Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 03 April 05 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to Registered Agents Inc.. There is consensus against keeping this as a biographical article given that the person is apparently covered only in the context of his businesses, but there is no consensus to outright delete. Which leaves us with a redirect as the only possible outcome. Sandstein 07:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Keen[edit]

Dan Keen (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)

First, unless it can somehow be confirmed that this guy is the owner of this company (and even if he is) I don’t know how this is notable other than part of the company article. There is an allegation of ownership in the reference article, but his ownership (or even employment) is denied by the company’s lawyer said that this guy acted as an agent for the transaction and is not an owner or employee. Second, Weird story about an unnamed landscaping company to domain registrar? I’m not sure how this is notable. If anything, he maybe gets a mention on the underlying company pages that he’s allegedly the owner if even that hits the bar, but i don’t see that he deserves his own article. Third, my gut feeling is that this appears to be a hit piece as there are allegations of neo nazi ties, etc. Caution must be exercised in these types of allegations. The Registered Agents Inc. Company confirmed ownership of Epik in the press release cite (as of Feb 2024, not 2023), but there doesn’t seem to be anything but an allegation about Keen and this could be considered libelous without a more solid citation. But again, my feeling is that this article is a hit piece if the guy even actually exists. Dougieb (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dougieb (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Something is rotten about this deletion from the nominator, who suddenly came back on en.wiki after a ten-year hiatus and seems to have had issues within the registered agent topic area in the past; three soild sources for the article from mainstream outlets about the subject, and a rationale that may be over the line and hitting WP:NLT regarding allegations being libelous. Epik is also heavily known for hosting sites most hosts wouldn't touch and has been exhaustively documented. @Dougieb:, please declare any conflicts of interest immediately and reel back the legal threats because that's not how we play at all in article or AfD spaces. I am also pinging @Amigao: and @Grayfell:, who dealt with a certain editor, Dunkinidaho (talk · contribs) who has been trying to remove Keen's name from the Epik article despite the Wired/WaPo sourcing; also declare if you are related to that account. Nate • (chatter) 00:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How about addressing the crux of my AFD rather than attacking the messenger? MY AFD is not WP:NLT because I didn’t make a threat, I just reasonably suggested that before tagging someone a Neo Nazi (which could be considered per se defamation), perhaps there should be some solid ground for doing so. Having read the cited articles (which the actual crux of one is using fake personas), it is not even clear whether “Dan Keen” even exists which is how I ended up here in the first place today. You are mirepresenting that there are “three solid sources” for Dan Keen existing much less being owning this company or being associated with Neo Nazis. The only source mentioning him is the Wired article which ALLEGES that he owns the company, but later notes that the company said he was an agent for the transaction and is not an owner or employee of the company. Why is there no other source anywhere tying this guy to the company anywhere? I it another fake name as described in the cited articles? The Epik company is “heavily known for hosting sites most wouldn’t touch”, that is not in question, but this isn’t about that. This is about the claim that this guy owns it, and if he bought it, is he a Neo Nazi? If there is anything substantive tying this guy (if he exists) to either company, please point it out because I’m interested myself, but everything I’ve found just cites the Wired article. No I’m not related to Dunkinidaho , however from what I’ve seen, the Registered Agent Inc. Company appears to be based in Idaho, so there is your clue. If Keen does exist and his company did buy Epik, are they still hosting these sites? Or did they boot them? From the press release it seems the latter, so if this is not a hit piece, why mention it? I have zero conflicts of interest and actually want someone to prove me wrong here and put up something substantial. But in the meantime, this smells like a hit piece which would be funny if the guy ends up being another of the alleged “fake personas.” @Amigao seems to have had issues with sourcing in the past, so there is that. Dougieb (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As MrSchimpf explains, this nomination was your first edit in almost exactly ten years. You also have a warning on your talk page for adding spam to National Registered Agents, Inc. back in 2008. You're not helping your case by getting all indignant and verbose about the obvious WP:COI issues this raises. Oh, and WP:NLT absolutely does apply here. Grayfell (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I haven’t edited in ten years. The former disputed article about National Registered Agents Inc. Back in 2008 was not even SPAM. I believe this was a long time before this Registered Agents Inc. Thing ever started. There is no reasonable argument that Keen is notable - if he even exists. If anything, he’s a footnote in the Registered Agents Inc article as a footnote that he is the alleged owner. It is not helpful to have disinformation and mischaracterization of Wired articles as legitimate content. National Registered Agents was a legit major company eventually acquired by CT Corporation which is a subsidiary of Wolters Kluwer, a multi-billion $ publicly traded company.
What is suspect is reading the cites on this article and trying to reconcile them with the hit piece that is the Keen article. I’ve found two potential Dan Keens and nothing connects together. I hope that you can find something to substantiate both his ownership of these companies and his existence. Perhaps the community working together can do this. The cited article is literally about fake personas, and signs point to Keen being one of them. If biographies of imaginary people are a thing on Wikipedia now, yay for that. Nate’s contention that there are “three solid sources” for the article is also very telling. Note that I didn’t even bother to correct the blatant factual disconnects between the article and the cites, but submitted AFD instead. You want me to correct the errors instead? Because then the accusations would really fly. What is Adigao’s agenda here? That is the question. Dougieb (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the community working together can do this. this isn't what AFD is for. See WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP and WP:OR. Currently sources do not suggest he is a fake persona, so using that possibility as a reason to delete the article is misleading, at best. Sources say that according to multiple sources Keen is the founder and owner of the company. That a company founded on secrecy and technically-legal obfuscation would be evasive about this is too boring to bother with. If you have reliable sources, propose them. Alternately, if you have a valid, policy-based reason the current sources are insufficient, explain that reason. If, instead, you think this is a WP:BLP issue, make that case directly, but don't just throw out a bunch of reasons in the hopes that one will stick, because that is disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s only a WP:BLP issue if he’s real. If turns out he’s real then yeah the nazi thing would need to be cleaned up. Let’s say he is real… okay he buys this domain registrar that hosted nazi stuff, then he (new owner) gets rid of the nazi stuff, so is it still appropriate to tie him to the Nazi stuff? The company sure. Dougieb (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dougieb, if you think a WP:GREL source like Wired is disinformation, the place to raise that and make your case is WP:RSN. - Amigao (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think it’s disinformation per se. I just think maybe they were duped into this Keen thing perhaps to distract from Havre. Dougieb (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLT very-Specifically does not apply here, Grayfell. It is a very heavy link to accuse a fellow editor, IMO, thank you for making me aware of it. Dunkinidaho (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We follow what the WP:RSes state. According to the Feb 8th Wired article, "[T]he founder and owner of Registered Agents...is a man named Dan Keen." The March 5th Wired article is a more in-depth investigation of Dan Keen and the company he founded, Registered Agents Inc., following the acquisition of Epik. It should be noted that WP:NLT is hard Wikipedia policy. Agreed with MrSchimpf that we need to get any COI issues here openly declared in accordance with WP:COI and WP:PAID. - Amigao (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you don’t have ulterior motives and are being objective, I would think you would also want to include that in the same article, the company denied that “Keen” is an employee or owner. I suspect “Keen” may be one of the fake personas, but if so, why does the company lawyer say he was a “consultant in the acquisition?” There are a couple Dan Keens I found and I’m trying to find out more about them to see if they are “the” Dan Keen. The Wired article states, “ In an email, a lawyer for Registered Agents Inc. says Keen is not the owner nor an employee of Registered Agents Inc. or Epik, and that he acted as a consultant in the acquisition.” So… which is it? And if we find this guy and even if he is an owner or employee, does this warrant his own article? Or should this be merged since his only notariety appears to be his connection to this company. Dougieb (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Several reliable sources discuss Keen in sufficient depth, thus meeting WP:NBIO. Per the cited sources, including Epik's own press release, Keen's company isn't merely acting as a registered agent for Epik, it is providing registered agent services to Epik's customers. More sources and more context would, obviously, be welcome. There are potential WP:BLP issues here, but these would have to be addressed directly, not obliquely as a WP:CRYBLP attempt to censor the article. Grayfell (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the same exact source. All of these sources end up back at the same source. WP:CRYBLP doesn’t really apply (yet?) because someone first needs to establish that it is even an existing person much less living. The only “Dan Keen” i can find is a musician/producer and while its not impossible that it is actually him, I am unable to connect the dots so maybe someone else can succeed where I have failed. [MrSchimpf] “keenly” (LOL) above noted that there was a user [DunkinIdaho] who has been attempting to edit the page - and the underlying company does have a connection to Idaho, so that is interesting to me. As far as notability, this would be okay if we first could substantiate that the guy exists at all. Since the press release from the company says that he was a “consultant” in the acquisition, that’s the only thing I see that suggests that he does exist, but this company has been accused in the same article of using fake personas and fake names, so it is a dead end. I’m not saying to censor the article at all. Actually I should have suggested AFD-Merging it into the company article. Dougieb (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia uses reliable sources to 'establish' that he exists. For us to try and do that ourselves would be original research. A press release is usable as a primary source, but we generally do not use press releases for contested information, and we do not attempt to interpret primary sources in this way, either, as that is also a form of original research.
If you have some reason to think this source is unreliable, you should explain that, because your personal inability to verify the source is not a valid reason. Grayfell (talk) 03:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody can verify the source. The guy doesn’t seem to exist other than in a Wired article. It is just bizarre. Why isn’t there something else on this guy out there? Nobody is that far off the grid. I just suspect it is another fake name in this group of other fake names. I’d love to use another source… where is it?! In one group people discuss that apparently Keen can’t be served with legal service because no process server can find him or even verify that he exists. That’s original research (and hearsay), so I wouldn’t put it in an article. But what is up here? Nobody is that invisible. Dougieb (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Keen's existence is not the issue. As you've pointed out twice, a company attorney claimed did not deny his existence but merely stated that Keen acted as a "consultant." Given that Wikipedia follows what WP:RSes state as a matter of policy, do you have a WP:RS that contradicts the other reliable sources cited in the article? Amigao (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree! Existence, neither here nor there. Learning more about CRYCRYBLP from Grayfell or following WP:RS seems very distractive to me as well, at least currently. If we were to AGF and assume both your wired articles to be a single, independent and reliable source (and it doesn't possibly need in-text attribution to "Ex-Employees" added to furnish it's info)... Where's other WP:SIGCOV so that it can overcome a potential WP:GNG issue here and be more clarifying? Dunkinidaho (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • SOFT DELETE/DRAFTIFY - The tldr to me is this:
1. This page is NOT enyclopedic in substance AND the author's motives seem...off.
2. This doesn't have a snowballs chance of surviving as a NPOV BLP unless this story develops and builds into something with more sources.
3. The only sources with the subject's name attached are two related stories, both from Wired. I don't think that meets notability standards for a BLP. These sources are non-independent of eachother.
4. If the editor's true intent was to provide information from a neutral point of view, and NOT low-key doxx the subject, this page would be about Registered Agents Inc and Keen would have a section within it. That way you would avoid any BLP drama, the information on this page lives there, and you can follow a chain of facts if you want to know more. But I don't think neutral or straight facts are the intent here.
Expanded reasoning:
The page was written by an established editor here who must know sourcing is thin and is trying to make up for weak sourcing with other articles that mention Registered Agents Inc, which is arguably the actual subject of both Wired articles, and that's certainly the case with everything else that's been used as a source on the Dan Keen page. That's why I suggested on the talk page of this article that the real subject is Registered Agents Inc, just like the actual owner of Epik is also Registered Agents Inc. That's fact and there's plenty of sourcing for ownership of that property (public business records and news articles) just like there's plenty of internal wikipedia sourcing for how to treat a company infobox, but @Grayfell and @Amigao only seem to like rules when those rules back their opinions.
I'm not saying Keen shouldn't be mentioned when talking about Registered Agents Inc. or Epik. But the desire to disregard the company and make a page for Keen when sourcing seems thin, and when asked why not make it a Registered Agents Inc page, their reaction was to tattoo my talk page with a COI tag? That just feels gross. Why not just talk to me first? Also, I’m fairly new here, but is there a non-nefarious reason you purposely Transcluded the UW-paid template onto my page instead of protocol? Your first branding was responded to, promptly, and now you've now done so twice.
For the record, no one is paying me to edit this. I have no vested interest in this company or person, and I very much dislike now being associated with whatever weird corporate shill/thing DougieB is that kicked this thing off (thanks @MrSchimpf. good luck on your deck-stacking attempt--for reference, please see edit history here (keep: as Per nate). that's just lame).
Anyway, I've said Keen's role is unclear in the company because in the Wired article, the company's formal response was to say that Keen isn't an employee or the owner and that Wired's facts were "patently false." On the other side of that is quotes from ex-employees of a business that uses aliases to do most things.
It's wild that that's the company that bought the Alt Right's domain registrar and then was on twitter calling the Alt Right "beta snowflakes" after kicking Kiwi Farms off their platform. Not only is that objectively funny, the whole thing sounds nuts (albeit not too nuts to warrant a mention of Epik’s termination in either article.)
I didn't even know the Alt Right had a domain registrar until a couple months ago, but back then if you’d asked me, I would've also thought the Wiki-editorial community had a much more academic agenda. Dunkinidaho (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even know the Alt Right had a domain registrar until a couple months ago You were adding PR to the Epik page in June of 2023. Before that you had made only ten edits (enough to get autoconfirmed) and have made a grand total of 36 edits. Your willingness to lecture and insult more experienced editors about Wikipedia policy suggest that this isn't your first account. Grayfell (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "PR" I contributed to the Epik page in June of 2023 should look very familiar. It's the 5th source cited here on this page you're currently defending. You're absolutely right. My Expanded Reasoning did exhibit some "willingness" to stray from discussing this Articles' wiki merit...
As a newer editor (first account, unfortunately) I will be keeping my future responses limited to the substance of the Dan Keen page, as you did in your response to it. Dunkinidaho (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LOL… bro I got your “weird corporate shill/thing” right here. As was noted, I haven’t made an edit in probably ten years but was compelled here because this just doesn’t add up. The only Keen i can find anywhere is some musician and he doesn’t seem like a guy that owns and runs a couple giant companies. It just smelled of a hit piece, but is it a hit piece if the guy doesn’t actually exist? It would hold up a little better if the whole thing wasn’t about alleged fake personas and names. TBH I probably would have let the whole thing drop, but then I also got a COI from the article’s author which made me say hmm… If this guy exists and owns these two apparently large companies, there HAS to be something somewhere on him, right?Dougieb (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Epik article. Keen as a standalone page fails WP:GNG as there's nothing notable about Keen aside from Epik and Registered Agents, Inc. The Wired article mentions Keen 15 times, but sources everything to the accounts of anonymous ex-employees, such as: "Keen is described by former employees as a driven but eccentric businessman who is prone to micromanagement and sudden shifts in mood." and "Keen dresses modestly, former employees say, wearing shorts and flannel shirts, and is an avid skier and outdoorsman". What other WP:SIGCOV is there on Keen himself? BBQboffingrill me 17:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity, the Feb 8th Wired article mentions him 8 times while the more in-depth March 5th Wired article mentions him 15 times. - Amigao (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also amenable to delete. BBQboffingrill me 06:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (or merge) to Epik article. There isn’t even sufficient information (to me anyway) to demonstrate conclusively that Keen exists. The Wired article is the only source and the article talks about how the company allegedly uses fake names and personas. Is this just another fake name? If he does exist, the article could be considered libelous as it alleges neo nazi ties which IF he did purchase Epik, it isn’t clear that they still do. Also, the way the article was written omitting that in the same article that the Companies denied that Keen is an employee or owner suggested to me that there was ulterior motive in its creation.Dougieb (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck duplicate vote You cannot vote! on your own nomination, which is assumed as delete unless you add onto your rationale above. Nate • (chatter) 22:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware. My apologies. My rationale was that even if not deleted per my nom, then alternatively redirect, that is if anything at all. Thank you though.Dougieb (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Epik. This person is not the subject of substantial coverage by reliable secondary sources except where the sources are actually covering the company. Optionally also delete before redirecting, since having this article history isn't particularly helpful. JFHJr (㊟) 22:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per rationales below. Thank you each for your perspectives. JFHJr (㊟) 05:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This subject does not appear to meet minimum notability standards. The primary or only citations of note are the Wired articles, and those alone seem insufficient. Consider: if the subject was mentioned positively in only a couple of articles like this, would this person merit having biographical articles? There's a much better case for Wikipedia biography for Chris Xu, founder of Shein, for instance -- but, he has no bio article here, either. While notability can be established with relatively few sources, it's typically established with more substantive references than this. There's a lot of what appears to be complete tangents here in the Afd discussion as to the concerns that there has been some COI involved in the nomination for deletion, but all of that seems extraneous to the question of whether the article should exist at all. Again, if the degree of promotion of the person in those articles were the same, but the overall sentiment was positive, would they alone be sufficient to base bio notability upon? Not at all. Those articles established a factoid about possible ownership that appears notable enough to mention in the Epik article, but it's not enough to flesh out an article about Keen. (Simply adding facts about the Registered Agents company instead of specifics about him is also not sufficient to flesh out his article.) Also, I do not see why this name should be a redirect for the Epik article as this is not an alternate name for it, nor would it be likely for someone seeking Keen to desire to be presented with Epik.WmLawson (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Given that some editors are now arguing for a Redirect option, I'm relisting this discussion for a few more days, perhaps a full week. Since there is a challenge to the article sources as being insufficient, a formal source analysis would be helpful to whomever closes this discussion. And while it's unusual for an editor to return after a decade away to nominate an article for deletion, some of these Keep opinions look like they are in reaction to suspicions about the nominator, instead of focusing on the merits of the article. If another editor had made this nomination, would you still advocate Keeping it? No accusations, I'm just posing the question. Also, I don't really see a BLP issue with this article as all of the "neo-Nazi" allusions are directed to the company's policies, not the owner or any other individual so they are not being made against a "living person" but a business.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only sources in the article that reference Keen at all are the two Wired stories. While I would agree that these would count toward the bare minimum on GNG, other factors argue against his notability: (1) Per WP:NSUSTAINED, we would want to see Keen's notability sustained over a longer period of time, not just the past month or so since the Wired coverage began to reference him. (2) Keen's notability, such as it is, seems to be related to Registered Agents Inc's purchase of Epik, so WP:BLP1E applies. He is by all (aka two in a single magazine) accounts a low-profile person, not accused of any crime, and that also argues against notability. (3) The two reliable sources provided on Keen provide very little details on his life and career, resulting in a non-encyclopedic stub-length piece that focuses mostly on his businesses. If those are notable, cover those, but the volume of coverage of Epik and Registered Agents Inc in this BLP makes it a WP:COATRACK. For these reasons, until there are more details on Keen reported by more reliable sources over a sustained period of time, this BLP should be deleted. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the newly-created Registered Agents Inc., where there is heavy overlap. I note that the page creator is the same. The existing Dan Keen page is primarily about the business rather than the person, and so the content is best included on a page focussing on the business. There are already links there to Epik. Klbrain (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also note that in the new Registered Agents Inc. page, it seems to focus again on Epik. Arguably, there is more about Epik in the first paragraph of the RAI page than there is about RAI. Again, it just smells to me like a hit piece and Keen being the owner still seems like only an allegation at this point. Maybe suspected over… disputed owner? Alleged owner? (Since the company denies it). Dougieb (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of his contributions of all time is changing all mentions of the official Communist Party of China/CPC, to the ethnicized misnomer, "Chinese Communist Party"/CCP. He uses his "twinkle" status to quickly revert all mentions of CPC back to the red scare-y version. Truly a loyal American Imperial Party Anti China patriot. Han75 (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think there is reasonable doubt against a redirect to Registered Agents Inc. but as a ATD I would swing that way over allowing this article to remain. This article is more about the companies than the intended subject. It falls short of even being an attempt at a biography but a is actually a resume which is Wikipedia's policy on What Wikipedia is not. According to the Wired source it is not clear who owns the companies. Since "Wired" is touted as a reliable source then there is doubt about the owner. Anonymity is not a good reason to create a BLP. It might fly for a long time or until some action initiates the piercing the corporate veil such as violating tax laws like failure to report "beneficial owner reports". A legal agent may protect an Undisclosed Principal until such time as the agent may be held responsible for actions of the principle. Two unnamed people identify the subject as owner. Nothing actually reliable there. A lawyer claims the subject is not the owner of either company. I think Wikipedia should bank more on the Wired source that there is an email from a lawyer that the subject does not own either company. The founder and owner of Registered Agents, according to two people familiar with the company, is a man named Dan Keen. In an email, a lawyer for Registered Agents Inc. says Keen is not the owner nor an employee of Registered Agents Inc. or Epik, and that he acted as a consultant in the acquisition. While Registered Agents Inc. might be confirmed as the owner of Epik LLC through a press release there is doubt about the subjects ownership. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Registered Agents Inc.: The only SIGCOV of Keen seems to be in the two Wired articles, which is not enough to meet GNG. However, Keen is a valid search term for RAI. From skimming both the RAI and Epik articles and their sources, Keen seems to be linked more to RAI than to Epik, although search results for (1) "Dan Keen" and "Registered Agents Inc." and (2) "Dan Keen" and "Epik" turned up very few results. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also note that I'm not sure that RAI is notable. It only seems to have received SIGCOV in articles that are part of a series by a collaboration of reporters, which doesn't qualify as multiple sources for GNG purposes: Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think this article should remain given the current sourcing, so I would accept a redirect to Registered Agents for purposes of building consensus/closing. However my preference is delete. Dan Keen is mentioned only in the two Wired articles. In the "Far Right's Favorite Web Host" article, the entire reference to him is 1. His name and position (according to two former employees) 2. A denial that he is an employee or owner, but rather a "consultant" 3. A description as being "intensely private" with no website 4. Previously running a lawn care business. In my opinion, this is not SIGCOV, although it does meet the other requirements to count towards notability. The other Wired article is SIGCOV, with about a dozen paragraphs devoted to Keen's background and activities. No other source even mentions Keen. Given the state of the sourcing here, the subject is not notable and additionally there is a real chance of getting biographical information wrong, so delete is the better option. All of the sources discuss Registered Agents Inc. I am not certain that we have CORPDEPTH for them, so I am a bit reluctant to keep the redirect, but it a better option than keeping an article with this sourcing. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would redirect and REVDEL satisfy your concern RE the state of sourcing/getting biographical information wrong? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:51, 13 April 2024 (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 23:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Antonites[edit]

