Lightburst (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per a classic WP:HEY. A few of the additions were less encyclopedic than others but help to prove the point that this is a reasonably notable subject at least worthy of inclusion on the project. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:44, 10 November 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aahil Khan[edit]

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

Non-notable model/actor; draftification is impossible due to a previous attempt of this nature being draftified under the same name. Google search only pulls up the same ToI tabloidy junk under a role byline as is already in the article and no actual significant coverage Zimidar (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The Patrika source used is green per sourcebot, so it's ok. There is more than enough in Gnews to build an article, literally page after page of hits. RS are in there. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 8 November 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! 23:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Qara-Derrah Pass[edit]

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

Cannot find evidence of the "battle", which there doesn't seem to have been much of, let alone the Qara-Derrah Pass itself, including under different spelling, i.e. Kara-Derrah, Kara-Darrah, Qara-Darrah, etc. Either not notable enough for secondary sources and it should get the bin or a hoax that should also get the bin. Kazamzam (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for complete lack of WP:RS. I agree with nom that this reads like either good WP:OR or an excellent WP:HOAX, neither of which should be in the encyclopaedia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:16, 14 November 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. I see no other way to close this discussion, after 3 relistings as there is no support for deletion other than from the nominator. I think a more decisive closure would have resulted from more participation in this AFD but except for hot topics like the Middle East conflict, participation is down in AFDs these days and we have to bring this to a close with opinions that have been offered despite the disagreement over the quality of coverage. Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Golestaneh[edit]

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

Promotional UPE article with WP:REFBOMB created by a blocked sock (part of this sock farm) that doesn't look notable. The quality of references are not really good, mostly promotional sources, non-independent, primary, paid links etc. The keep result of first nom is rather weak, with low number of participants and they are stating they are not really sure because of the language and being unfamiliar with the sources. First vote says "I agree the case for notability seems thin", second one says "weak keep" by "reading through Google translate" and stating "unsure", third one says "probably". So I think that's not a strong keep result. The thing is, it seems that the people who can read the language and properly evaluate it have deleted it twice on the Persian wiki, despite attempts with the socking: [21] [22] Since the result of the first nom was rather weak with users who don't know the language and I saw that people who know the language deleted it twice from Persian wiki and did not allow to be opened again, I decided to nominate it again. The existence on simplewiki and frwiki is a result of cross-wiki spamming as well, will tag them for deletion too. Tehonk (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I edited this article for a Guild of Copy Editors a while back. At the time, I looked closely at all of the sources and found adequate documentation for notability. The sources include several feature articles, including coverage both as a competitor and as an international judge. The prior deletion discussion was just several months ago; this is really a waste of time for those involved with this article and the prior debate. Rublamb (talk) 01:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I explained how previous AfD result was weak and it did not really have strong arguments for keep. I'm not convinced whether you really checked the sources by evaluating their quality in terms of independence, reliability, and significance, or whether you only looked at their existence. You're not showing any source either here or in previous AfD. Checking the history, even though a lot of spam and REFBOMB cleanup was performed in the article, it still suffers from WP:REFBOMB and my spot check on the refs did not find refs that would meet notability standards, as explained. I couldn't find in-dept independent SIGCOV from reliable sources to justify notability, the links were all spam and PR quality. Please show WP:THREE best sources from this REFBOMB so we can evaluate them. Tehonk (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the sources to see if they backed the content of the article. I just ran through half of the sources again. They are either news websites or websites of international organizations that host competitions. Some of the longer articles about him include references 15, 20, 21, 2, 4, 6. If you see a source that you do not believe is appropriate, the solution is to remove it. We don't delete articles because they have too many sources. Rublamb (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suffering from REFBOMB does not mean it simply has too many sources, it means it was purposely filled with crap sources to "create a superficial appearance of notability". And that's what I see here. Please read the link and points explained there, don't just assume only from its shortcut name. I'm not nominating it for having too many sources, I'm nominating it for lack of in-depth, significant, independent reliable sources.
Checking the sources you mentioned (although I asked for three best sources):
2= Not an independent SIGCOV from a reliable source, it's an interview.
4= Not an independent SIGCOV from a reliable source, republishing of an interview from same place
6= Not an independent SIGCOV from a reliable source, one sentence routine coverage of being a runner-up
15= Not an independent SIGCOV from a reliable source, it's an interview.
20= Not an independent SIGCOV from a reliable source, it's an interview and announcement from the subject himself, looks more like a press release.
21= Again, not an independent SIGCOV from a reliable source, both WP:TRIVIALMENTION and just repeats his words, therefore not independent
So even though you showed six instead of three best sources, none of these meet standards for notability like what I observed when I checked it already. Tehonk (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with using an interview article as a source--see WP:INTERVIEWS which says "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." In this instance, the interview articles fulfill the requirement fo significant coverage. In addition, statements of the writers/editors of the interviews are used in the article; the content is from someone other than the subject. For example, saying that the subject has been appointed, has won, serves as a judge, or has a fitness nickname. He is not the one saying this is his nickname; that is coming from an editor and/or the news outlet. There are other sources that confirm facts, such as his rank in contests. These sources do not count as significant coverage but do back content from the interview articles. Rublamb (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be independent SIGCOV, interviews are not independent, in this case, these do not have any parts that could be considered independent and they are mostly promotional pieces, likely paid things. And they are not "multitude of interviews" as well because they are pretty much from same outlet.
I need to see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic and I'm not seeing that. Tehonk (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of couse most are from the same source--he lives in Iran where the media is limited and tightly controlled. It would be like saying sources for the former USSR were all from Pravda. Borna News is the top sports news outlet of Iran and receives state funding but is not necessarily controlled by the state. See here for independent confirmation of this. This really is the best source for Iranian sports news as far as I can tell and should be considered reliable for this type of coverage. Rublamb (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything posted on a reliable source contributes to notability. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic, interviews are not independent unless they contain significant commentary, and none of these have that. You were not able to show a single independent SIGCOV to contribute to notability here. Tehonk (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. User:Tehonk, it is fine to offer a rebuttal to comments you disagree with but please let's not be adversarial here. This is a discussion between well-meaning editors who might have different viewpoints on SIGCOV and notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: see this thread at ANI:
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I think the discussion about the sources is decent enough; there is a ton of crap sourcing, but we have some evidence that it's at notability. What I find is pretty much as explained in the source analysis. Oaktree b (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I would have preferred to see the nominator's continued response to developments in this discussion but that didn't occur. So, given the comments offered here by participants, I'm closing this discussion as Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 00:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Low Yok Lin[edit]

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

article, in its own words, only makes passing reference to establishing notability. it is not ready for mainspace. a draft exists in the draftspace so it is not suitable for draftify. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish) 23:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. The references are from newspaper articles dating back to the early 1930s. I hope this is the right format/forum to provide my feedback. While the article may currently lack extensive "mainstream" references, there are significant news articles dating back to the early 1930s but may not be picked up by the "mainstream" sources. These articles provide historical context on his contribution during those early years.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that this article seeks to address a broader goal: to recognize and document the contributions of earlier Chinese immigrants to Malaysia, who may have been successful and impactful in their communities but have been overlooked in historical research. Limited research or a lack of recognition in the academic community may have resulted in the omission of their stories.

By expanding the article with references to historical news articles and encouraging those who may have information about other such Chinese immigrants to contribute, we aim to shed light on these often underrepresented but important figures in history. Additionally, one of the goals of this article is to provide a platform for those who may have known Low Yok Lin to contribute their insights and potentially enrich the article with more detailed information and context. By allowing exposure to those who knew him, we aim to gather a richer source of information and provide a more comprehensive account of his life and contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauSawLan (talk • contribs) 01:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Courtesy link: Draft:Low Yok Lin (the same article by the same editor, in an earlier state).
    User:LauSawLan, your goal is certainly a laudable one, and I hope you're able to bring attention to early Chinese emigrants to Malaysia so their lives can be better documented and their stories remembered.
    However, Wikipedia is not the right platform for this. The article is what we call Original research. There is even information from oral interviews, which we can't include by policy. What you term "mainstream" sources above are what we call Secondary sources, and are required in almost every case for a subject to meet one of our notability guidelines.
    Wikipedia is structured to follow the biases of published sources. We only follow, and do not lead. The number of underrepresented groups in history vastly outbalances the number of well represented groups, but Wikipedia cannot fix that.
    In other words, if no one has yet seen fit to write about this person, we can't be the first to do so. I really do hope you're able to continue with this project, and I'm not sure where to point as a more appropriate venue to continue the work at.
    Sources exist for this subject, as is clear already from the article, and the draft is a previous revision, so I think that either Userfy or Draftify over existing draft could be outcomes within policy. It's also my understanding that Wikiversity has policies allowing original research, so it may also be appropriate to Transwikify to Wikiversity if the author would like to continue this work there and I'm not mistaken about that project's original research policies.
    I searched for Chinese sources using the subject's birth name 劉毓麟, and got (on the first three pages of google results) no true positives. Apart from modern social media accounts of living people, I got at least three false positives: one orchestral music specialist who was still alive in the 2010s, one law professor who died in 1959, and one minor government official about a generation prior to the subject. Folly Mox (talk) 10:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Folly thanks for taking the time to go through the article and provide the feedback. Really appreciate it. I have removed the oral parts in case it gives the impression that they are hearsays. I have already substantiated most of it with written source from mainstream media (not blogs but national newspaper in Malaysia with some feature article from newpaper on his life). The sources (other than the few listed in the reference), came from Chinese newspaper and you will not be able to find them by just checkingGoogle, because they are in some repositories/ archive section of old newspapers. If you like to find Lou Yoke lin, you may try typing "劉毓麟”+“太平” in the website https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers It searches all the archives of past newspaper from both Singapore and Malaysia. The reason why I use this is because it uses the "name of the subject" and "his hometown" . This is how they identify people in the past. I have also done research to check with people who knew him to make sure the articles are indeed referring to him. LauSawLan (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like this has some potential, but is not quite ready for mainspace at the moment. I suggest Draftify over existing draft.-KH-1 (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi KH-I wanted to express my heartfelt gratitude for your feedback and your commitment to upholding Wikipedia's standards of notability. Your input has been instrumental in shaping the profile of Yok Lin, and I appreciate your dedication to maintaining the quality of content on the platform.
  • I have made every effort to ensure that the information in the article is substantiated by credible sources from mainstream media and since it is not just pure reporting but some feature articles, which is equivalent to secondary research (although not in the academic space) + leadership positions he held . It is rather exhaustive at this stage as I also interviewed people who knew him. On that note, some informed he was a close business partners with many luminaries during his era such as Tan Kah Kee ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tan_Kah_Kee) etc. I cannot find written sources so I have omitted it at this stage. If you have anything specific that I may further improve on, please do let me know as I have been scratching my head on how to make it better to meet Wikipedia's standard.
  • I feel that people who reads about Yok lin in Wikipedia( if this were to come true) may add on more details from their own research that i may not have at this juncture. I find that many of the past leaders did not have the luxury we have today where just a click of a button, we get all the exposure and secondary research becomes almost automatic(even AI can do it for us next time), so they need a little different approach for research.
    The intent is to have the stories of these group of leaders inspire future generations to follow is his footsteps. And if Wikipedia may be the avenue to do that, it would really change lives. LauSawLan (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to keep an open mind on this, pending a more thorough review of the sources. However, the impression that I get that is that even within the historical context/place, his contributions may not be significant enough to warrant a standalone article. Might be better suited in a sub-section of a page on the "Malayan Broadcasting Service", or Malaysian Chinese.-KH-1 (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: LauSawLan (talk · contribs), would you select the two to six independent reliable sources that provide the most detailed coverage about Low Yok Lin (traditional Chinese: 劉毓麟; simplified Chinese: 刘毓麟)? Would you then provide quotes or make a summary of how each source provides significant coverage about him?