David Antonites (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 am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohit Joshi[edit]

Mohit Joshi (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 is not notable. Declined MANY times at Draft:Mohit Joshi but new editor just created directly in the mainspace. Will ping AfC reviewers to weigh in as well. CNMall41 (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: CEO role could be notable, but this is basically a point form CV description as an article. Could be a LinkedIn post... There is hardly any extensive sourcing in RS we'd use. I would have PROD'ed this had I come across it during NPP. Oaktree b (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polish-Belarusian ethnic conflict[edit]

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

No such coverage in the literature. The article collects isolated incidents and tries to create the impression that Polish-Belarusian relations in the period 1921-1954 (where do these dates even come from?) were characterized by "ethnic conflict." Total OR. Marcelus (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite except of deleting the article it should be rewritten and goodly explain the situation, like massacres, skirmishes, and battles that took place during the conflict.Olek Novy (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What battles? There was no single Polish-Belarusian battle. The only massacre of Belarusians was the activity of Rajs unit in January-February 1946 that took lives of c. 70 people. It's well covered in 1946 pacification of villages by PAS NZW Marcelus (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were some skirmishes. Olek Novy (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We can't close an AFD with a decision to Rewrite. First, there must be a decision to Keep the article and then interested editors can work on improving the article. But there can't be a decision (to who?) to "rewrite".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Marcelus, though i wanted to rewrite the article it would not make any sense. The article is based primarily on Belarusian and Russian sources who accuse the Poles of killing about 500 Belarusians. The Belarusians already accused the Poles of mass murders (47th District of Brest (Home Army)). Except of this article i would make pages about the Leripol Massacre and many more murders, while i think the Anti-Communist Polish underground in Belarus would need its own article.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. If this nation does participate, this closure can be revisited. Also, proposing a Merge without offering a target article is not helpful in any way. Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tokelau at the Commonwealth Games[edit]

Tokelau at the Commonwealth 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)

This is a completely pointless article saying Tokelau has never participated in the Commonwealth Games. Certainly not enough significant coverage to demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • They haven't ever competed though, and so are correctly not mentioned there at all. Thus, this would be a misleading redirect. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why does it needs an article of this type? It makes no sense and completly outside bounds of acceptability. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 13:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a target to be determined. The mention of the canceled participation is definitely worth merging.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:40, 11 April 2024 (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 23:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnikrishnan Nair Mannath[edit]

Unnikrishnan Nair Mannath (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 person. Only two references are give. One is to his own website. The other is to Money 2.0 Conference, which after checking the speakers show he was featured there. However, no real idea if that confers notability. There may be a WP:COI in that the creator, Unnikrishnannair1, may be involved in the company. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I find no news sources and only two hits in Gsearch, this feels very PROMO. I don't see enough coverage to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, United Arab Emirates, Delhi, Kerala, Rajasthan, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no secondary source coverage and the article reads extremely promotional.Sk1728 (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There could be COI as the user created account 8 days ago and he created the account only to create this page (16 edits, totally on this article only) and there are no any reliable sources as far as i can see. TheSlumPanda (talk) 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: WP:FAILN References not sufficient to demonstrate notability, article also reads like potential self-promotion, or at very least a long way from WP:NPOV. Jamietw (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2024 (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. Deleted by Bbb23 per G3 (hoax). (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:18, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miami-Petersburg Department of Water and Sewers[edit]

Miami-Petersburg Department of Water and Sewers (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 fairly certain that this is a hoax. The editor created one other article, Miami Petersburg, which was speedy deleted as vandalism, and contained some rather ridiculous claims. I didn't find anything on Google or Newspapers.com, so even if it isn't a hoax, it doesn't look like it meets WP:NORG. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 21:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 23:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Andy pie[edit]

Bob Andy pie (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 pie that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GQO, could you explain why you don't find the article encyclopedic? Industrial Insect (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2024 (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 21:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Nikiforov[edit]

Ilya Nikiforov (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 has been here many years and has essentially not changed, and still unencyclopedic, and there is still no clarity on the notability. We either need to ditch it or fix it. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:29, 4 April 2024 (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! 20:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASLA[edit]

NASLA (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)

Page describes a project which started in 2010, and based upon https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/262209/reporting/it is now finished. The project webpage now links somewhere else, and I could not find anything on it on the web except for other uses of the name. A relic. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:Fails all notability criteria. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article, advances an acronym which would not be acceptable unless there was multiple, reliable and independent sources that the acronym itself was notable. "Nanostructured Anti-septical Coatings", a European research project about a product that has yet to be invented. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:NN Funding alone does not justify the notability of a research project. No sources to indicate research need outside corporate interest of four unnamed SMEs. As written the article is too vague to see if there is another project into which a merge could be justified, so !vote to delete. Jamietw (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2024 (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! 20:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2014 CONCACAF Futsal Invitational[edit]

2014 CONCACAF Futsal Invitational (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)

Given that we have no other CONCACAF Futsal Invitational articles whatsoever and no reason why the 2014 invitational was particularly notable, it makes sense to delete this article. Maybe we can restore it if the CONCACAF Futsal Invitational gets an article. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2024 (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 Chiral resolution. Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chirotechnology[edit]

Chirotechnology (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)

Purely a definition of a term which is based upon a single source. A Google search finds very little beyond links to the same book, a small number of articles and a few companies that have names that are a variation of Chirotechnology. It is not a common term, so I do not see any rationale for keeping this page. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into Chiral resolution so at least the term and its ref gets preserved, otherwise it would be a redirect without mention. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I obtained a copy of the book, and the word "chirotechnology" only appears in the title, the sentence of the forward section, "Only a few people are able to present the topic of chirotechnology from both its academic and industrial sides.", and the last sentence before the glossary, "Chirotechnology has come a long way since Pasteur first tackled racemic tartarate with a pair of tweezers." It doesn't appear in the book's glossary, index, contents or anywhere else I could find with a text search. Since that book is the only reference provided in the one-sentence article, no page number is cited, and from my search in the sketchy copy I obtained from a pirated ebooks site, I don't see it as something that needs to preserved as a source in the redirected article. It is possible that the copy I obtained is an incomplete copy. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Chiral resolution: Standalone article not justified in current form as WP:NOTDICTIONARY but relates directly Chiral resolution which is a key challenge in chemistry. Merge seems better than redirect to preserve the term which is coined in a well-cited textbook by notable author. Jamietw (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The consensus is that there are not enough sources providing SIGCOV that can establish notability. One experienced editor is even wondering whether or not this article is a hoax. Therefore deletion is called for. Interested editors can always work on a draft version and submit it to AFC for review. Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul S. Berry[edit]

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

This is someone who, unfortunately neither meets WP:GNG or WP:NPROF a google scholar search finds him as mid author in low-impact publications whereas a news search finds little more. The nytimes article mentioned here covers his organization but this is WP:INHERITED. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Article with 17 years of creation and reliable references, he is also an active HIV researcher in the field. He experienced firsthand the HIV epidemic in the 80s. This is why it led him to study medicine and in the 90s to begin a series of research studies at prestigious Californian universities. I believe that this man has more than notoriety to give us a lecture on HIV disease. Acartonadooopo (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Acartonadooopo We don't accept people in Wikipedia based on their credentials, except in few cases such as some judges and politicians. If they are well known then they should have more news coverage and then they would qualify. If the subject has won any well known awards he could still qualify without much news coverage. Maxcreator (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I want to see him published in Hollywood Report or in TMZ, or in CNN no, he is not a famous person, he is a medical researcher for many anonymous people as well as the hundreds of doctors who fight to save the life of a Palestinian (anonymous) or someone killed by war from Netanyahu This is the person for whom the article was created 17 years ago (Relevant, obvious) it is reviewed in a medical portal perhaps published in medical journals (since they are the places where doctors rest, obviously) https://health.usnews.com/doctors/paul-berry-977226 Acartonadooopo (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No coverage for this doctor, zero hits in Gscholar. Nothing in Gsearch. Grand claims in the article that are largely unsourced, puffy language. Could be a hoax, with little to no sourcing, we can't verify one way or the other. Oaktree b (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: reads more like an auto biography. No evidence of WP:GNG.Contributor892z (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV. I see a single independent, reliable source, and he has such a brief mention in a long text. There were lots of true heroes in those days, and he is no doubt one of them, but that does not make him notable. Bearian (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2024 (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! 19:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Le Page[edit]

Vanessa Le Page (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)

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a "cake artist", not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for artists or chefs. As always, people are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in sources independent of themselves -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability, with not a single piece of third party media coverage shown at all, and even a Google News search just gets me hits for boxer Vanessa Lepage Joanisse rather than any "cake artist". The article, further, has been tagged for sourcing problems since 2010 without having any better sourcing added.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this person from having to be referenced far, far better than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Food and drink, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only RS I could find is not in-depth. Two books mention her in connection to her grandfather who is notable as a collector of his artifacts. See [1], [2]. She does appear to have been featured on Canadian news segments (see [3]), and her business was recommended in this article https://torontolife.com/style/wedding-cakes-in-toronto/ She also has an IMDB page indicating she has appeared on Canadian reality TV programs as a cake maker and on news programs. I could find no independent coverage though of these appearances.4meter4 (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Hardly anything in Canadian sources found. Her website, facebook, other social media. Appears to be a working baker, very good at her craft, not notable for our purposes here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV and as noted above. That she appears in "The Big Book of Canadian Trivia" is a sign that she's interesting but trivial. Bearian (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2024 (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) 18:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Salman[edit]

Anna Salman (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:NMUSICIAN. A member of The All Girl Band, she is not independently notable. Would redirect to that page but based on the edit history of a user sending to mainspace after multiple declines, I have a feeling we would be right back here anyway. CNMall41 (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2024 (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) 18:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Kroeber[edit]

Ted Kroeber (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)

Unref blp. I couldn't find enough reliable sources to show it can meet WP:ENT / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of SIGCOV. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article about a film producer that doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCER. No sources per BEFORE except database like IMDb, Film Beats, FilmFreeway, Getty images, etc. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:40, 11 April 2024 (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. Editors predominantly expressed a consensus to keep, some with additional reservations. More importantly, the “keep” voters made strong notability-based arguments, while the “delete” comments focused on the non-heritability of notability without directly addressing GNG and other points, in addition to expressions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (non-admin closure) RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark[edit]

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

He's not a prince, and the royal house he is supposed to become head of is wishful thinking or nostalgia (take your pick). Perhaps he is a nice young man, but even being a pretender's son stretches WP:NOTINHERITED too far. The sources are all pretty much fluff. Mangoe (talk) 16:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft Keep Delete. Looking through it, there is at least one profile in a moderately reputable publication (Business Insider), in addition to the fluff found in the celebrity magazines also cited. His status as a prince of the House of Glücksburg, which includes active monarchies, arguably would hit the bare minimum of WP:GNG. Article definitely needs a lot of work, it's terribly unencyclopedic as it stands, but AFD isn't necessarily appropriate for poorly written but otherwise likely-notable subjects. Shifting to delete the based on precedent stated below by @TompaDompa nf utvol (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, @Nfutvol:, but did you read the BI piece? "So, Prince Harry is officially off the market — but don't despair. There are still plenty of eligible young princes out there to steal your hearts." It's complete clickbait fluff, starting with the title: "The incredible life of Prince William's Instagram-famous godson, Prince Constantine-Alexios of Greece". It's illustrated with clips from his Instagram feed (which appears to have disappeared or something). And we're back at the point where he actually isn't royalty, he's just a hyperprivileged kid with some royal distant cousins. BI is willing to play along with the fiction to get clicks, but but when all is said and done, this is lifestyles of the rich and, well, not actually famous. Mangoe (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did read it. And yes, it is a puff piece. But it is a puff piece in a major publication (in addition to the SCMP and Harpers puff pieces) not terribly different from what you'd find in the lifestyle section of any major newspaper. Again, it's a soft keep...I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. My thought mainly rides on the fact he's a titled member of the House of Glücksburg, and, your personal thoughts on the matter notwithstanding, he is heir apparent to the relatively recently deposed Greek crown. I think that's a bare minimum to pass GNG, though in this case the article is so poorly written that it might be better to nuke it and start over. nf utvol (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He is not heir apparent to the defunct throne, nor is anybody else. That's what it means for it to be a defunct throne. Who succeeded Constantine II of Greece as King of Greece when he died a year ago? That's right, nobody did. Who is the current King of Greece? That's right, nobody is. TompaDompa (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By that logic then all pretenders and claimants to defunct thrones should be sent through AFD unless they are particularly notable in some other way. Which is fine by me, but I think is a bigger/broader question on how this sort of case is dealt with. nf utvol (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well... yes. That's a pretty straightforward application of WP:NOTINHERITED. I might note that we deleted no fewer than 40 "Line of succession to the former throne of X" articles back in 2020 (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40). TompaDompa (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was unaware of that string of deletions, works for me! Changing my vote to delete. nf utvol (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nfutvol What precedent? All those articles mentioned were about lines of succession to a defunct throne and not biography articles. They got deleted for being original research. Many articles of "non-reigning" royals have been nominated for deletion over the years and most of them were kept. StellarHalo (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Be that as it may, the point is that being a member of a former royal house does not in itself confer notability. We have even deleted multiple articles for members of current royal houses when those individuals are not otherwise notable. So the question is really whether this person is notable apart from who they are related to. You can apply the "complete nobody" test: if somebody who is otherwise a complete nobody (say, your friend's cousin's hairdresser) had the same level of coverage in the sources as this person, would you consider that to constitute significant coverage indicative of notability? TompaDompa (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete per nom. D1551D3N7 (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He has enough online coverage. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the number of well arguments in previous deletion discussion for keeping this article. It's actually rather 'annoying' that this deletion-mania keeps popping up. Please reed the discussion thread from the third discussion about this. A nomination starting with "He's not a prince" is clearly way from beeing anything we should be proud of displaying as a basis for an encyclopedian discussion. He is a prince and has been so for his entire life, and setting aside whether being a 'prince' is of encyclopedic importance or not, it's realy redicolous beginning a discussion like this with a false statement. As for the question about notability I trust the judgement of Dior way more than the warious prejudiced comments we ususally find in discussions like this here on Wikipedia. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the grounds for his notability is being a model for Dior why is that not what is mentioned in the opening paragraph? Curious. The answer is that he is not notable for being a model for Dior and instead you are using this as a weak justification for a fluff article. I find it amusing you trust a French fashion brand's advertising to tell you whether or not Greece recognizes royal titles or has a monarchy system. That's truly a source worth building an encyclopedia upon.
    Being a "prince" for a defunct monarchy is not grounds for notability. D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever Dior has to say, he is not a prince. The Greeks abolished nobility there, and as far as the Danes are concerned he is a very peripheral noble, if they even count him at all.
  • Keep and Rename without the Prince title, and perhaps without the Denmark title, and perhaps without the Greece title. Was he a Prince before the monarchy was abolished appears to me to be a relevant criterion for this article name. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He was never a prince, as he was born well after the monarchy was abolished. Mangoe (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And Screaming Lord Sutch was never a lord! So what? Per WP:COMMONNAME we use the names commonly used for people. And, like it or not, members of royal families, whether or not their country is still a monarchy, are generally still referred to using the titles which they claim. We don't make a special exception to COMMONNAME for them. Arguing we should just sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not Sutch claimed a place in the House of Lords (which he did not) or that King Tom at UMCP seriously claimed to be royalty (ditto), the situation is hardly the same as someone whose coverage is based upon playing along with a falsehood. The problem isn't the name of the article; the problem is that everything revolves around him being treated as if he held a title, a position, which he does not in fact hold. How do we make an article which is truthful, under the circumstances? Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What is the notability actually? Family? WP:NOTINHERIT; Modeling? WP:NMODEL
    When there is significant coverage different from "This person exists", why is there nothing significant or notable in the artice? --Theoreticalmawi (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Son of the head of the Greek royal family with enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. And of course he's a prince. He can call himself what he likes and he's generally referred to as a prince in any case, so it makes it his WP:COMMONNAME. Laughable that people support trans people being able to change their names, actors using stagenames and writers using pen names, but (for purely anti-monarchist political reasons) oppose members of established royal families using their titles. Bit of a double standard there, I feel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Comparing changing one's name with claiming a defunct title that one does't have is absurd. Athel cb (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, if someone changes their name to something random that's fine but if they use a perfectly respectable hereditary title that their family has always been entitled to use that's absurd? If John Smith the rock guitarist chose to start calling himself Prince John Smith that would be fine but if Constantine Alexios chooses to call himself Prince Constantine Alexios that's absurd? Bizarre. How is that not a double standard? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not he calls himself a prince (and whether or not he is allowed to), he isn't a prince of Greece as Greece does not have a monarchy (and during his lifetime, never has). As the adage goes, calling a tail a leg does not make it so. Prince (musician) and Queen (band) are likewise not royalty. TompaDompa (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One is not royal because a state says one is royal. That would undermine the whole concept of royalty. Now, I appreciate that anti-monarchists would not be swayed by this argument, but pro-monarchists are not swayed by the WP:OFFICIALNAME claims either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "perfectly respectable hereditary title"; according to the Greek government, it is a fraud. I should also point out that the history of the modern Greek nation doesn't make fo a good argument here given that the monarchy was abolished twice and that Constantine I was chucked out twice. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know very well that we are not bound by what governments say. And there is certainly no fraud here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to assess the proposed sources. Recall that being a prince of a deposed monarchy is not inherently notable per our practice, see WP:MONARCH.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - leaving aside all the stuff about "he's a prince so he must be notable" (ILIKEROYALTY) vs. "not a prince and if he were he still wouldn't be notable" (IDONTLIKEROYALTY), there is so much press coverage that he probably makes it through as a straightforward celebrity (famous-for-being-famous) under #1 of WP:BASIC (multiple independent sources). Ingratis (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alright, I took a look at the first WP:THREE sources proposed by StellarHalo above. The first was paywalled, so I looked at the fourth to make up for that. None of them contain what I would characterize as WP:Significant coverage—rather, it's trivial tabloid celebrity gossip and what amounts to "Look at these photos on his Instagram". If this is a representative sample, he does not seem to have significant coverage. TompaDompa (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right that individually these are not the best sources, and that Instagram features heavily. Having said that, (1) some of them have quite a lot of sensible text in between the pics - for example, this and this (they may be foreign language versions of English-language articles); and (2) my understanding of #1 of WP:BASIC is that if there are enough independent sources then individually they need not be as significant - and there is no shortage of sources. If he were a common or garden celeb - for example, a Love Island or Eurovision contestant - they would be more than enough. It really doesn't make any sense that belonging to a Royal family (or if you insist, formerly Royal) actually makes anyone less notable, but that seems to be what is happening. Ingratis (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. However, the coverage still has to add up to significant coverage. Repeating the same non-significant coverage doesn't make it significant coverage, for instance. I took a look at the sources you linked, and I'm not seeing significant coverage—I'm seeing basic biographical and genealogical information, as well as the aforementioned trivial celebrity gossip. The connection to monarchy here doesn't really matter; there are children of celebrities with similar or slightly greater depth of coverage (Jasmine Jordan—daughter of Michael Jordan—was one of them a few years ago; I don't know if she has received more significant coverage since), and I don't think that's WP:Significant coverage indicative of WP:Notability and hence suitability for a stand-alone Wikipedia article, either. I think we should apply the same standard here as we would to a complete nobody—hence my comment above about one's friend's cousin's hairdresser. I wouldn't consider the level of coverage I have seen here significant coverage indicative of notability in such a case, and thus I don't here either. TompaDompa (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I follow your argument. I think what I keep coming back to is that if he were a nobody - friend's cousin's hairdresser, indeed - he wouldn't get the coverage at all. The fact that he gets so much (even if low grade) = notability. However, I could accept a WP:TOOSOON take on it, and like Bearian below, wouldn't be too unhappy with a redirect (to his father, presumably). Ingratis (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's always a tricky situation, when relating to former monarchies. Perhaps a mega-AFD (or something) should be held for all bios of members of former royal families, who were never a monarch. At the moment, I don't see Greece becoming a monarchy again (anytime soon), or choosing Constantine's father (Paul) as King, thus making Constantine crown prince. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems like it has the potential to be a Wikipedia:Trainwreck. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. As discussed above, this one is tricky. Its improbable (although not impossible, see Spanish transition to democracy) that he will become King of Greece. For me, I go back to my long-standing standards for nobility: "There are two ways nobility or royalty can become notable in the 21st century: (a) being involved in major scandals and/or (b) being the patrons of notable philanthropies. ... So the proverbial Duchess in Hanover who divorced her husband after he was found in the arms of another woman, and her 20-year patronage of the Museum of Modern Art would be notable, but a Princess who had only passing coverage would not be. Again, if the only sources are about attending weddings, christenings, and funerals, a redirect to her husband's article might be best." I would not oppose a redirect. Bearian (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece - A huge run of sources were posted, but many of those actually suggest he is notable for being the son of his father (i.e. inherited, but on Wikipedia we don't do that) and the remainder suggest he is instagram notable, but he is instagram notable for the same reason. There is a policy reason against this article: deposed monarchy are not inherently notable, and yet this one is notable only for being the son of the crown prince of a monarch. Is the instagram notability enough for a page? Well maybe - but not this page, as it is. I think it comes down to WP:PAGEDECIDE. In this case he has an instagram following owing to his parents and grandparents. Better to cover it on on the page of the Crown Prince. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpine Pearls[edit]

Alpine Pearls (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)

Unsourced since 2016, no evidence of notability. Greenman (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I don't think xwiki versions of the article could substantialy help to improve referencing, but we cannot say the concept has no mentions at all. A09|(talk) 21:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Nadegger, Monica; Dobusch, Leonhard (2022). "Meta-organisations as drivers for sustainability across tourism clusters in the Alps: A case study of 'Alpine Pearls'". In Lupova-Henry, Evgeniya; Dotti, Nicola Francesco (eds.). Clusters and Sustainable Regional Development: A Meta-Organisational Approach. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. pp. 160–175. doi:10.4324/9781003215066-14. ISBN 978-1-00-321506-6. Retrieved 2024-03-26 – via Google Books.