    To address the concerns about original research, I recommend removing any content that is not supported by a reliable published source. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Cunard thanks for the tips, let me come back to you asap as I am travelling( overseas) right now and need to find time to work on the article.
    LauSawLan LauSawLan (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, LauSawLan (talk · contribs). The AfD opened at 23:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC) and is scheduled to close seven days later at sometime after 23:33, 31 October 2023. I ask that the closer relist the AfD to give LauSawLan one more week to work on this. If this needs more than a week, then a draftify to give LauSawLan even more time would be the best approach. Cunard (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    hi Cunard- I have included what you asked and quoted 2 publication.

See [1]

References

  1. ^ https://sites.google.com/view/nanyangcelebritieslowyoklin/home

The most significant is the Yok Lin being listed in 南洋名人集传 or Biographies of Prominent Personalities in Nanyang, which records of prominent Chinese in Southeast Asia. Most of these Chinese living in Malaya and Singapore in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were notable for their righteous characters and life contributions. They are found in NUS repositories and NUS is a trusted source. NUS is the 8th university in the world (QS World University Rankings 2024: NUS rises three places to rank 8th globally) I trust this is sufficient and my sources all are backed by newspaper articles.There is no heresays,as i have removed everything that cannot be substantiated. I believe more information will surface when this article is exposed. LauSawLan (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LauSawLan (talk · contribs), thank you for providing this source and quotes. Would you provide more details about Biographies of Prominent Personalities in Nanyang? Who is the author? Who is the publisher? Did the author or publisher have any affiliation with Low Yok Lin (are they independent of him)?

Would you provide a second source that gives significant coverage of Low Yok Lin? At least two sources are needed to establish notability.

Cunard (talk) 08:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've copyedited the article to remove promotional content, unreliable sources, and original research. If Biographies of Prominent Personalities in Nanyang is an independent reliable source, and if LauSawLan can link and quote one or two additional sources that discuss Low Yok Lin, I would support keeping this article as passing Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    Cunard (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Cunard- thanks again for taking time to review the article. For ease of reference, you may refer to Sources - Sources (google.com)This source has been extensively utilized in academic studies on the overseas Chinese, who have made significant contributions to Malaysia and Singapore. It was published as early as the 1920s. From what I found, the digitized version contains the bibliographic information about the publication
    Nanyang Celebrity Collection, Volume 1
    Nanyang Celebrity Collection,
    ContributorWu Yanong
    Publisher-Dianshi Zhai, 1922
    Orginal From-Comell University
    21 Oct 2014
    I think this publication is a "landmark" reference since it is used by researchers around the world. i need more time to dig out more information as i am still traveling and taking time to refine this article. Thanks again for your guidance and feedback. LauSawLan (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting by request of one of the participants. Right now, the consensus is leaning towards Draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems the 南洋名人集傳 source has the same tenor as a Who's Who. It definitely seems to be a reliable source, but uncertain if it establishes notability, since IIRC Who's Who doesn't. Uncertain if it's a truly independent source or if anyone could get in there with a smol payment, but neither situation would be markedly unusual. The series editor was 林博愛 (Lin Bo'ai). It looks like it was published in several volumes or possibly instalments. A 集傳 is a compilation of biographies. Folly Mox (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Folly
    Based on what i could find, for “南洋名人集传” / Biographies of Prominent Personalities in Nanyang, the editorial committee selected the biographies of prominent Chinese personalities in Southeast Asia, especially those who contributed to the society, culture, economy, and politics of their region. The biographies were mostly written by the editors themselves, based on their personal knowledge or interviews with the subjects. The subjects did not have to submit any data or pay any fees to be included in the book series. If I were to assume for a moment that the above is not true, with so many universities globally ( Standford, Cornell etc ,Sources - Sources (google.com)) using them for research, it is unlikely that those listed merely had to pay for inclusion, which means the data would have been biased. Furthermore, any reputable research body would typically avoid such biased data and ensure that their research is conducted with a high degree of objectivity and integrity.

On a separate note, the newspaper articles on Yok Lin's leadership roles in social and economic areas provide a check and balance instead of relying on one source.

The who's who seems to be info filled by the individual

Extract from website , "Most of the material is self-reported, supplied through publisher questionnaires."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Whos-Who-in-America

The one from 南洋名人集传 or Biographies of Prominent Personalities in Nanyang are from editors who choosed their subject on a wider scope include social and economic impact


Hence, they apppear different from an entry criteria. 

LauSawLan (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria says: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."

    Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Any biography says: "3. The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography)." Biographical dictionary lists reference publications titled Who's Who as an example. I consider inclusion in a national Who's Who publication to be a strong indicator of notability if the publisher is reputable and if it is an independent source.

    Nanyang is "the Chinese term for the warmer and fertile geographical region along the southern coastal regions of China and beyond, otherwise known as the 'South Sea' or Southeast Asia". This makes the book cover an even higher level than a national biographical dictionary.

    From what LauSawLan and FollyMox have found in their research, Biographies of Prominent Personalities in Nanyang (Chinese: 南洋名人集传) seems to be an independent reliable source that materially contributes to establishing notability.

    LauSawLan (talk · contribs), you wrote, "On a separate note, the newspaper articles on Yok Lin's leadership roles in social and economic areas provide a check and balance instead of relying on one source." Would you post a summary or quotes of one or two of the newspaper articles that best establish "Yok Lin's leadership roles in social and economic areas"? The best newspaper sources would contain significant coverage of him and have minimal non-independent content like quotes from him.

    Cunard (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I'd probably translate this source's name as Collected Biographies of Prominent People in the South Pacific or something similar, since Nanyang as a transliterated toponym usually indicates Nanyang, Henan.
    Glad to hear it's more of a national biography than a Who's Who. Early Republican China was uh kinda warlordy, and everyone's gotta eat. Anyway though I did some more digging and I have found zero indication that this source is anything other than reliable and independent, so agree that it contributes to notability. Folly Mox (talk) 12:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cunard Folly and everyone who have taken the time to contribute and provide the invaluable feedback. It really helped me to improve the article. I was down with flu these few days, so pardon my delay in replying .

As for additional reference:

A) His contribution during the Japanese occupation :I thought this one is probably rather interesting. I omitted it in the article because it is about the war time atrocities during the Japanese occupation in Taiping (there are probably more if one searches more deeply)

  • This **article 李永球-Lee Eng Kew: 太平籌賑會婦女部主任    is written by the author of the book 'Japanese Hands: Three Years and Eight Months of Japanese Occupation in Taiping,' who also has a website on many feature articles. His book is also available 日本手：太平日據三年八個月 | BooKu (bookumy.com)
    Summary of the *article
    The main story of the** article above, was about Li Xiuzhong , a key figure in the story, serving as the director of the Women's Department of the Taiping Relief Association. She joined the Malayan People's Anti-Japanese Army to resist the Japanese invasion in 1941 and was unfortunately arrested and killed in 1944 while fighting for the resistance.
  • In the **article ,Liu Yilin was mentioned as the President of the Taiping Rubber Association. The association had a significant role in the Taiping Relief Association's efforts to support China's resistance against Japan during the Japanese occupation.
  • Liu Yilin, along with other leaders such as Huang Zenan, Du Rong, and Huang Jinggao, also contributed to commemorating the sacrifices made by individuals like Li Xiuzhong, who served as the director of the Women's Department of the Taiping Relief Association. They petitioned the Chinese Kuomintang government to honor Li Xiuzhong's contributions and sacrifices. The passage also highlighted the importance of overseas Chinese communities in raising funds and providing support for the anti-Japanese efforts during this period.
  • Comments:
    During the Japanese occupation, many atrocities were committed against civilians. In fact, it is well-known that anyone who was found to be against the Japanese during that time, whether directly, indirectly, or merely suspected, was often executed and tortured. Therefore, Liu Yulin's action was a brave and selfless act.
    About the war- Japanese occupation of Malaya - Wikipedia
    additional info Home (google.com)
B) I added commentary to the biography. Many of the citations I included in the Wikipedia article had already covered the subject extensively, but I decided to supplement the content with information from news articles and feature pieces for context. Rubber was a cornerstone of the economy during that era, and it was mentioned that he owned more than 100 acres of land, indicating a significant role in employment and considerable influence during his time.

see-https://sites.google.com/view/lowyoklinadditionalinfo/home?authuser=6 I hope this is sufficient.Have a good weekend.

  • Comment: Thank you for the additional source, LauSawLan (talk · contribs). With the Collected Biographies of Prominent People in the South Pacific book source, we are very close to proving that Low Yok Lin meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. We just need one more source that provide significant coverage about him.

    This article from Sin Chew Daily mentions Low Yok Lin (traditional Chinese: 劉毓麟; simplified Chinese: 刘毓麟) twice in an article that is primarily about Li Xiuzhong so is not by itself sufficient to being the second source that provides significant coverage about Low Yok Lin. Would you quote or provide a summary of one or more other reliable sources that give significant coverage of Low Yok Lin (at least a few paragraphs of coverage)? This would be the easiest way to establish notability about the subject even though there is a different way we can use but that requires more work.

    The other way is Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    The guideline says "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". We could list many sources that provide less substantial coverage about Low Yok Lin to demonstrate notability, but I am hoping that will not be necessary if we can find a second reliable source that provides substantial coverage.

    I think this discussion is making good progress and would support a second relist to give more time to discuss the sources. Thank you.