      The book notes on page 161: "The study investigates this research question with an illustrative example of the Alpine Pearls, an association of several tourism destinations which develop green mobility across the Alps. ... In the following, the case study of the Alpine Pearls illustrates three meta-organisational characteristics which facilitate sustainable development: rationale for collective action, membership, and decision-making and structure."

      The book notes on page 166: "With an illustrative case study of the ‘Alpine Pearls’, a meta-organisation in the European Alps, this chapter explores how meta-organisations can help to foster sustainable tourism development across destinations. Alpine Pearls considers itself an umbrella organisation for sustainable tourism and soft mobility. The meta-organisation was founded in 2006 with 17 member destinations as a follow-up to two projects funded by the European Union (Alp Mobility I + II). Fifteen years later, members include 19 destinations (‘member pearls’) in Alpine regions spreading across fve countries: Austria (Werfenweng, Mallnitz, Weissensee, Hinterstoder), Germany (Bad Reichenhall, Berchtesgaden), Slovenia (Bled, Bohinj), Switzerland (Disentis/Mustér), and Italy (Ceresole Reale, Chamois-Le Magdeleine, Cogne, Forni di Sopra, Limone Piemonte, Moena, Moos im Passeiertal, Taschings, Villnöss, Alpe Cimbra). Additionally, more than 90 accommodation businesses (hotels, bed and breakfasts, apartments) in the designated destinations are included as affiliated hosts."

      The book notes on page 166: "The Alpine Pearls serves as an insightful case of meta-organising in the context of tourism clusters for two main reasons. First, the members of the Alpine Pearls span several different types of organisations (private, single firms like accommodation businesses and public organisations like DMOs or municipalities). Second, although they focus on a specific destination type (alpine, rural areas), they go beyond individual destination borders and span five countries with varying governmental structures."

    2. Verbeek, D.H.P.; Bargeman, A.; Mommaas, J.T. (2011-11-22). "A sustainable tourism mobility passage". Tourism Review. 66 (4): 45–53. doi:10.1108/16605371111188731.

      The articles notes on page 46: "In this paper our attention goes to the network of Alpine Pearls villages, which takes the above measures and others. The municipalities and tourism boards of 22 tourism destinations in the Alpine region are united in the Alpine Pearls (AP) association[1]. In aiming for a sustainable development of Alpine tourism (i.e. environmentally friendly, profitable and high-quality), they stimulate tourists to travel to, between and in Alpine tourism destinations in an environmentally friendly manner."

      The article notes on page 47: "The Alpine Pearls holiday is about environmentally friendly travel to, between and in the Alpine Pearl villages. This implies the creation of a passage that enables a smooth and fluent journey using environmental-friendly transport means. To investigate the passage for environmentally friendly travel to and in the Alpine region, necessary for Alpine Pearls holidays, attention will be given to what it means to go on an Alpine Pearls holiday and to what extent passages have been developed."

    3. Ilić, Milan (2023). "Ethical and Responsible Tourism". In Koščak, Marko; O'Rourke, Tony (eds.). Ethical and Responsible Tourism: Managing Sustainability in Local Tourism Destinations. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. p. 246. ISBN 978-1-00-335868-8. Retrieved 2024-03-26.

      The book notes on page 246: "Werfenweng was placed on the Global 100 Sustainable Destinations list in 2017 and received a number of other relevant awards. SAMO has been copied in a number of tourism destinations – not wholly those which are members of the Alpine Pearls association. Establishment of Alpine Pearls was a significant milestone in the development of gentle mobility in this part of Europe. The existence and activities of Alpine Pearls also provides greater political weight to Werfenweng and all the other members, making it easier to negotiate with other relevant travel and tourism organisations."

    4. Heslinga, Jasper Hessel; Hillebrand, Hans; Emonts, Tanja (2019-04-09). "How to improve innovation in sustainable tourism? Five lessons learned from the Austrian Alps". Journal of Tourism Futures. 5 (1). Emerald Group Publishing. doi:10.1108/JTF-09-2018-0054. ISSN 2055-5911.

      The article notes: "In the area of tourism mobility and sustainability the Alpine Pearls initiative is a renowned example, in which the Austrian municipality of Werfenweng is a front runner. ... The Alpine Pearls is an association of 25 municipalities in the six Alpine countries (Alpine Pearls, 2018). It was established in 2006. The association was the result of two successive EU projects. Both of these projects originated in an initiative by the Austrian Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management. The idea behind the Alpine Pearls was to create innovative tourist packages that protect the environment. The results of these EU projects were implemented by creating the transnational umbrella organization Alpine Pearls for the entire Alpine region. Participating municipalities need to abide to strict environmental quality criteria. Of the five Austrian Pearls, Werfenweng is most advanced in offering sustainable transportation at its destination with a special tourist mobility card that enables tourists to use electrical transportation for free."

    5. Wheatley, Paul (2011-02-06). "Green skiing in the Alps". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-03-26. Retrieved 2024-03-26.

      The article notes: "Werfenweng is a member of the Alpine Pearls organisation, a project that seeks to promote sustainable tourism in the Alps, the central focus being to combine great sights with environmentally friendly transport initiatives. Today, 24 communities from Austria, Germany, Switzerland, France, Italy and Slovenia are involved. The result, in Werfenweng at least, is something approaching a model sustainable tourist destination, where sustainability does not have to come at the expense of a great holiday."

    6. Seidel, Sarah (2018). "Distribution at the Destination: An underestimated force to improve hospitality services and enhance sustainable development". Sustainable Value Creation in Hospitality: Guests on Earth. Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers. p. 56. ISBN 978-1-911396-39-0. Retrieved 2024-03-26.

      The book notes: "Already introduced in Chapter 3 (page 37), the Alpine Pearls are a cooperation of 25 small cities and villages located in six different countries in Europe. To understand the necessity of tourists' distribution for the Alpine region ... That the Alpine Pearls wish to contribute to this virtuous goal, is already evident from the opening page of its website where the Alpine Pearls are compared to a necklace of 25 pearls including 'known places' and 'insiders tip' (https://www.alpinepearls.com/en/about-us/alpine-pearls/, Accessed on 6 February 2018). Hence tourists are lured from places where the carrying capacity is reached, to rather unknown places that have sufficient carrying capacity to cater for these tourists—on the website beautifully referred to as the 'insiders tip'. By buying a package tour offered via the website of the Alpine Pearls, tourists might visit places they would not visit otherwise and are led to spend money at these places. Hence, there are more locals who benefit. At the same time, the visitors' pressure on the main tourist regions might lower a bit and allow both the social protection of locals and tourists - who are less disturbed by (other) tourists - and the environmental protection of sensitive areas."

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

    Cunard (talk) 10:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha factor[edit]

Alpha factor (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 appears to be a definition of a parameter during solidification. It has no general context, does not appear to be notable and I find essentially nothing about it in a Google search. If someone wants to add context to repair it I will withdraw the nomination, but to me it does not belong on Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Jackson alpha factor is a dimensionless parameter stemming from Jackson's classical mean-field theory of crystal growth. Its value indicates whether a crystal growth interface is smooth or rough, analogous to a Reynolds number. In addition to the two books cited in the article, there are other secondary sources discussing the concept such as [4] and [5]. While it is not a hugely notable concept, it seems well-verified in secondary reliable sources and IMO passes the test for notability per WP:GNG. As part of the history of crystal growth modeling, it could have a place on Wikipedia. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mark viking, please then include the context. As written only someone who has worked in the area will have an idea what it is for. For instance:
    • It's relevance for flat surfaces in the lead (what you say above, expanded)
    • Links to experimental verification and the other sources you mention
    • Limitations (can be brief)
    • A Figure would be good
    Currently it fails the readers first test. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Terrible math formatting, but a wiki-notable concept. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, after fixing the mathematical typesetting, which is indeed terrible, as XOR'easter said. However, it can be fixed, and I shall try to do that today. Athel cb (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now done this. I hope I haven't screwed up any equations, and have correctly understood what the original ones meant. They look right to me. However anyone can check by comparing my versions with those of 1st April.
    Athel cb (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2024 (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! 19:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time domain vernier method[edit]

Time domain vernier method (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 couldn't find sources to establish its notability. I would be interested to hear from those who work in this area if they have had more luck. Boleyn (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2024 (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) 18:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dellor[edit]

Dellor (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 Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Notability as well as WP:GNG. I cannot find WP:SIGCOV relating to this YouTuber on Google or Google News (except for a few isolated incidents - getting banned off Twitch doesn't make you notable). Note a lot of this article was copied from Fandom. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. The only articles I could find on google largely were niche coverage of various drama incidents, most of which appear heavily sensationalized. Likewise, the vast majority of the article is written about controversies involving Dellor which are largely not significant. Two of the sources are primary, one coming from Dellor's own YouTube channel and a tweet he made; one source is heavily sensationalized; and one source does provide a neutral coverage of his termination, but at only one paragraph is far from a sufficient source for demonstrating WP:SIGCOV. ArkHyena (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, Canada, and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Note: I removed a lot of this article as a flagrant WP:BLP violation, sourcing purely negative information to GNL Magazine, a questionable source listed nowhere, social media posts, and completely unsourced for the "Allegations and Troubles" section. ~ A412 talk! 19:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not enough coverage to establish notability. This [6], but it's a rather small article. [7], celebrity article, describing getting eggs thrown at his house. Hardly the stuff we'd use for notability. Appears to have said some things that were not well received, career ended after. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BBC article [8] about him quitting. That's about the extent of coverage in RS; "spirited" individual, livery character, but not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2024 (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 Dead or Alive Xtreme 3. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dead or Alive Xtreme Venus Vacation[edit]

Dead or Alive Xtreme Venus Vacation (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)