    Cunard (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Cunard @ 10:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC), relisting for another seven days for a chance to find additional sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Seems to be a rather common name, so you get several hits on more recent individuals. I can't find sourcing, but the discussion about the sources used seems credible, I'm ok with a !keep. Oaktree b (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Coincidentally, it's also Wikipedia Asian Month; I try to contribute there but my articles are mostly dinky little things compared to this effort. If I was able to contribute this much knowledge and submit the article there, I'd be very proud of the work involved. Not that is really helps in AfD, but the amount of digging through old sources involved here is to be commended. Oaktree b (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks Oaktree b and Cunard and everyone who has contributed and given the feedback.
    My primary objective in publishing this article is to unveil individuals who were pioneers and made significant contributions to nation-building, encompassing economic, social, and community aspects, in Malaya during the 1900s when the Chinese diaspora in Malaya was at its peak. The challenge in creating such articles lies in uncovering research materials from that era, as immigrants during that time were predominantly focused on fulfilling their basic needs. Thus, I hope their 'notability score' may be adapted or recalibrated to treat the past differently and not be subjected to the same contemporary yardstick.
    Nonetheless, Yok Lin's profile still received sufficient press coverage (an indication of his notability), and he also stood out due to the numerous leadership positions he held in economic and social establishments, which were covered by the mainstream press. While the sheer number of secondary articles was not abundant (perhaps due to my lack of access), they are compensated for by the quality and credibility of one of the research paper that I managed to find, namely the 'Prominent People in Nanyang.',' (Sources - Sources (google.com) and Research Article (google.com))which serves to this day, as an invaluable reference for academics researching individuals who made marked contributions to society in Nanyang (South east Asia region).
    Other than the many citations that I have already listed in the article, which covered Yok Lin's contribution ( they also included feature articles), there are definitely more secondary research materials available, but I currently lack access to them. I reached out to the Fujian/Hokkien Association and Hua Lian School, where he once served as chairman for both establishments. They informed me that they do keep records of the names of their past leaders (this is how I uncovered Yok Lin's photo as well), but detailed records of their past leaders' contributions and articles written on them are yet to be scanned into online repositories. They informed me that these materials exist in manual manuscripts, and unfortunately, I couldn't persuade them to send them to me. After several emails and phone calls, they suggested I pay a visit in person( i don't live in Malaya/Malaysia) and check with the relevant person when I am there. So, this is how far I could get thus far.
    To recap on my findings so far
    a) Economic Impact:
    Newspaper articles covered his repeated election as the president of the Rubber Association and comments on his popularity
    ref: "Liu Yulin of the Taiping Chinese Gum Association was the president of the Taiping Chinese Rubber Association(太平華人樹膠公會劉毓麟蟬聯正會長 南洋商报) 10 Feb 1952". Malaysian Chinese Paper, Nanyang Siang Pau(南洋商报). Retrieved 25 October 2023"NewspaperSG-Taiping Chinese Rubber Association Liu Yulin and Huang Jiu are appointed as the president and vice president (太平華人樹膠公會劉毓麟黃九親任正副會長)". eresources.nlb.gov.sg (南洋商报 (Nanyang Siang Pau)). 20 Dec 1949. Retrieved 2023-10-28
    Rubber was then a key economic pillar during the early 1900s and a driving force for immigrants going to Malaya. Another feature article in the newspaper mentioned that he owned hundreds of acres of rubber plantation. This in itself was a driver for employment. In yet another article, it was noted that he was invited to press conferences to provide advice on the economic situation in Malaya, particularly for the rubber industry ( "The market conditions in Taiping have become increasingly stable, Liu Yulin(太平和豐兩埠市况已日趨穩定劉毓麟與王振相二君)1 March 1934". Nanyang Siang Pau ( Malaysian Chinese Newspaper). Retrieved 25 October 2023.)
    b) Social Impact:
    Both the press and research papers mentioned his key leadership roles in social causes. Eg. founder of the '励德社' (Lì Dé Shè) Society, which translates to 'Society of Encouraging Virtue' or 'Society for Promoting Moral Integrity.' It is often used to refer to organizations or groups that aim to promote and encourage virtuous behavior and moral values in society, and this term is associated with traditional Chinese ethical and Confucian principles.
    He was also the Chairman of the Fujian Association. This association provided the Chinese immigrants with resources and means to settle down in Malaya. He also founded an association dedicated to promoting character building and good behavior.
    c) Contributions to Education:
    He served as the chairman of Hua Lian, one of the oldest schools in Malaya. I managed to obtain a copy of his photo from the school and this was also mentioned in another feature article in the press about his appointment.
    He also mentioned in newspaper press for having contributed to other school building funds
    ref:
    1. "Yongwupo Shihua School fundraising construction school building(永梧坡時化學校募捐建築校舍鳴謝) 28 March 1927". SingaporeSG- Chinese News paper in Malaysia-(Nanyang Siang Pau), 28 March 1927, Page 5. Retrieved 25 October 2023.
    2.contribution to overseas chinese university, Xiamen where he was mentioned as one of the donors-https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/nysp19350211-1.2.33.3?qt=%22%E5%8A%89%20%E6%AF%93%20%E9%BA%9F%22,%20%22%E5%A4%AA%20%E5%B9%B3%22&q=%22%E5%8A%89%E6%AF%93%E9%BA%9F%E2%80%9D%2B%E2%80%9C%E5%A4%AA%E5%B9%B3%E2%80%9D)
    d) Participation in Numerous Charitable Events:
    They are all recorded in newspaper articles.
    1. ^ "英屬British Taiping Fujian Overseas Chinese Relief Fever(太平閩僑之賑捐熱)". Retrieved 25 October 2023
    2. NewspaperSG - Huang Laofen, a sculptor of millimang, held a solo exhibition in Taiping, and Liu Yulin presided over the ribbon cutting (nlb.gov.sg) ( here he has convinced the famous sculptor to donate part of his earnings to Hua Lian school)
    With the above, I hope that this article is given some exposure to bring to light not only his contributions but also those of others who contributed during those early years. Hopefully, others who knew him may come forward to share more information. And in the process, inspire the current and future generations to play a part in society. LauSawLan (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for these additional links and research, LauSawLan (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable. Thank you Cunard, LauSawLan and Oaktree b for your persistence. We need these sorts of historical articles more than a lot of popular culture stuff but they can be a lot of work to properly source.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:31, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks A.B, Cunard and Oaktree. Your constructive comments and suggestions have not only helped me improve the article but have also enhanced my understanding of the Wikipedia community's standards. I am truly impressed by how people here invest their own time and effort to provide all the feedback. by the way I'm new to the Wikipedia scene may I know what will happen now after 7 days will I be the one who need to remove the notes of deletion or somebody from the admin team will do so LauSawLan (talk) 14:49, 12 November 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. With no new participation after two relistings, I don't think we will see additional editors weighing in here on this discussion so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Ro[edit]

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

The notability rests on charting in the Billboard 'Hot R&B/Hip Hop Single Sales' chart, which I don't think is counted as a notable chart. It has been tagged as non-notable for more than 13 years. 2008 AfD was to merge to The Color Changin' Click but this was undone by another user, and this article doesn't necessarily need more information on this one member as it would be out of kilter with the other short biographies. Redirect effectively deletes this, but is a possible option. Boleyn (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect again to the Color Changin' Click and be done with it. There is nothing else found outside of that musical act for this person. Can you Salt a redirect so they don't create it again? Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This artist hit the Billboard charts twice (yes, the R&B/Hip-Hop charts count as a chart, by all means), and received a raft of attention in Midwest press outlets around his two hit singles ([23], [24], [25]). He's received some nationwide attention as well; [26]. Looks to meet WP:MUSIC bullets 1, 2, and 11, and possibly also 7. Chubbles (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the reliable sources identified by Chubbles that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:20, 8 November 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 23:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Khaburdzania[edit]

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

The subject, a Georgian women's footballer, has played for the Georgia women's national football team. However, I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, instead finding passing mentions such as 1, 2 and 3. JTtheOG (talk) 20:21, 8 November 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 (procedural). This debate has been open for weeks now. I do find the 'delete' rationale to be the most persuasive (and even those opining 'weak keep' acknowledge some of the issues). The problem I face is that while I find the 'delete' arguments more persuasive, there has been little to no support for that position due to a lack of participation.

I would encourage this to be renominated at some point in the future if the issues aren't resolved, and if it is, please ping me and I will semi-protect the debate to prevent a repeat of the sockpuppetry and disruption seen here. Daniel (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Miroshnichenko[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a vanity publisher or a PR platform. Refbombed spam for non notable individual. has a massive primary sourced laundry list of so called awards but they are not major awards (or for the most part remotely credible). None of the many listed charts are GOODCHARTS. Refbombed sources lack independent coverage in reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are not even close to being major awards. They are not even credible awards. There is no policy based justification for keeping self nominated pay for play award farm suckers. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent Music Awards (IMAs) notable winners and nominees have included such world renown musicians as Macy Gray, Simon Phillips, Foreigner, George Benson, Jeff Healey, Paul Wertico, Frank Colon, Marco Benevento, Roberto Tola, Paquito D’Rivera, to name a few. By continuing to insult and develop unfounded nervous demagoguery (apparently, out of envy of more successful artists), you only continue to discredit yourself, demonstrating complete ignorance and lack of awareness of the issues you have raised. What a shame! Molgav (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The IMAs article (about the award, not about this person), is sourced to Billboard, it seemed notable to me as far as awards go, meaning this guy would be higher-up on the notability "check-list" if you will, as he was a winner. Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure IMAs might be barely notable (questionable) but that does not make them a major award. Award farms like that are a dime a dozen and they don't inherit credibility from then artists they give awards to. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have evidence that IMA is a pay to play award farm? Llajwa (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Check their site and FAQ. They are quite open that their awards are a promotional tool. And better hurry if you want to get in on the action, entries close in January 2020. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the big problem there Oaktree b was that that Billboard article had nothing to do with those awards which didn't happen that year. They covered the AIM ones. Fortunately now someone has removed it. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article consists exclusively of confirmed facts that can be documented, including a list of achievements at recognized major music competitions in the world. You must understand that you are taking on too much responsibility and making unfounded and biased judgments in a rude manner about anything, including encroaching on the dignity and business reputation of both the artist himself and the individuals and companies listed in the article. Molgav (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While he has received a total of 50-plus nominations with 23 wins in multiple international songwriting contests and music awards in 9 countries and recorded and performed with world-renowned musicians. 188.123.231.73 (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Struck sock vote.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't !vote twice. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article contains enough facts with external links to authoritative official sources confirming the status of the individual and the high level of his achievements 87.116.176.156 (talk) 14:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC) Struck sock vote.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak keep Unless IMA really is a fake, vanity award outfit, this musician seems to me to squeak through the notability gate - but the page should be cut by 80% to bring it in line with Wikipedia norms for ordinary, notable journeyman musicians. Llajwa (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which criteria does it squeak through? Otherwise WP:JUSTNOTABLE. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The biographical facts in the article are supported by references to official sources. Not everyone is included in the heroes of the Great Jazz Guitarists encyclopaedia of the world's largest authoritative publishing house Hal Leonard. And being on the same pedestal of nominees and winners of respectable music awards, such as Hollywood Music Awards, The Independent Music Awards, USA Songwriting Competition along with world stars is just another of the many confirmations of notable status. Not counting many other achievements and recognition in the world.Loserseater (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Strike sock -- Ponyobons mots 22:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Evading a block with a sock puppet to !vote a fourth time is not allowed. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would say he meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion 8 and 9, with many competition and award nominations and wins. Royal88888 (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Royal88888, again, please cite/link the sources you are speaking of, otherwise other editors will just assume you are siding with the majority vote since I havent came across any of your AfD participation where you were early, you somewhat come up last. dxneo (talk) 09:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dxneo I did not mention any sources, so your question does not make any sense. My argument is that he has won or been nominated for awards and competitions and per WP:MUSICBIO he would qualify. These are listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Miroshnichenko#Awards_and_honors The corresponding sources to verify are also listed, so I don't need to waste time and repost them here. Anyone reading the article can easily see them and verify. Royal88888 (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And both of those MUSICBIO criteria say MAJOR. Which of the competitions or "awards" are you calling major. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there an official list of major awards approved by law, such as the US State Department or another similar organisation? Instead of speculation, please, present this list, if you're authorised. Please, official list, which isn't limited by your own preferences and breadth of horizons. Not some "top-list" from pulp or gloss magazines or list , but the official, State list, having legal force. Loserseater (talk) 14:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A State Department approved list of official music awards? Great trolling. Liz Read! Talk! 02:23, 12 November 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! 07:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hillcrest International School[edit]

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

has been unsourced for several years. WP:BEFORE searches pulled up an unrelated school in Nigeria, but nothing on this. no clear indication of notability DrowssapSMM (talk) (contributions) 19:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maliner (talk) 19:49, 8 November 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Van Buren[edit]

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

Non-notable creative, lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG/WP:DIRECTOR. Links cited at page are subject's personal website and articles with only mentions of subject. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability. Llajwa (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Very much PROMO. Nothing found for this individual [27], he directed a music video. I looked at .fr websites as his film was screened at Cannes. Zero hits for this person. Delete for any sor t of notability Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 8 November 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 23:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jantima Khunpiphat[edit]

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

The subject made at least one appearance for the Thailand women's national football team, but has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, as per my searches. JTtheOG (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Morocco women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 00:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmina Laaroussi[edit]

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

The subject, a Swiss-born footballer who has played for the Morocco women's national football team, has not received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found was passing mentions in match reports/squad lists, much like reference #3 in the article. Redirect to List of Morocco women's international footballers. JTtheOG (talk) 18:52, 8 November 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.


Mississippi Blues (film)[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) microbiologyMarcus (petri dish•growths) 20:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

fails notability for film, disputed as it was moved out of the draftspace manually. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish•growths) 18:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) The film has received two full-length reviews by nationally known critics: Kevin Thomas for the Los Angeles Times (review) and Janet Maslin for The New York Times (review). .
2) The film is historically notable, as evidenced by its selection for screening at the 2023 Cannes Film Festival 40 years after its release and at the Locarno Film Festival in 2003 (source), among other notable festivals. Mooonswimmer 18:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we've come across another FloridaArmy special. I'll agree that with the above sources, the subject of the article is notable and withdraw my nom, I invite someone to speedy close the discussion here. I'm also going to add the above to the article and maybe do a slight prose re-write so it doesn't sound so robotic. Thanks for heads up @Mooonswimmer and S0091. Cheers, microbiologyMarcus (petri dish•growths) 19:57, 8 November 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 23:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tinysoft[edit]

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. There are no reference that even 1/10th meet GNG. I searched and could not find any GNG type sources. The article content reflects this ....it's basically just a description of it's products and their release dates. North8000 (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Tiger King. Withdrawing and agreeing with page creator. (non-admin closure) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Queens: The Tiger King Musical[edit]

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

A search doesn't indicate this Netflix musical on TikTok? attracted enough critical attention or notability on its own to pass the WP:GNG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:19, 8 November 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. WP:SK2; nominator has been checkuser blocked and nobody has !voted other than to keep. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brenna Thummler[edit]

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

not finding how the page meets this: A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Weißer Storch (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles and other violent events by death toll[edit]

List of battles and other violent events by death toll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not meet WP:N guidelines: the topic is vague and lacks meaning (battles "and other violent events"? what defines "other" here?). Most of the content on this list can easily be split into different articles; in fact, most of it already is anyway.

It seems that this article has become a hotbed for WP:FORUM discussion and constant edit-warring, especially relating to the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. Much of the content here contradicts content on split articles: for example, the 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel are included as "terrorist attacks", but aren't on the main list. Differences like this are common.

I propose deleting the article and splitting any content that isn't already in a list into new articles. 296cherry (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Badly organized as said above, impossible to maintain with no coherent criteria. ChaotıċEnby(talk) 02:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Should at the very least be split into separate articles, such as List of Terrorist Attacks by Death Toll, or List of mass Sacrifices by Death Toll.
  • Delete and split into separate articles: Vaguely-defined criteria for inclusion, and therefore fails WP:NLIST since no source would discuss so many different types of mass killings, from more than 1 million victims down to 16, as if they have anything in common. Parham wiki (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoatLord234 14 November 2023 — Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 14 November 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peak copper[edit]

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

Too soon for this article because peak copper will not happen during the energy transition and that will take decades. See for example

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2023/10/19/why-it-is-time-to-retire-dr-copper Chidgk1 (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Economics. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't really understand the nomination rationale here. The Too soon essay is one that discusses notability, not how far in the future an event is predicted to happen. This article seems to demonstrate notability, with multiple sources discussing the inevitable decline of copper production, and many of them using the exact phrase peak copper. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes perhaps I should have linked to Wikipedia:Fringe theories as a reason rather than "too soon".
    There are very recent few cites in the article which actually say peak copper will occur in the foreseeable future - New Scientist from 2007 is 15 years ago for example. That was before the energy transition really got going. I would be very surprised if a reputable source like New Scientist would predict peak copper nowadays. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I'm confused on how this could be interpreted as a fringe theory. The article's content is well-supported by reliable sources, which indicates that the phenomenon of peak copper is at least a credible idea in the scientific community. We cannot delete articles simply because their sources are a few years old, and to claim that a source would or would not make a given argument today seems like original research to me. Even if sources no longer make those same claims, that's not a reason to delete the article, but to expand the existing article to reflect the new scientific consensus. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If peak copper in the foreseeable future was still credible there would be reliable sources from the 2020s but I very much doubt any of you will be able to find any. I feel this article just confuses readers and distracts them from the real problems with copper supply. As an alternative to deletion how about renaming it to "copper supply" or "copper production"? There are only 2 paragraphs in Copper#Recycling and even less here but if the article is renamed I would be willing to add a bit more recycling detail here. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never really seen moving to a different title proposed as an alternative to deletion, but in any case, that conversation would be had through a requested move, not here. Also, the copper extraction article goes into quite a bit of detail about how copper is produced. I don't think that's directly related to this discussion, however, due to the significant difference in topics. An article covering speculation on the economic viability and inevitable depletion of a resource should not necessarily go into detail about how that resource is produced. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:54, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see Copper mining redirects to the copper extraction article you mentioned, but that is historical whereas I suspect people searching for "copper mining" are more likely to be interested in current mining. In contrast gold mining has its own article. As proposed new copper mines are likely to generate a lot of disputes and press coverage this decade we should have a proper article covering mining and recycling so that journalists and environmentalists new to the subject of copper have a neutral point of view introduction. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TechnoSquirrel69. The timing of the forecast event is irrelevant for notability. Owen× ☎ 20:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep is well sourced, and discussed in various journals. TOOSOON wouldn't seem to apply, as this discusses what will happen with much analysis given. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the article has sources and it seems like an obviously notable topic. We have an article on the heat death of the Universe; that's not what WP:TOOSOON means. jp×g🗯️ 22:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is certain to occur, whereas peak copper is not certain to occur, as copper could be mined from asteroids if demand is such that it becomes economical to do so Chidgk1 (talk) 06:21, 12 November 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 23:51, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeshan Khan Rokhri[edit]

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

Not notable yet according to WP:MUSICBIO. A WP:BEFORE search in English and Urdu turned up only the four sources currently cited: three local press articles about a cancelled concert in a small venue in England, and a passing mention in an obituary of his father Shafaullah Rokhri. It's been redirected to that article four times since creation in October 2022, on the grounds of poor sourcing or being completely unsourced, as it was when I ran across it today. Wikishovel (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Filipino representatives at international male beauty pageants[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Filipino representatives at international male beauty pageants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
information Note: Wikishovel (ping) left me a note on my talk page that this article was recreated. Given I previously nominated this article for deletion, I consider this appropriate notification per WP:APPNOTE as Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics).
With that out of the way, my reasoning for deletion is the same as it was a year ago (it was soft deleted at said discussion):

Per WP:NOT#Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, we do not host people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y. No evidence that this is a culturally significant phenomenon.

HouseBlastertalk 16:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Beauty pageants, and Philippines. HouseBlastertalk 16:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator as a WP:CROSSCAT violation. There also seems to be no source that discusses this list as a group, making it unlikely to be notable. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and per TechnoSquirrel69: I've found no RS in English discussing the grouping. Wikishovel (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not for Deletion per nomination and per Garcia.rock97: I've already provided links as reference to the list and prove its legitimacy. I also want to stress out that similar lists but from different countries are already published for years in this platform. Garcia.rock97 (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm assuming this is a !vote to keep the article? I'm not sure how your argument can be "per nomination", as the nominator is arguing for deletion. As for the references, the sheer number of citations does not prove the "legitimacy" of an article. The concern here is that the subject of the article is an unencyclopedic intersection of two arbitrarily-chosen categories. This is a violation of the What Wikipedia is not policy regardless of the number of citations provided to verify the entries of the list. Also, saying that other similar articles exist is not a strong argument in a deletion discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Garcia.rock97: You note on your user page that you have a conflict of interest regarding Man of the World (pageant). Do you also have a conflict of interest regarding this article? HouseBlastertalk 23:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when we compare this to the distaff counterpart Philippines at the Big Four international beauty pageants, there are differentiating factors. Pageantry for better or for worse is largely a women's affair in the Philippines and the wider world (which does not help build the men's pageantry as a culturally significant phenomenon, or at least not significant enough), the scope is clearly limited to the so-called Big Four pageants, so there is a more sense of arbitrariness on which male pageant is notable to include.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:41, 11 November 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 23:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Werner Maurer[edit]

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

crosswiki spam including fake writings, see de:WP:Löschkandidaten/22. Dezember 2021#Alfred Werner Maurer (gelöscht) and de:WP:Administratoren/Anfragen/Archiv/2022/Februar#Jahrelanges Spammen von „Fake-Literatur“. My previous deletion proposal has been removed by the author [29] which I didn't notice until now. Johannnes89 (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Widerspruch zu der Löschung Kein Spammen von "Fake-Literatur" gegeben. Vitruv2008 (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

--Objection to the requent for deletion--

There are no legitimate reasons for deletation.

[[User:|Vitruv2008]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitruv2008 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Widerspruch gegen die Löschung des Wikipedia Artikels "Alfred Werner Maurer" Der Inhalt der Wikipedia-Seite Alfred Werner Maurer ist zutreffend. Kein Spammen von "Fake-Literatur" gegeben. Der Antragsteller johannes89 versucht unbegründet das Ansehen der Person und seine wissenschaftliche Arbeit in der Architektur, Kunstgeschichte und Archäologie zu mindern. Gegen diese Versuche wurde bereits eine Prüfung bei [email protected] beantragt. Es handelt sich um einen Versuch persönlichen Widerspruch in der Öffentlich zu bestreiten.

vitruv2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C8:4700:D300:5183:C8DD:5F7F:4289 (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Der Antragsteller der den Löschantrag "Alfred Werner Maurer" in allen Ländern auch mit Erfolg versucht den Wikipedia-Beitrag ohne wirkliche Gründe hinter dem Schutz der Anonymität seiner Person in der Wikipedia. Er beeinflusst das Löschen von Tatsachen wider besseres Wissen so zum Beispiel bei der Grabung "Mumbaqat" und "Schloss Saarbrücken" . Zum Beispiel bei der Literatur und der Tätigkeit und Beteiligungen. Mangels seiner Anonymität wird die Klärung der Tatsachen durch ein Rechtsmittel verhindert.

vitruv2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C8:4700:D300:5183:C8DD:5F7F:4289 (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


No spamming of “fake literature” given. Vitruvius2008 (talk) 11:50, August 26, 2023 (UTC)

--Objection to the consistent for deletion--

There are no legitimate reasons for deletion.

[[User:|Vitruv2008]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitruv2008 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Objection to the deletion of the Wikipedia article "Alfred Werner Maurer" The content of the Wikipedia page Alfred Werner Maurer is accurate. No spamming of “fake literature” given. The applicant johannes89 is trying to diminish the person's reputation and his academic work in architecture, art history and archeology without justification. An examination against these attempts has already been submitted to [email protected]. It is an attempt to deny personal contradictions in public.

vitruv2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C8:4700:D300:5183:C8DD:5F7F:4289 (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The applicant who submitted the "Alfred Werner Maurer" request for deletion in all countries also successfully tried to delete the Wikipedia article without any real reasons behind protecting his person's anonymity in Wikipedia. He influences the deletion of facts against better knowledge, for example in the excavations "Mumbaqat" and "Schloss Saarbrücken". For example in literature and activities and participations. The lack of anonymity prevents the facts from being clarified through legal action.

vitruv2008 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C8:4700:D300:5183:C8DD:5F7F:4289 (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C8:4700:D300:5183:C8DD:5F7F:4289 (talk)

Categories: Biography articles of living peopleStart-Class biography articlesWikiProject Biography articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C8:4715:AB00:A822:CCF4:9948:D422 (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Regardless of whether this is a hoax or not, I'm simply not seeing enough sources to substantiate notability. Edit: Having looked into this on the German wiki, I concur that that this article is connected to extensive promotional spam, so I say delete with prejudice. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to India–Russia relations. The discussion has been quite sparse, but from reading the comments, this looks like an outcome all the participants would find acceptable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of India, Moscow[edit]