Zero reception. Zero reliable sources as well; thus failing WP:GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right here. Also, the links about gameplays & staffs are on the official DOAXVV website RexWill01 (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.sinicalanimenetwork.com/amp/dead-or-alive-xtreme-venus-vacation-review
https://www.metacritic.com/game/dead-or-alive-xtreme-venus-vacation/
https://automaton-media.com/en/interviews/20211207-7082/ RexWill01 (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look now. I overhauled the article to address both of the concerns you raised. Jotamide (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Sources 1,2,3, 10 and 11 are RS per Source Highlighter, most of which are reviews. I think we're ok Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They do are, but do they really say anything? No. Its just an announcement. Are there reviews on Metacritic? Nope. We are not basing notability over the quantities of reliable sources, but quality GreenishPickle! (🔔) 17:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Source 2 is the best of the bunch. The Japanese source 10 is ok and I found this which is recognized as a RS [9] per Project Video Games.[10]. Also coverage in Silicon Era [11] and [12]. I've amended my !vote to a Weak Keep, not a ton of extensive sources, but one good one and bunch of smaller ones, should be enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All of these sources are trivia, but I understand that is your perspective. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Story in Vice about the game [13], another story in Vice [14], ScreenRant [15]. Mid-level quality sources, but they talk about the game. Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Some of these have been added under this section. Jotamide (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Why was this split out from Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 in the first place? Despite what the IP edit summaries removing it from that article and the talk page discussion say, RS describe it as a "version" of Xtreme 3. [16] [17] ~ A412 talk! 05:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because these articles are wrong. It's not a "version", it's a separate (live-service) game of its own. I get the impression all the people who want this merged with DOAX3 never tried to play Venus Vacation in the first place. 188.120.118.114 (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it isn't a "version" of Xtreme 3. Anyone claiming so is outright false. 24.230.161.142 (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please reevaluate your vote? Ever since the deletion nomination I have substantially improved the article to illustrate that after 6+ years of service, Venus Vacation has evolved into separate game with its own story detached from Xtreme 3. Jotamide (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Vice articles are fairly substantial and the story about the DVD was reported by several publications (eg PCGamesN) but I think it's not quite enough to pass GNG. Merge to Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 seems appropriate since DualShockers calls the game a spin-off of Xtreme 3 ([18], [19], [20]), Vice called Venus Vacation renamed Xtreme 3 ([21]), and Screenrant & The Gamer called it a PC version of Xtreme 3" ([22], [23]). --Mika1h (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Xtreme series itself is a spinoff. Should it be merged as well? Those other articles are wrong and based on bad information prior to launch. 24.230.161.142 (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While Venus Vacation was originally promoted as a PC port of Xtreme 3, development for the most recent version of that game (DOAX3 Scarlet) ceased in 2020 while DOAXVV is still in active development and by 2024 has diverged quite substantially from Xtreme 3. Several of the articles you linked seem to propagate outdated information from release. Jotamide (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I have no idea why I was informed on my talk page as if I'm the person that made this article (it seems Niemti did?) but um...yeah agree with the above consensus.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please reevaluate your vote? Ever since the deletion nomination I have substantially improved the article to illustrate that after 6+ years of service, Venus Vacation has evolved into separate game with its own story detached from Xtreme 3. Jotamide (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While the first version of this article was poorly-sourced, it can be expanded with info from the eswiki article plus news articles and interviews specific to this game. Some of them can now be found as refideas in the game's talk page. The fact that so many people stated incorrectly in this discussion that this game is just a port of Xtreme 3 (it is not) means that a split article is necessary to clarify this widely-spread misconception. Jotamide (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources at the talk oage were trivia. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you expand on that? Jotamide (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do believe that many users here that are just agreeing with the merge suggestion honestly don't know much about this game (if at all). Or simply blindly believe inaccurate articles that have been full of misinformation for years. If you do think that a literal gacha (which means completely different way of acquiring continuously updated swimsuits/characters) doesn't warrant a separate page along with additions/differences in gameplay, then there's even less of a reason to have a separate page for Dead or Alive Paradise which is just a port of DOAX2. 188.120.118.114 (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and AfD is not based on a vote. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I looked at some of the new sources, and the sense I get is that RS have actually written a decent amount about this game, but not a review, which is frustrating. This is reflected by the current article structure, which stitches together a lot of small articles about elements of the game, without anything overviewing the game. To sum up, you could make a GNG argument, and I think I would keep if not part of a series, but the article doesn't really work as an article when cobbled together in this way, so still merge. ~ A412 talk! 17:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Having played both games, I can say without a shadow of a doubt that these two games, while similar, are entirely different entities. Those voting to merge clearly have little to no understanding of the game, its gameplay or the history behind the game's creation.
2600:8804:8780:125E:2373:F536:2585:606D (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, this afd is not a vote. And, this argument is gibberish. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll write an actual response to the this comment. (@Greenish Pickle!, I think you need to consider the counterarguments in good faith rather than labeling arguments as "from socks" or "gibberish". They're well-formed arguments, even if we both disagree with them.)
Unlike other reference works, including some other wikis, English Wikipedia doesn't have any sort of granularity policy, in that even though two topics are technically different, that doesn't mean they are necessarily discussed in two different articles. Instead, the relevant guidelines are WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:MERGEREASON, and the relevant questions are if there is sufficient sourcing to write detailed articles about both topics, and if the reader would be better served by explaining the shared context necessary to understand both topics in a single article. In this case, I think the answers are "no, the sourcing is too piecemeal to write a good article about DOAXVV", and "yes, they have the same context and origin". ~ A412 talk! 23:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for better explaining this unlike the hostile user behind the nomination. Jotamide (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
‘’’Keep’’’ [I second this, entirely different games] 2600:1700:358A:8050:EC1E:8308:B524:9A9 (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:::I own them apology, but these IPs looks sus with their single edit and it was this afd. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Greenish Pickle!, please do not BLUDGEON this discussion by responding dismissively to every editor whose opinion you disagree with. Besides it being rude, it is not an effective method of persuading people to your own point of view. What helps with that is presenting a strong argument, not calling other editors' comments "gibberish". Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I own them an apology for being way too far. The thing is, look at these IPs contribution'; their first edit literally this afd and they were canvassed . GreenishPickle! (🔔) 00:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some off-wiki discussion encouraging people to !vote keep is on reddit. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 02:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew this was a thing; and it felt like the OP closely resembles someone here (I wouldn't mention his name). Similarly what happen to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King K. Rool (2nd nomination). GreenishPickle! (🔔) 02:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There usually is offline discussion of the votes here, reddit or elsewhere. We can't do much about it, but rely on the quality of the discussion here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Fails WP:GNG with insufficient coverage in reliable sources. (Yes, I have seen the ones already posted, so don't @ me about them.) The most major articles about the topic are talking about one single feature while ignoring the rest of the game, and fail the broadness criterion. I think Pickle was correct in this instance, even though the initial rationale was not true, but arguments to the person only hurt, not help your case. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. I'm just not seeing significant coverage in reliable, secondary/independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. What's there tends to cover a single aspect of the game. I'll also mention that, while it's mildly annoying to see the off-wiki canvassing/brigading, what's worse is seeing established editors stuff the article with unreliable sources and ostensibly "secondary" sources obviously based on press releases or primary content. Not only does it bloat the article with WP:CHURNALISM but it wastes the time of every editor who needs to wade through it. If the article is somehow kept, it should also be restored to an earlier, cruft-less version. Woodroar (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I feel that this article says a lot and yet nothing at the same time. The gameplay section is almost completely unsourced and the reception is baron to say it nicely. And judging by the sources, there is very little personal input in the coverage. CaptainGalaxy 15:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎ to allow time for improvement Star Mississippi 01:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Optima Production[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability requirements per WP:CORP. I tried to encourage user to fix that multiple times before moving out of draft space, but was ignored multiple times. Edit history has been broken so much I dont think a merge is even possible anymore due to copy+paste moves and redirects even if the result was keep. Q T C 18:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Draftify and salt While I could find plenty of results for them, they were all are either passing mentions of working with a musician, [24] [25] or primarily based on press releases or interviews. [26] [27] [28] [29] none of which would help to meet WP:NCORP. The edit history just seems to be a mess and while I wouldn't be opposed to draftification, I'm not sure how much of an option that is when it's been created despite prior draftification and no changes to improve it. Shaws username . talk . 16:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've changed from deleting, it doesn't feel right to advocate deletion when I don't speak the language and can't do the same level of WP:BEFORE. However I'm still sceptical that it could meet WP:NCORP, most of the sources (including those below) contain significant sections of quotes from the CEO, when WP:SIRS says it should be completely independent, and some have more about OTT is than the company. Given that it's been draftified three times and probably been copy and pasted moved to mainspace each time, salting would seem to be necessary to prevent that again. Shaws username . talk . 05:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft: This recording company has received significant coverage from major Indonesian news outlets such as detik.com, Republika, Kontan, Bisnis Indonesia, Investor Daily, and many more... It's not difficult to find Indonesia sources for this company. IMO it should pass WP:CORP requirements, However, given the current condition of the article, it might be more suitable to move it to draft rather than keep it on as article in WP. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Indonesian-language source material found by Ckfasdf indicates a GNG pass, and articles on noteworthy topics should be improved rather than removed. I don't have much confidence that the draftified article would ever return to mainspace, and the encyclopedia is less complete with this subject uncovered. Chubbles (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject meets GNG, AfD is not cleanup, and I don't see inaccurate nor promotional prose that needs to be removed. Therefore I don't see the point in moving to draft. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify. Completely unsourced and other reasons listed above. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 06:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify seems like an option to provide an opportunity to find sources. Otherwise given the sources I've located to date, it would be a delete as none meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 23:36, 11 April 2024 (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. Although this article could use some work and more extensive sourcing, I see a consensus to Keep it. Liz Read! Talk! 20:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Wuhua[edit]

Zhu Wuhua (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)

Unsourced since 2008. The subject might possibly be notable as a founding member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, but that assertion appears to be unverifiable. – bradv 16:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, China, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, I would be extremely nervous of deleting this article unless someone with good knowledge of the Chinese academic system in the 20th C is prepared to say he isn't notable. By his dates, his career would have taken place almost entirely before internet. During much of it, contact between the Chinese academic world and the west was very thin. It is likely that most sources talking about him will be on paper, and in Chinese. The Chinese Academy of Sciences is a big thing. We really need expert input on this, not just those of us who cannot see the mid 20th C in China saying "I can't see anything!". Elemimele (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would be extremely chary of keeping this article if it is neither properly sourced nor its assertions proven. We do not need "expert input" on the basic principles that a biographical article must satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG, and in this case WP:V as well. Until and unless this one does, add me to the Delete column, with no prejudice against recreation should such sources be uncovered in the future. Ravenswing 00:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Keep I did an extremely quick google search on his name and came up with many articles substantiating his career. He was the head (校长) of Jiaotong University, one of the top universities in China. I just added a link describing what can be fairly described as a festschrift for his 65th anniversary of teaching. Per WP:NPROF this should be enough.
      "Neither properly sourced nor its assertions proven" isn't a valid rationale if sources exist. And "unverifiable" simply doesn't hold water. I'm not trying to excuse the fact this article lacks sourcing but per WP:BEFORE this should have been researched prior to bringing an AfD Oblivy (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – meets WP:NPROF criterion 6 as a former president of Shanghai Jiaotong University. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its unclear to me whether his relationship to CAS was as a researcher for them (not automatically notable) or as an honorary member of the academy (notable), but it doesn't matter. President of SJTU is enough by itself, as Mx. Granger notes. Incidentally, the same link also gives him a pass of WP:NPOL as a representative in the 3rd National People's Congress. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree the wording of WP:NPOL supports this but it would seem a perverse result if nearly 3,000 NPC members (in each term) meet notability! One might think that the NPCSC (currently 175 members) would be a better cutoff. Just a comment as this individual unquestionably passes muster under NPROF. Oblivy (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Germany's Bundestag has 735 members representing a country of 80 million, and evidently they're all presumed notable per NPOL. China's NPC has about four times as many members for a population more than 15 times as large. It's not unreasonable on its face to presume notability for them too. In any case, as you say, it shouldn't affect the result here – maybe something to discuss at WT:China one of these days. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, it's right, and there should be a limiting factor in terms of press coverage (although even minor members can generate a lot of "warmly greeted by villagers and workers" stories). But 3,000 part-time delegates seems like a truck-size hole in the policy. No evidence it's a problem right now, certainly not for someone this notable. Oblivy (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – meets WP:PROF#C6. Contributor892z (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (clarifying my comment above, in light of Oblivy and Mx. Granger's work). Also with thanks to Oblivy for explaining our WP:NEXISTS policy, which is also common-sense: when an article currently lacks sourcing, but real-world sources are probably available, it is much more helpful to find them, than to delete. It is, admittedly, often quite hard to search out Chinese names, requiring a bit more expertise and effort than for Westerners. Elemimele (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2024 (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) 18:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tammy Trull[edit]

Tammy Trull (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 saw the individual added as a notable and was struck by her capsule bio describing her as an " actress and realtor." The only source in her article is a link to an image. The only sources added to include her as a notable are a Facebook link and an alumnus website page. I did a Google / Google News search and found nothing that would support a claim of notability. If anyone can find anything else, I am more than willing to be convinced otherwise. Alansohn (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2024 (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.

I hope we are not purging all of our food-related articles (first salads then cakes?). Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maple slaw[edit]

Maple slaw (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 salad that does not pass WP:GNG, references consist of recipes and trivial mentions. WP:BEFORE check yielded no sources that show WP:SIGCOV. BaduFerreira (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2024 (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! 19:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Northern Cyprus[edit]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Northern Cyprus (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)

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2024 (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) 19:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

INVNT Group[edit]

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

Nominating this based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INVNT, which was an article about INVNT Group's subsidiary. My main concern comes in regards to whether the trade publications establish notability. TLAtlak 16:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I encourage all contributors to this AfD to read the linked AfD. There is detailed analysis of source tables, which leads to a conclusion that neither the parent nor subsidiary is notable. Trade publications are not sufficient in this context, even in great number. Local Variable (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looked through the sources in the article and read through the subsidiary company AfD. Not seeing any sources that fully meet WP:SIRS. Rupples (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - INVNT which previously got deleted is a subsidiary of INVNT GROUP. While some news references cover both entities, not all do. Hence what happened with INVNT should not influence the outcome here. Here are some of the better sources for this company that show it meets WP:NCORP: thedrum, Exeleon Magazine, Reader's Digest, Event Industry News, CEO World. Icesnowgeorge (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These are absolutely not reliable sources in the context of NCORP (and the higher degree of scrutiny it requires). The problems with the Reader's Digest source was explained by @AusLondonder: in the last AfD: it's plainly promotional. Local Variable (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the INVNT AFD, there were claims suggesting that Reader's Digest post is an advertisement. Nonetheless, I believe that such a reputable publication would not jeopardize its integrity by violating laws concerning the disclosure of paid advertisements or sponsorships. It is legally mandated to disclose any such financial relationships. Imagine the PR nightmare such publication would have if it was discovered that they have posted Ads without disclosures. Additionally, the FTC imposes substantial fines on publications that fail to disclose advertisements (up to $46K USD per incident). Reader's Digest is not a mom and pop publication to risk such fines. You can also check this example here of an article they posted that clearly indicates "Promoted Content," and THIS ONE states "Unbiased Partnership," so if anyone is claiming that Reader's Digest is posting undisclosed paid ads, you better provide solid evidence.
    Most of the remaining articles I provided have detailed coverage about INVNT Group. While it is your opinion that they are not reliable sources, it is my opinion that they are. None of these publications are mom and pop and all have editorial oversight.
    In addition here are some traffic stats from these publications for last month from similarweb.com:
    ReadersDigest.co.uk 1.2 Million visits
    thedrum.com 2.1 million visits
    ceoworld.biz/ 1.1 Million Visits
    exeleonmagazine.com/47K visits
    eventindustrynews.com/ 33k Visits Icesnowgeorge (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I've ever come across a reliable source that uses a .biz TLD. Local Variable (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The Drum: Well, for starters, it's written by the managing director of the company. Not WP:INDEPENDENT at all.
    2. Exeleon Magazine: It looks like you can fill out a form to get featured. I don't think this is a RS either.
    3. Reader's Digest: This post contains affiliate links, so we may earn a small commission when you make a purchase through links on our site at no additional cost to you. Read our disclaimer. Not WP:INDEPENDENT.
    4. Event Industry News: This article is brought to you in association with Macroart. Not WP:INDEPENDENT.
    5. CEO World: Not WP:RELIABLE, per this. TLAtlak 10:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My own analysis of the sources largely backs up User:I'm tla.
    The Drum fails WP:ORGIND - written by the MD of one of the subsidiaries
    Exelon doubtful independence for notability. The magazine's About us Exeleon Magazine is one of the leading global platform for leaders and entrepreneurs to showcase their story[30] Note "their story", companies/people ask to be featured, drafts sent back for approval[31] so basically writes what the company says about itself.
    Readers Digest. The article explains what 'brand storytelling' is and there is a bit about the company interspersed with quotes from company executives. Tells the reader what the company does, lists awards and a brief history. May satisfy WP:SIRS criteria, but it doesn't have much depth.
    Event Industry News. Trade journal, mostly not to be used to establish notability WP:TRADES. Basically, it's showcasing the company.If your agency has a fitting story to tell, get in touch[32]
    CEO World. Looks independent. Most of the article concentrates on Scott Cullather but there is some content on the company and the piece is written in a neutral way; still, it fails WP:ORGDEPTH
    Overall, the Readers Digest piece is the only one which may count towards notability, but I'm not altogether convinced. Rupples (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The Reader's Digest piece is puffery and relies on quotes and information from the company and execs, for me it is not Independent Content. HighKing++ 14:52, 8 April 2024 (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! 19:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Belarus[edit]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Belarus (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)