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

Subject fails GNG. Efforts to redirect this have failed. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why an embassy article should be merged to a list of ambassadors. Liz Read! Talk! 07:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Someone searching the word embassy is not looking for a list of ambassadors. For this reason, I still think deletion is the best option. LibStar (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, it's generally encouraged that lists provide context. If we take a look at a sibling article—List of ambassadors of Russia to India—it does a decent job of providing such context.
In this case, part of List of ambassadors of India to Russia is already excerpted into this article and it fits pretty well, so we can continue that approach under the new title with just a bit of finessing. But overall it seems like a natural merge.
The alternative is the bilateral relations article, but I think that is a broader topic, so I prefer the ambassadors article for a level of precision. —siroχo 08:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with India–Russia relations. This seems to be the standard way of covering diplomatic missions when the embassies are not notable on their own. I see no reason to deviate from that practice. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:10, 16 November 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 Mohamed bin Hajj Ali Thukkala. Clear consensus below that the article shouldn't be retained, but no real agreement on whether to merge or not. Redirecting (as they are cheap) and if anyone needs to merge content at any point, they can do so editorially from behind the redirect. Daniel (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dhevvadhoo dynasty[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. The cited sources are mere mentions and the UNESCO site says nothing about the dynasty. I don't know why Drewmutt accepted this draft. I couldn't find sources about the dynasty in English but I cannot rule out foreign-language results. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could merge the information from these dynasty pages into the Sultanate of Maldives? These articles barely seem to be notable on their own, it would make more sense to merge them into the history section of the actual state. 296cherry (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’d assumed that being a royal dynasty would have some inherent notability, but if that’s not the case I fully understand. We should probably take a look at the similarly sourced articles Dhiyamigili dynasty and Isdhoo dynasty as well. Perhaps the whole lot should be deleted? Basically, I was trying to fill in the gaps, with improved sourcing and content. The UNESCO site does contain this direct reference to the Dhevvadhoo dynasty though

“ The Friday mosque in the island of Fenfushi was built between 1692-1701 CE during the reign of Sultan Mohamed of Dhevvadhu (1692-1701 CE)” so it’s not accurate to say that there isn’t a mention. Hy Brasil (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had been planning to go through this entire category of Maldivian dynasties and add more sourcing (it’s quite lacking), but if it’s likely they will be deleted, I won’t bother. It’s good this came up. Hy Brasil (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I searched all the social science oriented libraries and databases available through TWL for both "Dhevvadhoo" and "Dhevvadhu". Got a few news hits for Dhevvadhoo as a toponym, and the one other source is an open access publication [31] which has the same sentence as the UNESCO source, about Sultan Mohamed of Dhevvadhu (1692-1701 CE). Given this date span is identical to the Pakistan Observer source from the article (Singh 2022), I suggest that the "Devvadhoo dynasty" is "the one sultan that one time from the island of Dhevvadhoo / Dhevvadhu". Maybe Sultan Mohamed of Dhevvadhu has sources in some language, but I doubt his "dynasty" (which, sensu strictu isn't, as it involves no familial succession) has any notability independent from the individual. Folly Mox (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Discussion is great but it would also be helpful to know where editors ultimately stand on what should happen with this article. Does the article have issues that can resolved through editing or it is better to delete it from main space?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the articles should be deleted and merged into Sultanate of Maldives. They don't hold enough weight to stand alone, and they work perfectly fine within the main article's text. 296cherry (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't looked at the whole series (and honestly probably don't have time to), but the redlink merge target I proposed above already exists at Mohamed bin Hajj Ali Thukkala (which was probably already in the article when I commented on 17 October, had I bothered to do the reading instead of just looking for sources). Suggest merge into Mohamed bin Hajj Ali Thukkala, leaving behind a redirect for the six inbound mainspace links. Folly Mox (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two different Merge targets suggested here. Editors have to come to a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I agree with merging into Mohamed bin Hajj Ali Thukkala 296cherry (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Amongst other problems, discussing a dynasty with a single member is like having a school of a single fish. I cannot find any source that clearly and unambiguously refers to this as a dynasty (probably for the reason just mentioned), thus failing WP:GNG. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 8 November 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 World Series of Poker (WP:ATD). Clear consensus below not to retain the article, and some support for a redirect but crucially, no opposition from those advocating 'delete'. Please feel free to re-target the redirect to another article/section of article if any editor wishes to do so. Daniel (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 World Series of Poker Online[edit]

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

Incomplete article, disputed draftification, unreferenced. The event was to conclude on 2 October, so why is it in this state with blank tables? Not suitable for mainspace. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Games, and Internet. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unreferenced articles should be draftified or deleted. The history of this one seems to be of gaming the system to get an article, and not finishing it, so it might as well either be started over, or not started over. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify the main contributor, User:Officially Mr X, was already open to it being draftified. It definitely should not have been put into the mainspace. Though I'm sure it could actually turn up some sources, there are not nearly enough for its own article at this time. Conyo14 (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per previous seasons, this is a useful and relevant article to keep - we can fill in any missing information in the near future, but even the amount of information currently listed is very useful, and covers the most important information. Let's just make it public and move on - I don't think it's worth discussing at length. Officially Mr X (talk) 13:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP but the article as of right now is definitely not ready for mainspace. – The Grid (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Grid, if you want the article cleaned up, then it needs to stay in the mainspace. m:Research:Wikipedia article creation and m:Research:AfC processes and productivity indicate that the draftspace is where articles go to die. In the mainspace, people see what needs doing and do it. In the draftspace, nobody cares.
    The standard for getting an article out of draftspace isn't whether the article is WP:FINISHED; it's about whether the article covers a notable subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. See WhatamIdoing's comment about the pitfalls of draftifying. This subject is notable. The deletion policy gives 12 different reasons for deletion -- this article doesn't meet any of them. The edit history shows Officially Mr X has been editing the article off and on through October 23rd. Two days later it was nominated for deletion. I appreciate Mr. X's diligent content creation and I see no need to delete this content -- just keep working on the article.
I've tagged it for now with a {{under construction}} tag.
In the meantime, I suggest just deleting or suppressing the incomplete portions.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to WSOP until such time as there's sufficient sourcing to merit a standalone article. While the tournament overall is be notable, there's no indication that this edition was. Star Mississippi 01:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect to WSOP - agree with StarMiss (hey!) above. Kazamzam (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Protection note, tired of playing whack a sock so I have semi'ed for a week. I did !vote but don't think this is controversial as any autoconfirmed editor remains eligible to participate, and the Talk is available to any legit newbies. Admins, feel free to revert if needed. Star Mississippi 14:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The World Series overall is notable, not this specific tournament. Cortador (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just an unreferenced list of winners. We don't simply post tournament results in WP. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to [32] Hobit (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As it stands, the article is still unsourced. Merely being unsourced is generally not enough to delete an article- WP:NEXIST generally applies except for limited other cases. However, I find it not ideal that an autopatrolled user (Officially Mr X), who is assigned the right due to a track record of clean article creation, would create an unsourced article that remains unsourced for weeks. Regarding notability, my search mainly found unconvincing results, i.e., a few Forbes contributor articles which are generally unreliable per RSP and other press releases, but there are a few that are borderline. Overall, I am leaning towards deletion or redirection to World Series of Poker as an appropriate alternative to deletion. VickKiang (talk) 02:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as simply an indiscriminate collection of information. While it's true that we shouldn't just delete an article because it's unsourced, that nobody has come forward with any sources in almost a month is somewhat telling. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable sourcing present here or in the article to satisfy WP:NLIST. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was ‎ no consensus. The nominator has made a very large number of challenges to the provided sources. While many of the challenges have some foundation, they are not decisive arguments that mandate deletion. Some of the sources are interviews (this includes the Miami Herald, behind a paywall), which may make the source a primary source, albeit one published by an independent and reliable news organization. Such sources may be used to "cover straightforward statements of facts". I therefore find that the sourcing is of sufficient merit that WP:V and WP:NOR are fulfilled, and with many people arguing that the achievements of the person and the available media coverage is sufficient for the subject's notability, there is no consensus to delete based on that guideline either. Claims that Miami Herald articles are "clickbait" lack foundation. While the headline may aim to catch attention, I see no evidence that the headline is deceptive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lane Bess[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Looked at the first two blocks. References are mostly interviews, PR, profiles and non-specific content urls. scope_creepTalk 09:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Stravensky: It is a nice article and potentially notable. If you use google book reference,s you may find something. WP:SECONDARY sources are the gold standard. Interviews aren't very good. Your articles are really well written, structured and formatted. Unfortunately the sourcing is not the best on here. Don't lose hope. I'll give you hand to see if it it is possible. See if a WP:HEYMANN can be found to upgrade the article. I will post a notice at WP:WIR to see if you can find other folk that may help. scope_creepTalk 13:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have tried my best for years to contribute helpful info. I would hate to lose every page rather than just improve them. I appreciate your help and will look for more references. Stravensky (talk) 13:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a message at Women in Red. Hope it helps. scope_creepTalk 13:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was a women. Its a dude. scope_creepTalk 13:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is probably been paid to go to space. I don't think it necessarily notable. We will see what the sources say. scope_creepTalk 13:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading this profile of Bess in the Miami Herald, I'd say that Bess doesn't really seem to be notable as a tech executive. There is some coverage regarding his appointment as CEO of DeepInstinct, but it's mostly press releases. Simply being a passenger of the New Shepard flight doesn't really contribute to his notability, in my opinion, but perhaps a redirect to New_Shepard#Flight_list would be better than deletion? Mooonswimmer 15:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mooonswimmer & @Scope creep One other thought is that Lane and his son Cameron were the first ever father and son duo to go into space together. That alone seems quite notable. Stravensky (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Stravensky: It is very slim and is not really recognised as something that is considered notable unfortunately. scope_creepTalk 22:44, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep I believe there is an article in "Advocate" about his son Cameron also being the first openly LGBT person to go to space. I can find more articles about the first father and son duo if helpful. I am not sure I understand why being the first father and son duo to go to space would not be notable? Regardless, he was CEO of both Zscaler and Palo Alto Networks, which are two of the largest cyber security firms in the United States, which also felt notable at the time I submitted the page. Stravensky (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Stravensky: That is really slim as well. I never really agreed with the "first person to do something" thing, although is it used in here in various quarters in here, to the prove the person is notable but I always thought so it was so tenuous. We will take a look at the state of the references in the next couple of days. scope_creepTalk 23:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can always add references but being the first is commonly accepted as notable (Neil Armstrong, etc). I don't understand the attack of these pages for sourcing if most people would agree they are notable. I have added references to other people's articles that had zero sources in order to improve their articles rather than nominating to just delete every article they wrote. Stravensky (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mooonswimmer I just added 6 other references I just found online, and deleted one sentence that sounded promotional. There is a WSJ interview and two additional profiles from Carnegie Mellon University among them. Stravensky (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Lets examine the first two blocks of references. They seem very poor just a raw reading.
Ref 1 [33] It is a puff piece article, information taken from social media. It is not independent. It is non-rs
Ref 2 [34] This looks like fake website. Who is Lane Bess. It is non-rs.
Ref 3 [35] This is interview style article. It is not independent.
Ref 4 [36] This is a profile. It is not significant nor independent.
Ref 5 [37] News for donating £10million to Carnegie Mellon
Ref 6 [38] Same press-release as Ref 5
Ref 7 [39] Not significant. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Does prove he was a ceo.
Ref 8 [40] Paid for profile. Not independent.
Ref 9 [41] Passing mention.
Ref 10 [42] Press-release
Ref 11 [43] press-release
Ref 12 [44] States it is an CRN interview. Not independent.
Ref 13 Unable to locate this, but it is routine news of an appointment. Not significant.
Ref 14 [45] Press-release
Ref 15 [46] Profile.
Ref 16 [47] Passing mention.

I'm not going to do the rest. These are all press-release, passing mentionss and interviews and profiles, typical of a successful businessman. Per WP:THREE there is a not one single secondary source that comes to prove he is notable. Ref 3 comes close but it an interview. Meet Lane Bess article and its junk. Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 17:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. Understood on all of the above. The sources on going into space seem to be the top secondary sources about notability for being first parent/child pair to ever go into space together. Maybe the page should not mention as much of business side but notability for going into space seems clear. Stravensky (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of discussion here but few opinions for what should happen with this article beyond the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep, what do you think of a redirect to New_Shepard#Flight_list ? Mooonswimmer 18:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Agree with scope_creep's eval of sources in article above, nothing else presented for eval, WP:BLP require strong sourcing and this fails WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth No objection to a consensus redirect.  // Timothy :: talk  09:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A redirect is a good alternative to deletion in this case. scope_creepTalk 09:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not to WP:POKEMON this, but List of space travellers by first flight currently lists 641 people, including Lane Bess, almost all of whom have a page here. If the Lane Bess page is deleted, he will be notable as one of the few space travellers not to have a page. Sure, at some point we'll have to stop creating a page for every person who boards a spaceflight, but I don't believe we're there yet. Owen× ☎ 10:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't dependent on the space flight, it is dependent on significant coverage and thats not there. scope_creepTalk 10:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@OwenX: If you have WP:THREE sources that shows the person is notable, which we can all examine, then please post them? scope_creepTalk 10:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, WP:THREE is an essay, not a policy. Besides, you've already listed more than three press releases that assert his notability, either as a CEO or as a space traveller. Owen× ☎ 13:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @OwenX: That is incorrect. Per the recent consensus that was established, WP:THREE is now seen as best practice and should be used in situations like this. So if you have three references that are decent? 14:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Some coverage about the space flight [48], [49]. Confirmation of who he is here (article about selling his house, but it gives some context [50] Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The NYPost is non-rs. scope_creepTalk 14:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
more of a confirmation of existence than anything. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also flew into space with his child, the first pair to do so. [51]. Trivial mention, yes, but it's confirmation of the fact. This [52], [53] and this [54] all confirming the space flight. Last one gives a bit more context about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yip. I'm sympathetic. He will become an astronaut no doubt, he will be an astronaut. I'll take a look at these tommorrrow. scope_creepTalk 17:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking at these references that have been posted:
    Ref 16 [55] This is an interview and it's PR.
    Ref 17 [56] In an interview, Bess states: This is interview and is not independent.
    Ref 18 Non-rs. NY Post is non-rs.
    Ref 19 [57] This is affiliated news. PR and an interview. It states its in the article.
    Ref 20 [58] This is clickbait that taken the story from social media. It not reliable.
    Ref 21 [59] This also takes the details from social media to create the article. It is really lazy. It is not reliable nor independent.
    Ref 22 Can't view.

These references are the exact same low-quality PR, clickbait and interviews along with social media driven articles. It states in WP:BLP. Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. . None of these genuine valid sources. There is a huge because its all PR driven. In WP:BIO, there is three criteria for notabilty. This person fails all of them. scope_creepTalk 15:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 18 is from WSJ but not reliable? Reference 23 is from Miami Herald and though it is an interview, it also proves notability and is from a reliable news source. The systematic urge to delete any page I had written (before checking all the references) seems to me to be the motive here, not an objective desire to improve Wikipedia. Stravensky (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 18 above is non-rs. Interviews don't prove notability per long established consensus. scope_creepTalk 23:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 18 in the article is him talking wich makes it WP:PRIMARY. More of the same. scope_creepTalk 23:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia" -- I would suggest the Miami Herald is reputable, as is Wall Street Journal. Stravensky (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator seems to be the only person determined to delete article, and he has been determined on nominating several other pages written by me in the past 6 years as you can see in contribution history. Stravensky (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to List of The Walking Dead (comics) characters. Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly (The Walking Dead)[edit]

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

Another minor Walking Dead character. Plot summary + tiny reception limited to minor trivia about the actress who played her and not the character. Fails WP:GNG. Best ATD is to redirect this to the list of characters, although I am not sure which one? (List of The Walking Dead (comics) or List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect To the comics page. However I think it is a possibility that the page be outright deleted without a redirect as I doubt the need for every single character to have a redirect or article.Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The name is very generic, unlikely to be searched for, but redirects are WP:CHEAP, and maybe someone will find something from that article useful one day? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we expand this discussion to include more than just Kelly (The Walking Dead)? I have been doing copy-editing on the The Walking Dead character pages for the past hour and a lot of them have threadbare sourcing, not even photos, next to no character information. 209.94.63.27 (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear anon. We tend to discuss things one by one here. Just list a few of the worst offenders here every week, we will be done in a little while. (And do create an account, then we can ping you back when talking to you...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:27, 8 November 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 14:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of the 5 largest cities by state in the United States[edit]

List of mayors of the 5 largest cities by state in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Random intersection of characteristics. There is nothing that makes this grouping notable or connected, the "5 largest cities" in one state are small villages in another (e.g. 5th largest in Alaska has less than 10,000 inhabitants), and there is nothing special compared to the 6th, 7th, ... Fram (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NLIST as there is no significant coverage of this particular group. Nagol0929 (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could imagine List of mayors of the 50 largest cities in the United States, which this was clearly based on, being expanded, but I don't see why we need this list to artificially include very small towns whose elections receive no attention outside of them. Reywas92Talk 14:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An utterly pointless list whose only purpose seems to be to add edits to someone's count and to avert boredom that could be expended on much more notable articles. Just because you want to sort data in this manner doesn't mean anyone else wants to read it. Nate • (chatter) 17:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fuckin' uproarious. What you just described applies to most of the upper tiers of WP:MAW. Instead of scrutinizing their work, instead we write Signpost articles spinning their non-accomplishments into something profound. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet NLIST. No RS for this group as a group. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per everyone above, especially Last1in. It is hard to see this as a WP:SPINOFF list, so, we expect RS for the list of mayors as a group. - --Enos733 (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fine whatever im not in the mood for this, i should've known not to spend over a year making this. WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 14:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've not done a complete check, but only around 10 of the 240+ listed here are not listed at the United States Conference of Mayors database, which uses a population threshold of 30,000. Rutgers' Center for American Women and Politics lists all women mayors in cities over 30,000. If this list were limited to cities with populations over 30,000, I think we'd have sourcing to satisfy WP:NLIST: There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a directory. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. (my emphasis) Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NLIST. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No opinion on the notability or lack thereof of this list. This discussion is one more example of how it's meaningless to work on U.S. states as topic areas, because the context of that topic area will never be respected so long as editors treat those states as venues to satisfy a "one size fits all" mentality. Never mind that I have nothing to offer in furtherance of big-city minutiae. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:52, 14 November 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 14:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Full expression interactive movie[edit]

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

Entirely WP:OR, see Talk:Adventure game#New SubGenre: Full expression interactive movie by example of HellBlade

  • Comment. Note also WP:NOTDICT. According to the article creator, if something has a clear and unambiguous definition, as is the case with theories, it does not have to have a source. The definition is the source. Seems to be relying on a predicted future WP:CIRCULAR source, because in the future someone will name it and then there will be a source.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!discuss 11:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The author seems to regard the establishing of terms as a game, see his user page and the article talk page. Kind regards, Grueslayer 11:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very strange because @Darek555 did not even change the main word of Permanent death to permadeath, assuming this means changing Permanent death -> Permadeath. Seems it was @Coffee who did the move, and Darek555 did not even propose the move despite the claim that they were the author of this change. The row they mentioned with @NinjaRobotPirate seems to have been about the inclusion of some video game against consensus, so really I have no goddamn idea why they're claiming this. This could be evidence of further problematic behavior. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!discuss 12:37, 8 November 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 November 8. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 12:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This editor is engaged in a slow edit war over this term at both Talk:Adventure game and Talk:Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice. as a VG editor, this term is entirely made up to what Darek555 claims is what they created on their own, which ain't going to fly here. --Masem (t) 13:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Where do I even start - this article is so problematic. I'll just go with "delete per all the above". Maybe we can save the new editor but he's got to change if he wants to continue editing here.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:36, 8 November 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 14:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Adeolu Owodunni[edit]

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

All sources available are not independent neither do they have significant coverage about the entry. And so, the subject does not meet the general notability guidelines. My instincts tell me that is a case of undisclosed paid editing; so I won’t be surprised there’s an influx of "new" editors voting and not !voting keeps! Best, Reading Beans (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 06:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Reading Beans' assessment of the sources, as well as my own prior assessment. Not sure why this article was not deleted before. DiverDave (talk) 06:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--<span style="font-family:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 14:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lawi Yohana[edit]

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

I’m not sure the entry meets any criteria on WP:NPROF because available sources (include a WP:BEFORE) does not bring forth articles that satisfies notability. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 10:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unclear how any criteria of academic notability are met. Mentions are mostly trivial (to pass criterium 7) and the passing of criterium 1 is unclear.
JamesKH76 (talk) 11:49, 12 November 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. WP:SK2; nominator has been checkuser blocked and nobody has !voted other than to keep. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clemen Chiang[edit]

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

Promotional, not well sourced with truly reliable sources Weißer Storch (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Singapore. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources about his public impact. The nominator should be more specific about the reasons for this AfD, since this issue of sources was already brought in the previous one and the sources mentioned there were not challenged. As for a supposed promotional nuance, I don't know what to say, it seems pretty matter-of-fact to me. Manzzoku (talk) 15:30, 8 November 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! 08:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scorecard of A. E. J. Collins[edit]

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

Unnecessary WP:CFORK of A. E. J. Collins, which already has a lengthy section on this match. The scorecard itself is not really individually notable, and would appear to fall foul of WP:NOTDATABASE. Harrias (he/him) • talk 10:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable enough to stand alone, I am afraid. Chanaka L (talk) 10:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic; match is already covered adequately in his biography. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would suggest a redirect to A. E. J. Collins#The famous match but can't see it being a plausible search term really. Certainly an unnecessary content fork. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I don't think there is any need for a redirect, as it doesn't seem a plausible search term. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete amazed this has lasted for so long without references. It's unnecessary given the prose coverage at the article about the person Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not needed as per all the above. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not needed, the coverage in his article is perfectly sufficient -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:48, 13 November 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. WP:SK2; nominator has been checkuser blocked and nobody has !voted other than to keep. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Thread[edit]

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

The page does not meet the notability guidelines: WPNCORP; citing own website - is a sign of spam I guess Weißer Storch (talk) 10:00, 8 November 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. WP:SK2; nominator has been checkuser blocked and nobody has !voted other than to keep. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Solstice Sunglasses[edit]

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

The sources are scarce and the notability is questionable: "Solstice estimated it has between 200 and 999 creditors. Its estimated assets and liabilities are each between $1 million and $10 million." - revenue is too small Weißer Storch (talk) 09:59, 8 November 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. Daniel (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mantic Games[edit]

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

Surprisingly only Kickstarter-links-based company. Per WP:NCORP and Reliable sources - it's doesn't meet WP notability standards Weißer Storch (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looking for sources about Mantic Games brings up nothing. Individual Kickstarters, like the one for the Hellboy board game, could be notable, but not the publisher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs) 17:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added a host of nominations for Origins Awards over a span of ten years, as well as having one of the top 100 most successful games of 2019. Guinness323 (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on improvements made by Guinness323. BOZ (talk) 07:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the new sources. Royal88888 (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Checkuser note: The nominator was checkuser blocked and based on information available to the CU team it appears that this nomination was submitted in bad faith. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cortador do you wish to update your !vote? BOZ (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, all editors should feel free to express their true opinions at this AfD. There's no need for Cortador to change their vote unless they genuinely have changed their true opinion. The bad intentions of the nominator don't affect the merits of the AfD; it just means that the nominator's opinion should be disregarded. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the new sources Mattl (talk) 16:37, 14 November 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. WP:SK2; nominator has been checkuser blocked and nobody has !voted other than to keep. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Motion[edit]

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

The page does not meet the notability guidelines: WPNCORP Weißer Storch (talk) 09:54, 8 November 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. WP:SK2; nominator has been checkuser blocked and nobody has !voted other than to keep. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warlord Games[edit]

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

The page does not meet the notability guidelines: WPNCORP Weißer Storch (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This company's products are reasonably well-known in British wargaming circles. I have included references from several books that use thecompany's games and figurines as examples when describing things like rule design or miniature painting. Guinness323 (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on improvements made by Guinness323. BOZ (talk) 01:36, 11 November 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 deleted‎. While the AfD was underway, the article was deleted by Kuru per WP:G5. (non-admin closure) — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Online Gurukul[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The first few references fail WP:NEWSORGINDIA as they are clearly churnalism from the same press release. The other are unreliable sources and there is no significant coverage I can find in an online search. CNMall41 (talk) 08:31, 8 November 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 06:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Free Music "Nasr Mahrous"[edit]