Very simply, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Note that I'm unfortunately nominating a lot of pages separately here because there is consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sports_broadcasting_contracts_in_Serbia that these shouldn't be nominated together. BrigadierG (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2024 (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) 16:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Sahasrabudhe[edit]

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

Doesn't yet reach WP:NACADEMIC criteria, nor other more general ones. Only at Associate Professor level, in an institution where this is the lowest standard tenured entry point for academics. Early in his career, with Scopus showing an H-factor of 6. Has collaborated with some notable people, but notability can't be inherited from them. The article is well-written and clear, but this doesn't compensate for the fact that this is too soon. Klbrain (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, Canada, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PROF#C2. Even at Cambridge, I think assistant professors are not usually notable yet, but there can be exceptions when we have evidence that someone is already recognized as a star. I think the Salem Prize and European Prize in Combinatorics are sufficient evidence. That the prizes are for outstanding work in such different major subdisciplines of mathematics (analysis and combinatorics respectively) only makes the double win more remarkable. These are low-citation fields so the low citation counts aren't evidence of much of anything (they aren't evidence for notability, but they also aren't evidence against). The fact that these are prizes for young mathematicians is I think an artifact of the cult of youth in mathematics (the Fields Medal, the most prestigious prize in mathematics, has an age limit only slightly higher, and the Salem prize is seen as a precursor to the Fields) and should not be used to argue that these prizes are less significant than a "senior" award: there is no senior award for them to be less significant than. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eppstein, although the citation record is not yet overly impressive. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
    One of his splashiest results [33] is still just a 2023 arXiv preprint, not yet published. So it's not surprising to see low citation numbers for it, on top of the fact that it's in a low-citation field. (I think this also postdates both prizes.) —David Eppstein (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David Eppstein. Those are both selective prizes, so getting two impresses me anyway. We don't expect high h-factors in most of math. Ldm1954 (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above; the awards put him over the PROF test. I should be surprised he hasn't gotten tenure, but I haven't gotten there myself. Bearian (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the British system really has tenure, in the sense that it is understood in the US system. They have permanent or temporary contracts, but I think the permanent contracts exist at all levels. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2024 (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. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arutperunjothi[edit]

Arutperunjothi (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)

Horribly undersourced. I myself tried finding sources and the only two listed here were added by me, after tireless searching. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you search, you neeed search with the right keyword. Search like this Arutperunjothi 1971 movie and see how many sites and sources you see. Single Word Arutperunjothi means different meaning.
"Arutperunjothi 1971 movie" Alangar Manickam (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m pretty sure Kailash29792 knows that, but thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to A. T. Krishnaswamy#Filmography: ATD if current sourcing is judged insufficient. Opposed to deletion, not opposed to Keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC) Other possible target:Ramalinga Swamigal#In popular culture. (Edited so that this can be speedy-kept)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:22, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep after addition of a source. Was under the impression that there was only two sources exist till I found one more. Rather than a passing mention in list of films as most books about old films are the book says that the film is a devotional film, mentions the film's two lead cast members and that the film was the last film of the director. I think the other two sources are passing mentions. I would also support renaming this article to Arutperunjothi (film) since Arutperunjothi is better of a redirect to Ramalinga Swamigal since it is a common word used in Tamil Hindu prayers. This film (அருட்பெருஞ்ஜோதி) marked the lead debut of Master Sridhar [34] needs a reliable source. DareshMohan (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw: Per WP:HEY. Good work DareshMohan. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I found two to three reliable sources with enough notes about the film, cast and director. Passes WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per DareshMohan and comments above.Sk1728 (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2024 (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 23:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Chilcott[edit]

Martin Chilcott (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)

Insufficient independent coverage of the subject on Google News and in the article to pass WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 06:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I checked over the sources, and they are completely insufficient. The first one is to the Store Locator page of Carphone Warehouse - not to an article that is a reference for the statement that this reference was used for. The next reference was to findarticles.com which did not establish anything. The next two articles were to Place Group pages at www.place-group.com - which was the subject's own company, and should not be the sole reference about the company - not independent sources. The next article titled "The World's largest sustainability network defines..." is pointing to a press release, not an independent source. The final reference to a page at The Guardian is reflecting an error page, and the only copy in the Internet Archive likewise reflects a cached copy of the error page as well. None of the sources cited were sufficient as reference citations, much less as sources to establish notability sufficient to merit a Wikipedia article.WmLawson (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per nom. Reading through the article itself, large sections also seems to have a promotional tone, particularly in the Career, 2degrees and Personal life sections. ArkHyena (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2024 (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 14:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Russia[edit]

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

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, all of the sources are primary sources; either they are social media sources, are announcements and do not assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE covers this explicitly BrigadierG (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2024 (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) 14:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Let'srun (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2024 (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 14:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Italy[edit]

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

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the only one source are primary, nothing but announcement and does not assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE covers this explicitly BrigadierG (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2024 (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) 14:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Let'srun (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2024 (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! 03:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chimaobi C Mbataku[edit]

Chimaobi C Mbataku (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 businessperson who fails WP:GNG or any applicable SNG. Suspected UPE and COI going on here. There's no source that could establish GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: As the article is a stub and would need much sources to establish a stand-alone notability.--Afí-afeti (talk) 06:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 4 April 2024 (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. Thank you fo the source analysis of which no editor has posted a rebuttal. Liz Read! Talk! 03:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Empire Music[edit]

Dream Empire Music (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 which fails WP:ORGCRIT, WP:GNG or any applicable SNG. Could not find sources to establish, at the very least, GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://dreamempiremusic.com/about-us/ No This is the official website of Dream Empire Music, which means it’s not independent. ~ Even though an official source, but could be easily influenced by the subject. No Promotional and lacks critical analysis ✘ No
https://sunnewsonline.com/music-my-passion-from-childhood-clarke/ No An interview or a feature which contains promotional content. Obvious paid puff. ~ While The Sun Nigeria is a reputable news (WP:NGRS) source, this specific article appears to be more of a feature or interview than hard news. Yes ✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2020/01/d-e-m-signs-verchi-f2-under-new-label/ No Press release-ish promotional piece. ~ Vanguard is a reputable news source that is marginally reliable (WP:NGRS), and this particular piece is promotional. Yes ✘ No
https://independent.ng/dream-empire-music-unveils-new-artistes/ No Press release and promotional piece. ~ Independent Newspaper Nigeria is a reliable news source (WP:NGRS), but this particular piece is promotional. Yes ✘ No
https://thenationonlineng.net/clarke-ventures-into-entertainment-signs-two-artistes/ No The article is a press release/promotional piece. ~ The Nation is a reputable news source (WP:NGRS), but this specific article is promotional. Yes ✘ No
https://dreamempiremusic.com/our-team/ No This is the official website of Dream Empire Music, which means it’s clearly not independent. ~ Ditto No Information from here is promotional and lacks critical analysis. ✘ No
https://www.bellanaija.com/2022/04/new-ep-majeed-bitter-sweet/ No The article appears is a PR/promotional piece. No per WP:NGRS, plus, this piece is promotional. No Ditto ✘ No
https://guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/weekend-beats/dream-empire-music-signs-joint-deal-with-empire/ No PR/promo puff. ~ The Guardian Nigeria is a reliable news source (WP:NGRS), but this particular piece is paid promotional puff. Yes ✘ No
https://independent.ng/majeed-releases-second-ep-cheers-to-life/ No PR/promo puff ~ Ditto ~ More or less a PR for Majeeed's second EP ✘ 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}}.

--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Inherent notability. Promotional clauses and unlike a notable label; few songs and artists to credit and neither have been seen on "Top stories" (of release or SIGCOV). All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this assessment. @Vanderwaalforces. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The label has released two notable projects and would still need better sourcing, aside entering a joint partnership with EMPIRE.--Afí-afeti (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the very thorough source analysis above, thank you @Vanderwaalforces BrigadierG (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2024 (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 14:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Stuart[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Morgan Stuart (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 does not meet the WP:NCOLLATH or the WP:GNG. A 2022 AfD closed as no consensus but that was under the false presumption from some keep advocates that the sport specific criteria superseded the GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of meeting GNG. Also, the prior discussion was closed by an editor who was banned from closing due to making very poor NC and keep closes, engaged in canvassing at other AfDs (in particular with one of the !voters at the first AfD), and was indeffed months later for behavioral issues related to appealing his ban. JoelleJay (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2024 (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. Closing a bit early, as a WP:SNOW keep under WP:NPOL. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Miroyan[edit]

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

Only a single source which is a primary source. Fails WP:GNG. PROD was removed without improving article. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avarigines[edit]

Avarigines (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 google search shows no such term GusChago (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GusChago (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment @Gachago can you clarify your deletion rationale? I've added a citation to a dictionary/encyclopedia of the Celts. I find it hard to put in a vote without seeing the offline sources but this is no hoax. Oblivy (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oblivy This needs the attention of an expert. I am sure when user translated the article, probably form spanish, they gave it a title of thgeir own creation because I never came across "Avarigines" and I couldn't find anything in the literature or via search engines. GusChago (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your response. Given that there is now an English source using that term can you sustain your position that it’s a “title of [editor’s] own creation?” If that’s your objection, then I think this is speedy keep for lack of valid deletion rationale. Oblivy (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, if borne out by the sources cited: however little we know of ancient tribes, they are inherently notable. I've done some cleanup left from the translation, for grammar, spelling, and flow, and worked on the cited sources, moving long-form citations to the bibliography. Will try to check Pomponius Mela, since he's the ultimate source, and if the citation to him is correct, then it's probably fair to assume the other citations are good—I couldn't check the last one at all, though it looks like it might be the most useful of the secondary souruces. P Aculeius (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pomponius Mela does mention them as described, and I've linked the citation to an edition that notes the substitution of "Autrigones" for "Avariginos". So yes, speedy keep. P Aculeius (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - people(s) mentioned in ancient texts are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maharana Pratap College, Deo[edit]

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

Notability not shown; poor sources 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 14:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANiMAZiNG!!![edit]

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

No evidence of WP:Notability, sources in article are not independent, I couldn't find better non-routine ones, just announcements and rehashed press releases. Fram (talk) 07:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite the problem indeed.
If this article gets a mention, then shouldn't its counterpart of NUMAnimation also get an English-translated article too? Understand that everything has to be literally translated from Japanese to English, so if there're enough sources to verify WP:Notability from the Jap wiki, then I don't see a problem with this. KANLen09 (talk) 11:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Updates have since been made to the article, so it should stay.SimonLagann (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has been heavily edited since its nomination can editor review changes to it and whether it impacts their decision on what should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2024 (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. Closing this as Delete on the basis of arguments that a person of their position does not meet WP:NPOL. If our policy expands the definition of what NPOL covers, this closure can be revisited. Thanks also to editors who thoughtfully comment on AFD discussions that have gone through 3 relistings...your participation is what we hope for when we decide to relist discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yusra Alhabsyi[edit]

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

No indication of importance person. All the sources not a reliable sources.. Stvbastian (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Indonesia. Stvbastian (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can you clarify why you think the sources in the article are not reliable? They seem reliable from a glance; whether they provide WP:SIGCOV or not is another matter. Curbon7 (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm admittedly not an expert in Indonesian politics, but he appears to hold a seat in an Indonesian provincial legislature, and thus would pass WP:NPOL #1 right on its face. I'm willing to reconsider if I'm wrong about what the North Sulawesi Regional People's Representative Council is, but provincial legislators are important topics for us to have articles about — so the article can be tagged for {{refimprove}} if you feel strongly that the sourcing isn't adequate, but there's no such thing as a non-notable provincial legislator. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indonesia is a unitary state (not federal) so typically membership of a subnational legislature would not meet NPOL#1, unless this is a Spain-like situation where the provinces have tremendous autonomy. I am also not well-versed in Indonesian politics so do not know if this is the case. Curbon7 (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi Curbon7 and Bearcat.. For sources, in Indonesia, we have some well-known newspaper that usually used in Wikipedia article such as: Antara, Kompas, Detik, and Jakarta Post (has been proven to be verified by the editor before publication). Sources in that article not a well-known source. Source #1 is a primary source. And why i said "no indication of importance person" because the main article of the Provinicial Parliament page is a redlink --> North Sulawesi Regional People's Representative Council, and this person did not make a big impact in the provincial politics, has not provided any achievements in other fields, so it does not receive enough attention from reliable media.'Thank u Stvbastian (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Allfather (Benison) (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete does not satisfy WP:NPOL, Indonesia's provincial representative bodies are akin to municipal councils (administrative powers, rather than legislative), with the exception of Aceh (there's a possible case for the West Papuan ones, but that is much weaker IMHO). I do not see any sourcing satisfying the GNG. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, previous AfD discussions, where members of subnational bodies without legislative powers have not been accorded presumed notability under WP:NPOL: France, Netherlands, Japan (further details at WP:NSUBPOL and this 2019 discussion). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As explained by Goldsztain, it does not appear that Indonesia's provincial representative bodies pass WP:NPOL and there is no indication that GNG is met. --Enos733 (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ and no indication of further input Star Mississippi 14:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KTV Ltd.[edit]

KTV Ltd. (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 and lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Largely unencyclopedic content including channel listings, "competitors" and the cost per month. PROD removed on the basis of sources on the Spanish Wikipedia that appear to be solely about the hacking of various Falkland Islands websites nearly 10 years ago. AusLondonder (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, United Kingdom, and Argentina. AusLondonder (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the two refs I added before this nomination. They were from the Spanish Wikipedia. Neither mentions hacking so I’m confused. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree article needs pruning and improvement. —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two of the sources at the Spanish Wikipedia mention the website hacking incident. With regards to the sources you added, one appears to be primarily about Falkland Islands Television Limited, not KTV. It appears to be a trivial source per WP:ORGTRIV (coverage "of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business" is considered trivial). The other source is an interview with someone from the company, considered a primary source. AusLondonder (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it serves the needs of various communities which and is an important source or information to them. Article does need improving though. Karl Twist (talk) 11:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Guess we may as well get rid of notability requirements then. All information could potentially be useful to someone. WP:USEFUL. AusLondonder (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please offer opinions based in source analysis and policy, not your opinion of the current state of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2024 (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 Kurdistan Workers' Party insurgency#2010. Rough consensus that this event should not remain as a standalone article due to its inability to meet the relevant inclusion criteria. EC editors may choose to shuffle around content as necessary. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Hakkâri bus bombing[edit]

2010 Hakkâri bus bombing (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)

4 of the 5 sources are from September 2010 when this event occured. No WP:LASTING effects or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is part of the Kurdistan Workers' Party insurgency. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be merged/redirected to this article? LibStar (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could but I think it would be better on its own. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 05:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In genuine good faith (not asking rhetorically, but as a serious question), what makes you think this topic needs its own article rather than being mentioned in the insurgency article? I have no preference towards keep or delete myself at the moment - I'm just curious as to your rationale in saying this. Sleddog116 (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation is needed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kurdistan Workers' Party insurgency#2010. The article is well-sourced, but not notable on its own. Would be a waste to delete without expanding an already existing notable article. Topic also lacks sustained coverage. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 15:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:29, 4 April 2024 (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. Given sources found, improvements made to the article and current consensus of editors. Liz Read! Talk! 07:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander J. Clements[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alexander J. Clements (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)

Apparently this person is notable only for one event wp:1E, in which he is a perpetrator of a crime WP:PERP. On these two counts, I propose to delete this article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, Transportation, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • inclined to weak delete, there doesn't seem to be any lasting coverage here to establish broader notability, even the NYT obit is a brief paragraph. I'd expect a bit more. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note that I've looked at Mike's sources, and find myself with Alansohn that this is not quite at the level of GNG. If we could find coverage of him in a secondary source published more recently, that would go a ways to establishing notability in my opinion. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't "Notability does not expire" apply, though? What would we get from a biographical article in a modern publication that we don't get from this one? I will see if I can find time to dig up more sources on him, by the way. There are dozens of articles about him in the Jersey Observer and Jersey Journal, and I have to say I don't understand why those don't count -- it's clear from the fact that it's a local paper that his fame was not widespread, but GNG says significant coverage in independent sources, not significant coverage in sources that are not local in nature. Would it help to post more of the sources from the Jersey Observer and Jersey Journal? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability doesn’t expire, but I’m of the opinion that if someone living today had the same coverage we see here, they also wouldn’t be notable. In my opinion, not all newspaper coverage is created equal— profiles in newspapers of national scope are far more indicative of notability than local/regional ones. We would expect politicians to get this sort of coverage in their cities papers.
    however I will reassess your sources sometime this week- I haven’t viewed it all at once. Getting surgery today so not sure when I can circle back. But it’s on my list. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Best of luck with the surgery, and don't worry about coming back here if you're under the weather as a result. I hope the surgery is not for anything serious. If you do make it back here, my reply would be that I take the point about local sources, but local papers a century ago were more significant sources of news than they are now; and Clements appears with articles about him specifically (i.e. not just mentioning him in passing) over multiple decades in multiple new Jersey papers.
    I think you have a point here, but in my opinion the coverage here is pretty typical for local politicians of the era. To establish notability, I would personally look for lengthy biographical features, such as an extended obituary, or evidence that coverage of what he did drew national attention (for instance reprinting/coverage in different states). It's especially telling to me that we haven't been able to dig up secondary sources on Clements more removed from the events. There is an argument to be made that this does add up to sigcov by a simple reading of GNG, but it is my opinion that such a reading would open us up to thousands of articles about fairly unremarkable local politicians, which I don't think would be a desirable thing. YMMV on this. Wouldn't be opposed to a smerge/redirect to the courthouse, as that does seem the main thing he attracted non-local coverage for. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the main difference between us is that I think it would be fine to have those thousands of articles. There are quite a few articles about him that make no references to the courthouse scandal, and also quite a few (plus the biographical para in the book source) that predate the scandal. My reading of the GNG and notability in general is that arguing it would be undesirable to have so many articles about local politicians is exercising editorial judgement in a way we're really not supposed to -- if sufficient sources exist, the argument for deletion should fail. It does look as if this is going to be deleted, which really surprises me -- I thought I had a pretty good handle on our notability policies. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two short Times articles is not quite significant coverage. His office was too low and local to pass WP:NPOL automatically. A foot soldier in an otherwise notable party machine corruption, and a footnote in history. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some sources (I stopped after finding these, but searching for "Alexander J. Clements" in newspapers.com from 1910 to 1914 finds quite a few more than this):
    • 1914 article about Clements, among other people; he makes the headline and there's a picture of him.
    • Clipping about the scandal in early 1911 -- not much about Clements but indicates that the scandal itself might deserve an article.
    • Clements running for Sheriff.
    • Article about Clements and a political rival
    • Article about the scandal, multiple quotes from Clements' being questioned.
    • Clements not endorsed for Sheriff by a local group
    • Also about the endorsement issue
      I think these certainly establish that the scandal is worth an article. I don't think Clements' article should be merged with it as it appears he was a political figure independently; not all the articles about him are about the scandal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Since there's been another delete !vote since I posted these, here are some more. Since Reywas92 commented that all but one cite was to a single small paper, I've excluded several from that paper, in favour of other sources. I should also point out that the two cites presently in the article are to the New York Times.
    • Editorial on whether Clements should run for sheriff
    • Loses ruling by the Civil Service Board Article in the Newark Star-Eagle.
    • Clements arrested for assault
    • Testimony about graft by Clements, among others Article in the Courier-Post
    • Coverage of the court house probe. In the Trenton Evening Times.
    • Biographical article in a history of Trenton.
      -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And one last comment before this closes; the nomination cites PERP and 1E, but those do not apply as I've given numerous sources that make no mention of the Hudson courthouse case, but which are instead about his political career, other apparent instances of corruption, his personal life, and his business. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Mike Christie, you have done an amazing research job. Thanks for pointing out all these references. I must admit that I have reviewed only a few of them. As the nominator, I would like to give my reflection at this point of the lively and interesting discussion. The first question is, what is the person notable for. See Wikipedia:Notability (people), first paragraph: "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life." Second question is if there is enough significant coverage in independent sources to establish the notability. You have provided a lot of material for an answer to the second question but I have not seen an answer to the first question to start with. Certainly the lead paragraph of the article is not helpful: Supervisor of roads, cabinetmaker, leader of the First Ward, owner of a saloon, failed attempt to become sheriff and councilman. Prima facie, with all respect, nothing worth of note. His claim to notability seems to be his role in the Hudson Courthouse graft scandal. That is why I mentioned PERP and 1E and proposed deletion. Now, after seeing all these newspaper snippets mentioning the name of Clements, I am still looking for the answer to the question about what he is notable for. As @Bearian pointed out, Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:MILL and Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED provide additional guidance. The collection of newspaper clippings only seem to confirm that his relevance is limited to local interest and that there is not enough worthy of notice to support a Wikipedia entry for Mr. Clements. If I have missed something noteworthy, please adapt the article accordingly. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi, Ruud, thanks for the ping. Clements was a local politician. He held the post of Freeholder, a position which is now known as a county commissioner. Such a position would not by itself be enough to confer notability, but I think that the sources demonstrate that he was well-known locally; he is mentioned in the headline of many of the articles. He was also clearly well-known for being corrupt, not an unusual characteristic of local politicians in those days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete All of these sources but one are in the local Jersey Observer and Jersey Journal; a comparable figure today, even with this sort of coverage, would be unlikely to have an article because we tend to avoid pages on low-level political figures with local coverage. The scandal is briefly mentioned at Hudson_County_Courthouse#Construction, perhaps it can be expanded upon there before splitting it to a separate article. Reywas92Talk 02:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that if the article is not kept, a merge to that article would be appropriate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An interesting story, but "failed local politician ends up in graft scandal" is the most frequent headline in any New Jersey newspaper, appearing once or twice on a daily basis in many area papers. Even with the many sources found by Mike Christie, I don't see the notability guideline being met. Alansohn (talk) 14:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Keep The article as it existed when nominated merited deletion; the obituary in The new York Times does not confer notability, but the totality of the sources and content added by User:Mike Christie since the nomination show that the notability standard is satisfied. I couldn't be any happier to say that I was proven wrong. Alansohn (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alansohn, I don't often participate in AfDs, so perhaps I'm not up to date on how the various guidelines are used. Can you tell me why you think this doesn't meet the GNG? There's a book which gives his biographical information and an NYT obituary. It would be hard to find much better sources than those, surely? The book is not self-published as far as I can see. The GNG doesn't require that each source be solely about the subject of an article, and some of these sources are specifically about Clements, while others devote one or more paragraphs to him or his political prospects. We have multiple local papers who have written about him, not just one. I agree that there would be a great many articles about corrupt New Jersey politicians if we covered all of them, but as far as I know that's not a valid argument for deletion. What more would be needed in your eyes for this to meet the GNG? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mike Christie, I look at obituaries in The New York Times about a dozen times, and that's on a slow day; it can be one of the most useful sources of information and support for notability, in the right cases, where there are strong claims of notability and in-depth coverage about the individual. I had looked at this page where his obituary appears before passing judgement. Of about 40-50 obituaries on that one page that one day, it's a bit above average in scope, but it covers little more in its four paragraphs than 1) the details of his death, 2) his employment career, 3) his connection to Frank Hague and his unsuccessful runs for office and 4) his survivors. WP:GNG, the general notability guideline is simply not met. There are few things that give me greater joy than seeing an article at AfD that can be rescued with the addition of sources; unfortunately, this is not one of them. I have no objection to a merge about the scandal, but Clements does not appear to be individually notable. Nothing would make me happier than to be convinced otherwise, but I don't see it here. Alansohn (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, thanks for the explanation. I do feel this marginally passes the GNG; perhaps it's the "significant coverage" phrase there that we're interpreting differently. But let's see what others say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • More sources. From the New York Times:
  • More from the Jersey Observer and Jersey Journal:
  • Elsewhere:
    Are these enough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And more sources:
  • More sources:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus so far is to delete, but time should be permitted for someone to evaluate and comment on the newest sources. (That does not mean that this should be dragged out repeatedly simply by continuing to add even more sources if they still do not establish clear notability.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I would be inclined to change my !vote/mind if the sources were add to the article, with appropriate text. Bearian (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bearian, thanks; I'll see if I can add some of these to the article over the next couple of days. As I said to Alansohn above, I'm not a regular at AfD so I don't know the norms, but I thought an AfD !vote should consider sources regardless of whether they're actually in the article? I'm sure I've seen AfD comments to the effect that "keep" voters should not be forced to add the sources they find to the article. Or have norms changed over the years? In my own case I don't mind adding the material if it's required, but I've been busy and I thought citing the sources in the AfD would be enough for now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie, the chances that the article survives the AfD discussion increase significantly if you fix it. A nice, well written, well-sourced article about a subject of debatable notability stands a much better chance than the present sloppy article that has no indication of notability. And while you´re at it, please de-orphan the article. I came across this article because it is one of the oldest orphans on Wikipedia; in ten years no other article has been linked to it. So I proposed to delete this poor article that no other article refers to, about a subject without indication of notability. You have a better grasp of the subject and the sources than anyone else. You are best placed to save it and turn it into an interesting story that befits Wikipedia. Then I too would be delighted to support the keep vote. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ruud, what bothers me about this is that deletion is not supposed to be used instead of cleaning up an article -- it's explicitly listed as one of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I will do what I can to add some of these sources to the article, but I don't think it's appropriate to !vote delete if you really think that the sources are sufficient to support a worthwhile article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie, that is not what I said. I am convinced the subject is not notable and that the article should be deleted as per Wikipedia:1E and Wikipedia:PERP I think that after cleanup, it will become even clearer that this is so. But if you want to fight for it, and to enhance the chances of survival, why don´t you give it a shot and clean up the article. I have an open mind and am always willing to reconsider. As it stands, I really do not think that the all the sources you uncovered are sufficient to support a worthwile article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I'll give it a shot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent. Meanwhile, I have de-orphaned the article. See "What links here". It will attract more onlookers. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't understand how this fails WP:GNG? There appears to be extensive coverage of his life across several decades, including an NYT obit, a biography in a book, regular coverage in all the area pages (including the NYT), etc. Failing WP:NPOL is not the end of the world; WP:MILL is an essay; i.e. irrelevant to determining notability; and I don't see the keep argument to be an WP:INHERENT rationale, considering there appears to be coverage for various things across various years. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject is notable only for one event: he was one of the 14 people indicted for the Hudson Courthouse graft scandal. As per Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:PERP, I think that is not enough merit for a stand-alone article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've copied all the sources above to the talk page and documented what they cover in a table there, including a column to indicate whether they are about the Hudson Courthouse scandal or not. Only 8 of the 43 sources are about the scandal, though to be fair at least four or five of the other sources are unlikely to be much use in expanding the article. I will try to find more time tomorrow to incorporate some of these into the article, now they're a little better organized. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to have tons of coverage and clearly seems to be a well-known figure. KatoKungLee (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @KatoKungLee Well-known for what exactly? I think this is a case of Wikipedia:REFBOMB. 100 newspaper clippings do not provide one reason for notability. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ruud Buitelaar - He's described as a prominent figure in NJ politics here 1. He labeled as accomplished here 2. He fraud trial got coverage as we can see and he ran for office multiple times. I think the sources are enough and he seems to be someone who the average person would know about at the time in the NJ area. I also do think more sources could exist since this concerns the early 1900's.KatoKungLee (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Bearian, Reywas92, Eddie891, Ruud Buitelaar, Alansohn: I've added several paragraphs to the article using some of the sources I listed above. I have not expanded on the material for the Hudson County courthouse scandal as I was more interested in demonstrating that 1E and PERP do not apply here; instead I've expanded the material on his life, political career, and some other legal issues and graft accusations. There is more material that could be added if the consensus is still that he is not notable; there are hundreds more hits for Clements in newspapers.com but I just haven't had time to go through them all. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • My mind (and vote) has been changed; see above. Alansohn (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mike Christie Well done! Good job. I´ll withdraw my nomination and support keep. What changed the situation for me is the realization that the Hudson County court house graft was not an exception in an otherwise unremarkable career; the job of Superintendent of Bridges was created especially for Clements and who nows, the supervisor of roads job now also looks like cronyism. Clements´s career was marked by political corruption and he gained notoriety for that, even outside the Hudson County borders. Maybe at the time, that was run of the mill. Be that as it may, the biography gives a good impression of local politics at the turn of the century and deserves to be kept. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination after @Mike Christie changed the picture by uncovering new sources, adding reasons for notability and cleaning up the article. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, am pleasantly surprised that a far more comprehensive article was able be built here than I thought. Happy to strike my original comment. Keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:15, 6 April 2024 (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 Mortal Online. Star Mississippi 13:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Online 2[edit]