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

Non-notable record label. No sources found to establish notability. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Egypt. Reading Beans (talk) 08:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Absolutely nothing to find, tried looking under "Free Music Egypt" but still nothing, although musicians Sherine and Tamer Hosny both released two albums (including their debuts) under Free Music Egypt and I think there might be something there, if sources are presented please ping me. dxneo (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete‎ by Kuru per WP:G5. (non-admin closure) --Finngall talk 21:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Mehta[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. References are interviews, press releases, unreliable sources, or fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 08:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was created by a clear sock of Amansharma111. I've deleted the page, if someone could close this AFD. Sam Kuru (talk) 20:40, 8 November 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 of the slightly weak variety. WP:HEY has occurred here and the general consensus post-rewrite, including some changed !votes, is that article should be retained. Hard to judge consensus though when articles change this much during discussion, hence the slight qualification on my keep closure. Daniel (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suzy Kellems Dominik[edit]

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

This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. Seems more like WP:PROMO. Full of generic embedded links. Article history shows the article was created by banned editor Masterknighted. Other SPAs involved with edits. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Arts, and Visual arts. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is what I thought when I tagged it as UPE and proposed deletion in 2018. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, New York, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Emotional and known for her fiercely confrontational work, reads like PROMO right off the bat. Oaktree b (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : Little sourcing found for the individual mentioned here. Gscholar is five hits, all to the Mark Morris Dance Group. Nothing else found we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm unsure if this is the same person [62], [63], this one art display caused quite a stir in the press. I can't tell if it's the same person the wiki article is about though. Oaktree b (talk) 03:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. This is an in-depth professional profile, and can't continue its current state. (Update: keep per WP:HEY) Subject appears to be of borderline notability, with a fair amount of coverage in Women's Wear Daily, eg [64], and verifiable exhibits eg [65][66] and [67]. The specific exhibit Oaktree mentions above itself has quite a bit of coverage. I could see an article being drafted and going through AfC if someone is willing to do a bit more research. —siroχo 04:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but send to draft if possible. Wow this is promo.With new sourcing above, I've reconsidered. Struck my other vote above. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the only thing that should be decided here is if she is notable, which she seems to be from adequate sourcing. Lack of museum collections shouldn't weigh against her, as her main work looks to be exhibitions. I've done a bit of clean-up of the styling and promotional language, more is needed but should not be decisive to this discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article has been rewritten with stronger sourcing. Most of the concerning article text, especially those not supported by sources or those only supported by official sources, has been rewritten or removed. Bridget (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sourcing has improved, with multiple examples of reliable sources giving significant coverage. Thank you, Bridget, for removing all of the ridiculous promotional text, like being an "emotional autobiographer known for her fearlessly confrontational work." Elspea756 (talk) 07:06, 10 November 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 06:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzania Agricultural Society[edit]

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

Perhaps due to language, but, I can't find anything on the web that constitutes NOTABILITY. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chukwudi Dimkpa[edit]

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

Alright. Aside from the advertising problem which could be fixed by copy-editing, this entry is not notable. I have concerns of sockpuppetry and undisclosed paid advertising. Some citations failed verification (didn't even mention the fella) and thus does not meet the general notability criteria. The SNG for politicians does not apply here, he was only a member of the board of NDDC. So... Best, Reading Beans (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 06:18, 9 November 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 06:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karnataka Urban Development and Coastal Environment Management Project[edit]

Karnataka Urban Development and Coastal Environment Management Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources provided are mainly 1 line mentions of the project as a funder of individual projects. I could not find any indepth coverage of this specialised project. LibStar (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 02:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Sastre[edit]

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

Woman with a job, No indication of notability. PepperBeast (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Leyva Martinez, Ivette (2005-12-18). "Maria Sastre, en las alas del triunfo personal". El Nuevo Herald (in Spanish). p. 13. Retrieved 2023-11-01.
  2. ^ "Landing United job wasn't first on runway". Ledger-Enquirer. 1996-09-29. p. 48. Retrieved 2023-11-01.
  3. ^ Paiva Cordle, Ina (1996-09-16). "Maria A. Sastre: una mujer que vuela alto". El Nuevo Herald (in Spanish). p. 13. Retrieved 2023-11-01.
  4. ^ Garcia, Beatrice (1999-07-29). "United's local chief flies into tough new assignment". The Miami Herald. pp. [1], [2]. Retrieved 2023-11-01.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: does sourcing meet required depth
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I've evaluated the sources currently in the article in a table below:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
El Nuevo Herald (1) Yes El Nuevo Herald is an independent news organization. The article content is written by a journalist and is in the newspaper's voice. Yes Established WP:NEWSORG. Yes The ~22 paragraph article is principally about the article subject. ✔ Yes
Knight-Ridler Tribune News Service Yes Independent wire service Yes Tribune News Service is a reputable newswire. Yes This ~10 paragraph article is principally about Sastre. ✔ Yes
El Nuevo Herald (2) ? This piece appears to be a spanish translation of the aforementioned Tribune News Service piece. ? This piece appears to be a spanish translation of the aforementioned Tribune News Service piece. ? This piece appears to be a spanish translation of the aforementioned Tribune News Service piece. ? Unknown
The Miami Herald (1) Yes The Miami Herald is an independent WP:NEWSORG Yes The Miami Herald is an established Florida WP:NEWSORG No The coverage is quite brief, being a single sentence. ✘ No
The Miami Herald (2) ~ The Miami Herald is an independent WP:NEWSORG. However, this piece seems to be a print version of their "Movers" blog, which may substantially be copying from PR material rather than independent reporting. ~ The Miami Herald is an established Florida WP:NEWSORG, but this is a print version of one of their WP:NEWSBLOGs, which may have less reliability than other print content. No The coverage is quite brief, being merely three sentences. ✘ No
The Bergen Record (1) Yes The Bergen Record is an independent WP:NEWSORG. Yes The Bergen Record is an established mainstream newspaper. ~ Sastre is quoted twice, but coverage of Sastre aside from those quotes is quite brief. ~ Partial
The Bergen Record (2) Yes The Bergen Record is an independent WP:NEWSORG. Yes The Bergen Record is an established mainstream newspaper. ~ Sastre is quoted a bit, but coverage of Sastre herself aside from those quotes is quite brief. ~ Partial
Signature Flight No Press release by her employer announcing her new role. ~ WP:ABOUTSELF ? Moot as clearly non-independent. ✘ No
Silicon Valley Business Journal Yes Why not? Yes Why not? ~ Sastre is quoted a bit, but coverage of Sastre herself aside from those quotes is quite brief. ~ Partial
Forbes profile No Profile text appears to be provided by the article subject; it's virtually the exact same as this regulatory filing. ~ WP:ABOUTSELF, in light of the above. ? Moot as clearly non-independent. ✘ No
Helios Foundation No Sastre's profile on the website of an organization where she sits on the Board of Directors is not an independent profile. ~ WP:ABOUTSELF ? Moot as clearly non-independent. ✘ No
Bloomberg Profile (1) No Per RSP, Bloomberg company and executive profiles are generally considered to be based on company press releases and should only be used as a source for uncontroversial information. There is consensus that these profiles should not be used to establish notability.. ~ Company press releases are fine for WP:ABOUTSELF stuff. ? Moot as non-independent. ✘ No
PR Newswire No Press Release ~ WP:ABOUTSELF ? Moot as clearly non-independent. ✘ No
Bloomberg Profile (2) No Link is broken, and I can't find an archive, but the title indicates to me that this is a somewhat typical Bloomberg profile. Per RSP, Bloomberg company and executive profiles are generally considered to be based on company press releases and should only be used as a source for uncontroversial information. There is consensus that these profiles should not be used to establish notability.. ~ WP:ABOUTSELF. ? Moot as clearly non-independent. ✘ 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}}.
In this table, we've got two reliable, independent sources that provide this individual with WP:SIGCOV (I'm counting the second Nuevo Herald article as being equivalent to the Tribune News Service article; the two are written sentence-for-sentence so similarly that one has to be a translation of the other). In addition to those sources, there are also some additional sources not in the article that seem to offer WP:SIGCOV from independent reliable sources, such as a 1995 article in The Miami Herald, a 1999 article in The Miami Herald, and a 2004 article in The Miami Herald. These appear to push this individual to be more clearly over the notability threshold than I had expected at the onset of looking at this; ultimately, these articles, plus the first two sources listed in the source assessment table, are the sources that convince me that this individual meets WP:NBASIC/WP:GNG.
(As an aside: for filling in additional biographical details, there's of course interview that was mentioned above, as well as some other supplementary sources that don't contribute towards notability but could be used for that purpose, like the Orlando Business Journal, a Fortune Magazine list, Hispanic Executive, The Miami Herald, et cetera.) — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep I read the article and was ready to say "Yes, this subject is not notable," but then I got to the sources. Reliable publications have written non-trivial articles about Maria Sastre. My question is ...why? The original poster has a point: this is just a person who's had what looks like a successful but normal career. Did our fellow Wikieditors somehow draft this article and forget to say what Sastre did that was so important? Maybe the article should lead with something like "Sastre was the first person of Latin descent to hold position X" or "Sastre was the second woman to be elected to the board of Y" or whatever it was that made her so interesting to Miami Herald, Forbes, and el Nuevo Herald. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve given a more extended response on the article’s talk page, but in short she was the first woman to rise to the rank of VP at United, and that she rose up the ranks as a Latina in the 1980s was also something particularly of note for the Cuban diaspora in South Florida. The article needs to be expanded to give more of that info, but, as always, if editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting it. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 22:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Superb. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, Red and I did some more work on the article to make it more obvious why Sastre's seemingly normal but successful career is notable. It now reads "Among other positions, she was the first female regional vice president of United Airlines, a position she held from 1995 to 1999. She has since gone on to leadership roles in several other aviation-related organizations. Fortune named her one of the 50 most powerful Latinas of 2017." This is now a confident Keep from me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the source analysis above which proves notability. This AfD is a really awesome example of how a simple nom can result in some incredible work that results in keeping a previously unremarkable article. Extra kudos to those who have improved the article during the AfD. ZsinjTalk 02:01, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Muskeg Lake Cree Nation. This applies only to this article, the others will need to be nominated separate to this close. Daniel (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muskeg Lake 102G[edit]

Muskeg Lake 102G (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a description of a place with 0 population. There are a number of other similar pages which are subdivisions of Muskeg Lake 102. Maybe there is a reason why Statistics Canada uses this designation but I question how this meets the notability criteria on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's the name for a Native American reservation [68], where the band has 200 plus people. Oaktree b (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's Muskeg Lake 102 which is not the page under discussion. Am I wrong? JMWt (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's part of their traditional territory the Federal Gov't has allocated to the band. It's one of a few "places" under this reservation. I'd perhaps redirect to the Lake 102 article. No one lives at this spot, but they do in the larger reservation. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and there's a page for the reservation. We are discussing 102G. The reservation is 102 JMWt (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So it should be deleted, a dot on the map of the reservation, is what I'm trying to explain Oaktree b (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why, User:Oaktree b should it be deleted, rather than redirected? Nfitz (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge this and other reserves in the province to List of Indian reserves in Saskatchewan It makes a great deal of sense to convert the latter into a sortable list with the basic data on each such reserve, which is pretty much what I'm finding in each such article. As it stands, these are too stubby and don't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND beyond the fact of their legal status. Mangoe (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is confusing to me how you get to this conclusion. As with others in this discussion, you appear to be talking about Muskeg Lake 102 when this discussion is about Muskeg Lake 102G. There seems little reason to merge Muskeg Lake 102 - but even if that argument is to be made, you can't make it in this discussion. JMWt (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the first sentence of the article? It says that 102G is an Indian reserve. Mangoe (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect this and all of the other Muskeg Lake Cree Nation reserve stubs to the main article, Muskeg Lake Cree Nation:

I think this is a better target than the more comprehensive list for the entire province (List of Indian reserves in Saskatchewan). At a minimum, each stub contains location, coordinate and population information. Some also include other data. List of Indian reserves in Saskatchewan contains none of this data and it's already 20,124 bytes long which is above the suggested WP:TOOLONG limit of 15,000 bytes. We'd either have to expand the provincial list even further or lose information during the merge.

A merge to either article will involve converting the list to a table. That and redirecting the other stubs is probably a lot to ask of the closing admin

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to either of Muskeg Lake 102 or Muskeg Lake Cree Nation . —siroχo 04:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as appropriate. I don't see why a deletion (or an AFD) is necessary. Nfitz (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This AFD just concerns the main article that was nominated. It was not set up as a bundled nomination, these other articles aren't even tagged for an AFD discussion and I doubt that the article creators were notified. Of course, that can happen in a future AFD but not in this one as it was set up. Liz Read! Talk! 08:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I've not nominated the other pages because I've not formed a view as to what should happen to them. It seems to me that there is a different policy argument with regard to deleting a page for a geographic place with a permanent population than one with an official population of zero. JMWt (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are three different Merge target articles mentioned in this discussion and we need to have participants pick the most appropriate one for this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:19, 8 November 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 to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion, and at least a rough consensus that the combination of noteworthy paintings of the ship as a subject and other mentions in sources suffice to provide a basis for notability. BD2412 T 00:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Lee (1831 ship)[edit]

William Lee (1831 ship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing on the page to suggest why this was a particularly notable whaler. Wikipedia is not a database WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That there are multiple contemporaneous paintings is a potentially good sign. Possible WP:ATD is a short partial merge to William Lee (captain). Curbon7 (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The paintings are all by the same artist, John Ward (painter) (and they could be transferred to his article's gallery). William Lee (captain) is also of questionable notability as well. I'm going to nominate him for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The linked paintings are particularly notable in their own right, enough to justify the article for context. Broichmore (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That feels like an argument of inherited notability (the paintings are notable so the ship must be..) and we don't normally give weight to that WP:NOTINHERITED JMWt (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- The article serves to provide a commentary on the paintings. Apart from these pictures, I would regard the ship as NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The commentary, if such exists, can go in the painter's article. Otherwise, this is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Wikipedia's fifth pillar holds that WP has no fixed rules; what matters is making WP useful. This article has primary and secondary sources, and includes information on the search for the Northwest Passage, the development of Hull's economy, its whaling industry, and shipping in the second quarter of the 19th century. The paintings should also be added to the gallery of pictures associated with John Ward, but transferring all the info in the article to the article on John Ward would clutter that article; transferring only a few sentences throws away information. As things now stand, someone seeing the pictures in a gallery, or in collections of reproductions of maritime painting can easily google the vessel and find out more about her and the context of her career. Equally, users of WP looking at topics that lead them to her, may discover John Ward. Wikipedia is a network, and so much more than a paper encyclopedia. Articles represent nodes, and links, categories, lists, and the like are the links between the nodes. A network gains value from the number of nodes and the links between them; removing nodes and their links degrades the network.Acad Ronin (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not following the deletion rationale here. The paintings tell us the ship is notable. Artist John Ward selected the William Lee as the central object for three paintings. It's not inherited notability. The paintings illustrate the article, but also their placement here helps give context to the paintings by informing readers about the ship, which is exactly what this encyclopedia seeks to do. There appears to be sufficient coverage in multiple, reliable sources to pass the GNG. Rupples (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet GNG. Silly references above to "Wikipedia is a network" and similar were actively unconvincing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The arguments above are strong reasons to keep the content, but poor reasons to keep the article. If the paintings are notable, they should have articles. If the ship is relevant context to the paintings, mention the ship where the paintings are discussed, in pages about the author or the artworks. None of this demonstrates why this title should exist. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely that's an argument to merge the content to a suitable article, as an AtD, rather than delete? Although, I've gone for keep, given the doubts expressed here over the notability of the ship, the next best option is I'd suggest a part content merge to John Ward (painter). Five of his paintings (out of 27) at Media related to William Lee (ship, 1831) at Wikimedia Commons are of the William Lee. If these are found to be commissions by the ship's owners (and there is a suggestion of this here,[69]) it weakens my keep notabilty argument for the ship. The paintings of the ship do nonetheless appear to form an important part of the output of the artist. Rupples (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edit above conflicted with the relisting comment. Rupples (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has largely focused on paintings, but this is sourced enough that we should not be hasty without a firm belief that the sources don't demonstrate notability. The Lubbock and Credland sources sound promising. I've less of an idea how much could be in some of the others such as Barrow, Hush, and Renshaw. I will suggest keep on the presumption that this meets WP:GNG through those 5 sources. Barring consensus to keep, an ATD should absolutely be used, likely merging to John Ward (painter) —siroχo 05:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is coverage of this ship in connection with Arctic exploration: "It appears that both the Isabella and William Lee went up higher into Lancaster Sound by at least a hundred miles than any other whaler had ever done before." (1) There's also coverage of the 3 paintings of the ship as discussed above. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have several different Merge/Redirect targets being suggested if this doesn't close as Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- per @Peterkingiron, @Broichmore, @Acad Ronin, @Rupples, @Ficaia 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Broichmore et.al - wolf 09:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to Keep. The paintings themselves constitute a secondary source supporting notability of the vessel, and there appears to be sufficient other coverage to flesh out an article. ResonantDistortion 09:52, 11 November 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. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Animation[edit]

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

unnecessary creation for a category of nomination that does not have a substantial or reliable reliable coverage the article is made of primary sources and most of the information is already included in International Emmy Kids Awards and awards by year articles see 1st International Emmy Kids Awards subsequent articles. Similar nominated for deletion article are

FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a list article, so it has to meet our Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists and Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. This article meets these guidelines:
    • The subject, International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Live-Action, is notable.
    • Individual list items do not have to notable but they do have to be reliably referenced. They are referenced to the Emmy awards site.
International Emmy Kids Awards, mentioned above, is a poor merge target: it does not list any award winners. Instead, it just links to this and other subcategory lists.
Another article, List of International Emmy Award winners, lists winners only and excludes nominees. It has a Kids: Animation section but for winners only. Currently, List of International Emmy Award winners lists several hundred winners only (no nominees) across about 40 current and former categories; it's already a long article. The article we're discussing for deletion contains the names of both the award winners and the nominees. If we merge this list, International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Animation, to List of International Emmy Award winners, we either have to expand the big list to include nominees going forward or we have to delete referenced useful content (nominees) from International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Animation during the merge.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of International Emmy Award winners#Kids: Animation, fails WP:LISTN: the list topic hasn't been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". The Deadline and Variety refs in the article are just listings not significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per WP:NLIST, Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. As correctly noted in the nomination, nominees are covered in articles for each ceremony, but a reader interested in a specific category benefits from this list format more; as such, this list has a reasonable informational/navigational purpose. (If only one or two years were covered, that would not be the case, but that's moot here.) Also, many other award categories have their own articles even if they are usually discussed in the context of yearly award ceremonies, not on their own, and are reliant on primary sources; see Template:TCA Awards, Template:Critics' Choice Movie Awards, Template:ESPYs, and Template:Hugo Awards for examples. (The last one is a featured topic, for what it's worth.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep The article meets WP:LISTPURP as both informational and navigational, and is largely made up of blue links. NLIST states: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Let's not force our readers to jump between 8 or more articles to get information like this. —siroχo 05:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Occidental Phantasmagoria, articles can't be Merged into hypothetical articles, only existing articles. You can create it though and editors can see whether or not it would be a suitable Merge target article. But just mentioning a nonexisting article will not cause it to come into being and that's not an action a closer can take. Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To Liz point, @Occidental Phantasmagoria International Emmy Kids Awards exits FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, nearly evenly divided between editors arguing for a Keep vs. those advocating a Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 8 November 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. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Factual & Entertainment[edit]

International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Factual & Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnecessary creation for a category of nomination that does not have a substantial or reliable reliable coverage the article is made of primary sources and most of the information is already included in International Emmy Kids Awards and awards by year articles see 1st International Emmy Kids Awards subsequent articles. Similar nominated for deletion article are

FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a list article, so it has to meet our Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists and Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. This article meets these guidelines:
    • The subject, International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Factual & Entertainment, is notable.
    • Individual list items do not have to notable but they do have to be reliably referenced. They are referenced to the Emmy awards site.
International Emmy Kids Awards, mentioned above, is a poor merge target: it does not list any award winners. Instead, it just links to this and other subcategory lists.
Another article, List of International Emmy Award winners, lists winners only and excludes nominees. It has a Kids: Factual & Entertainment section but for winners only. Currently, List of International Emmy Award winners lists several hundred winners only (no nominees) across about 40 current and former categories; it's already a long article. The article we're discussing for deletion contains the names of both the award winners and the nominees. If we merge this list, International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Factual & Entertainment, to List of International Emmy Award winners, we either have to expand the big list to include nominees going forward or we have to delete referenced useful content (nominees) from International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Factual & Entertainment during the merge.

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep The article meets WP:LISTPURP as both informational and navigational, and is largely made up of blue links. NLIST states: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Let's not force our readers to jump between 8 or more articles to get information like this. —siroχo 05:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a hypothetical List of International Emmy Kids Award winners and nominees International Emmy Kids Awards; there's not nearly enough secondary source coverage for any given category to justify having these as independent articles, but they do seem to be discussed as a group. Occidental Phantasmagoria (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please only propose existing articles as Merge or Redirect target articles. Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, nearly evenly divided between editors arguing for a Keep vs. those advocating a Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 8 November 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. Daniel (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Live-Action[edit]

International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Live-Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnecessary creation for a category of nomination that does not have a substantial or reliable reliable coverage the article is made of primary sources and most of the information is already included in International Emmy Kids Awards and awards by year articles see 1st International Emmy Kids Awards subsequent articles. Similar nominated for deletion article are

FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a list article, so it has to meet our Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists and Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists. This article meets these guidelines:
    • The subject, International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Live-Action, is notable.
    • Individual list items do not have to notable but they do have to be reliably referenced. They are referenced to the Emmy awards site.
International Emmy Kids Awards, mentioned above, is a poor merge target: it does not list any award winners. Instead, it just links to this and other subcategory lists.
Another article, List of International Emmy Award winners, lists winners only and excludes nominees. It has a Kids: Live-Action section but for winners only. Currently, List of International Emmy Award winners lists several hundred winners only (no nominees) across about 40 current and former categories; it's already a long article. The article we're discussing for deletion contains the names of both the award winners and the nominees. If we merge this list, International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Live-Action, to List of International Emmy Award winners, we either have to expand the big list to include nominees going forward or we have to delete referenced useful content (nominees) from International Emmy Award for Best Kids: Live-Action during the merge.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep The article meets WP:LISTPURP as both informational and navigational, and is largely made up of blue links. NLIST states: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Let's not force our readers to jump between 8 or more articles to get information like this. —siroχo 05:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, nearly evenly divided between editors arguing for a Keep vs. those advocating a Redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:09, 8 November 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! 23:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Gum[edit]

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

Unclear if there's enough here for WP:NBIO/GNG.

Draft has been declined twice. KH-1 (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Appears that this was paid editing. See Use:Osmantheg. Impressive background as a resume, but this appears to be an advertisement for Sunga Life swimwear and his members-only shooting range. — Maile (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: PR links, then not much of anything found. Sourcing used is either orange or red per sourcebot, so non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - reads like a PR release and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. either. See WP:NOTNEWS. Kierzek (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Weak sources, and probably a PR piece. Cortador (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Weak PR sources, and possibly UPE involvement. HarukaAmaranth 春香 12:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_November_8&oldid=1185366307"