Mortal Online 2 (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 does not appear to meet notability requirements either general or for video games. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Mortal Online, which is in fact a notable game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thousands of active people play Mortal Online 2. It won the Epic MegaGrant from Epic Games in 2022. It's one of the first MMOs to use Unreal Engine 5. MO2 received many updates with content and features, much more is planned (see the roadmap). MO2 is available on Steam and Epic Games Store. The page needs improvements with more information and references. Stifle deleted the MO2 page without prior discussion on April 3, 2024. He gave the reason "No credible indication of importance", however this is a significant MMORPG as explained earlier. During a Deletion Review of the MO2 page on April 3, 2024 it was Overturned by other users. Then Stifle reversed the decision and sent it to AFD. -Artanisen (talk) 09:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lacks WP:SIGCOV. No information about gameplay in reliable sources. Where are the reviews? —Alalch E. 10:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added information about the gameplay. Sources can be added as well. Metacritic only shows 1 review by MMORPG (March 17, 2022). I think the devs plan to do another launch in the future. Artanisen (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MMORPG (mmorpg.com) is listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Unreliable sources —Alalch E. 13:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: As an WP:ATD, this will allow time for additional references to be added. UtherSRG (talk) 10:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also be ok with merge as others have suggested. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftify could be a good option, because Mortal Online (1) and 2 are quite distinct. Artanisen (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Mortal Online without prejudice to later splitting it out again if the section becomes long enough and sourced enough to merit that, but it doesn't at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Mortal Online as there is some good content on this topic but not good enough for a standalone article. The topic isn't notable, due to a lack of significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Announcements prior to and after the launch, and news about updates, are WP:ROUTINE. The game didn't attract much attention from video game journalists, causing there to be no reviews from more mainstream outlets. The content is relevant for the suggested target page, which would benefit from said content being added, and what should be merged is the information about the development and the release of the sequel, simply to inform the reader that a sequel exists. The gameplay content is unsourced, would not be due, and it should not be merged.—Alalch E. 13:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of sources but it takes time to add it. The gameplay between Mortal Online 1 and 2 is not exactly the same so it would be more useful to keep a separate article. Someone has to take time to add information and references for Mortal Online too. Artanisen (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Mortal Online, which can change its focus from the original game to the series as a whole. Current sourcing does not demonstrate standalone notability. Frank Anchor 17:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Mortal Online; the article in its current state relies too heavily on primary sources and does not meet NG. CanonNi (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Holborn[edit]

Robert Holborn (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)

In the Gutenberg ebook A History of the Administration of the Royal Navy, he is mentioned just once, confirming that he and others "were in 1548 granted pensions on the Exchequer of fourpence a day ‘in consideration of their long and good service'". The next sentence then notes that James Baker was "the only master shipwright whose reputation outlived his generation". That's about it for Holborn; in fact, the article says very little about him specifically. Hardly enough for WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2024 (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Herbster[edit]

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

An article about an individual who gained not much into sports. I am still looking for redirect and per SIGCOV, it's pure to the purest eyes of lacking even microscopic sources! King me when sources are found and I will be ready to withdraw (I also didn't see any from BEFORE!).Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are also several dead links that could probably be revived from the web archive. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Habst More thoughtfully, you should have known I never knew German and the least BEFORE I did gave me "just" database results and bunch if not many of some translated works. It's most important that you read the weak nomination stating pinging when sources are found and I am ready to withdraw! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 15:06, 4 April 2024 (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 06:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Chibvongodze[edit]

Trevor Chibvongodze (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 am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Zimbabwean cricketer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2024 (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 04:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marvín Sántana[edit]

Marvín Sántana (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)

Sourcing is not sufficient. Some articles have identical content, which would indicate press release or paid placement. Maxcreator (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Dube[edit]

Desmond Dube (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)

Unref lp, I couldn't find proof of notability. Has worked as an actor, but not necessarily notable. Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones provide the most significant, independent discussions about this actor and his work? The problem may be that the article was so badly and promotionally written and is entirely unreferenced. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers, promotionally written and unreferenced are not valid reasons to delete an article per WP:BEFORE and the nom states that they couldn't find proof that this individual is notable. dxneo (talk) 04:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, it’s not my job to do a WP:BEFORE. Every one of the sources I added above was a WP:RS and adds up to WP:SIGCOV. Also WP:NOTCLEANUP. Park3r (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was, and I didn't even vote to delete. I just noted that the lack of references makes it harder to evaluate. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Admittedly, the article could be formatted better and expanded. But yet again, we see a bias against African articles. Simply because some American or European has done a Google search and it has not been to their satisfaction, they decide that an article about an African topic is not notable, without having any idea about our countries, culture, celebrities and personalities. And then even when this proof is provided for them, they find reasons for why an African is not notable 'enough'. It is getting beyond tiresome now. Mangwanani (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mangwanani, I second that. That's one of the reasons that pushed me to having few news sites from South Africa listed on WP:NPPSG so that the CiteHighlighter script can indicate reliable sources. I have Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/South Africa on my watchlist and I'm not kidding when I'm saying it is overflowing with AfDs, and I'm grateful they're nominating non-notable subjects but a quick Google search on Desmond Dube is enough to some up SIGCOV which brings me back to your bias statement because look at how many RS Park3r presented. One user once said African sources are tempered with & they are fabricated, and others would say "I've never heard of it". Leaning towards keep per Park3r. dxneo (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is increasingly feeling like an English encyclopaedia with a focus on the Core Anglosphere. Awareness of Systemic Bias seems to be out of the window. Another issue aren’t enough South African editors who participate in AFD or the encyclopaedia itself. I’m feeling increasing levels of disappointment at the energy I’m wasting on defending AFDs like this one. Park3r (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number of times I've had to argue with some Westerner who doesn't know the first thing about Africa is staggering. They always state that they are not racist, but you can't help but feel that they do in fact think of us as somewhat backwards and not really capable of knowing our own countries... Even when I've referenced books on particular topics, I've been told "Ahh, but it's not got an online presence, so it can't possibly be real..." It's beyond fatiguing. The highlight for me was when I had the Zimbabwe general election results removed as vandalism, because they had no internet source, even though they were being broadcast on national TV and online as I typed them! But the BBC hadn't recorded the fact, so our dear little Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation can't possibly know what they're reporting until Mr BBC tells them so.... Mangwanani (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mangwanani, I see that you started this article. Maybe the bigger problem is that you wrote an *entirely unreferenced* Wikipedia article. I wonder how many other entirely unreferenced articles you have written. This is not a "formatting" problem, it is a complete lack of referencing. Please add refs per WP:V, one of Wikipedia's key content policies. Perhaps then you would not have to spend your time at AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator of an article for deletion is expected to follow WP:BEFORE. Section D clearly states that a basic Google search is required as part of the nomination, and if valid sources exist, then the nomination should not proceed. I will WP:AGF and assume that the nominator and first delete vote somehow didn’t get those results (although I know for a fact that all these results and sources are available outside of South Africa - they are not geoblocked). Park3r (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second Ssilvers, Mangwanani you must reference your articles no matter they've been televised or not as it really is the main wiki key. However, new page reviewers who reviewed the article(s) in the first place are in the wrong and should be stripped off their perms 'cause they could've sent the (unreferenced) article to drafts pace but they want the barnstars so they quickly move through articles. dxneo (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sending SA articles to draft is as good as deleting them, I suspect, but maybe I’m naive and haven’t engaged with draftspace enough. This article was created in 2008. The fact that it hadn’t been nominated for deletion in 15-16 years should raise the index of suspicion that the subject is, in fact notable, and be a further indication that sources should be sought out. But, regardless, editing an article is still an option once WP:BEFORE is completed and reliable sources are found. Park3r (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Sources provided above show that this is a notable actor. Yes it was made unsourced - because it was made 16 years ago. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Criticising the nomination doesn't help the discussion, it just raises the temperature. The nominator rather than WP:PRODing brought this to AfD. The best way to repudiate notability concerns is by adding reliable sources to the article that verify the content and establish notability. If one feels strongly this article should be kept add sources, yet although 20+ sources have been put up in this discussion, 5 days have passed with not a single one added. The article remains unsourced; not a desirable state for any article, let alone for a WP:BLP. Rupples (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That’s a reasonable point but WP:NOTCLEANUP. I’d also note that you could have added sources to the article as well. Park3r (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't particularly subscribe to AfD is not cleanup; infact I see AfD as a great opportunity to cleanup. Having no reliable sources at all is more than cleanup, especially for a BLP. On your second point, BLP is not an area I normally contribute to and I'm reticent to add sources to BLP articles if I'm unsure of their reliability. I wouldn't have been able to support retention of this article without two or more reliable sources being added. Pleased to see sources have now been added by PARAKANYAA and I'm placing trust in that editor's judgment on their reliability. Rupples (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in the light of sources added to the article and identified in this discussion, there seems sufficient reliably sourced coverage for the subject to pass applicable notability guidelines. Rupples (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 04:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Peña[edit]

Ralph Peña (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)

Since the two names on this recently-created (on 8 December 2023) disambiguation page are not exactly the same, the dab page main title header does not accurately reflect either one of those two names. Once this dab page is deleted, a hatnote atop Ralph Pena (musician) can point to Ralph B. Peña. No need for a hatnote atop Ralph B. Peña since users searching for his entry can simply type Ralph B. Peña or Ralph B. Pena to access him directly. Moreover, since the two surnames are not exactly alike, the header of the musician's entry can dispense with the parenthetical qualifier "(musician)" and appear as simply Ralph Pena, otherwise Ralph Pena would be an unnecessary redirect to Ralph Pena (musician). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From the article, Ralph Pena (musician)'s actual name seems to be spelled with the tilde, and the sources spell it the same way. Shouldn't his article be titled with the tilde as well? Unsure how that would affect this discussion though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The musician was an American, born in Nevada. A photograph of his gravestone, with the family name, inscribed without any diacritics, can be seen here. Furthermore, as confirmed by the covers of all of his numerous recordings, nowhere is his name rendered with a diacritic. As for the two sources listed at the bottom of his Wikipedia entry, neither AllMusic nor The New Grove Dictionary of Jazz. 2nd edition, add a diacritic to his name. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see the The New Grove Dictionary of Jazz (or at least the citation) does. Several of the covers of the albums he featured in do have the diacritic (see discogs [1 2 3). His (seemingly official) Facebook page does. So I guess it's more complicated than that but he sometimes did use the diacritic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, at least three album covers do use a diacritic to depict his name. Among the five album covers seen here at Discogs, only one (Impossible) has a diacritic on the cover. While he died 35 years before Facebook's 2004 founding, his "official" Facebook fan / memorial page does depict his name with a diacritic, although the album cover chosen to appear near the top of that Facebook page has no diacritic. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:57, 4 April 2024 (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 04:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Pulliam Bailey[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sarah Pulliam Bailey (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 provides no evidence of notability, under WP:NJOURNALIST or any other notability criterion. WP:RS and WP:BEFORE show extensive published material by the subject in RS but virtually no RS biographical coverage about the subject. Also no evidence of significant awards that themselves have notability per WP:ANYBIO. No available evidence of notability under WP:JOURNALIST. Being related to notable family members is not itself notable (WP:BLPFAMILY) nor is having interviewed notable people.--Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article about a journalist that list the parents (does it now makes it BLP WP:BIOFAMILY). I disagree completely with you!. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article about a Journalist passes WP:GNG (that she has worked in various news platforms—which goes on media about her entering). Meets WP: JOURNALIST as a creative professional, whose works has appeared on WSJ, New Yorker, etwx. Cited notably without inherence of interviewing the American President Barack Obama.Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 01:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I don't think I understand what you're getting at, but the act of interviewing a high-profile person and publishing articles or working for national publications does not make one notable per WP:JOURNALIST. The criteria are:
    • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
    • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
    • The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or
    • The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
    While I think she's an excellent journalist personally, I can find no independent coverage of Pulliam Bailey that provides evidence for any of these criteria. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't you see my striking? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not much focusing on her career or actions in specific. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as mentioned in the nomination, does not satisfy any of the notability criteria in WP:JOURNALIST. Bendegúz Ács (talk) 10:19, 4 April 2024 (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 consensus here and there have been no comments after two relistings so I doubt a third one would usher in more participation. Liz Read! Talk! 04:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tuckahoe and Cohee[edit]

Tuckahoe and Cohee (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)

both subjects already have articles? ltbdl (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is a WP:SAMETYPEFORK of Tuckahoe culture and Cohee, and reads like a WP:DICTIONARY entry. Redtree21 (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Completely pointless dictionary definition that could be merged with either of the articles mentioned above. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I vote to have it merged into Tuckahoe culture.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2024 (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. Consensus is to Keep this article but I really hope the editors advocating Keep can work on improving it with more inline citations. Liz Read! Talk! 07:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of elephants in Europe[edit]

History of elephants in Europe (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)

most of the article is an indiscriminate list of historical occurrences where elephants might have been involved. ltbdl (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ltbdl (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a potentially valid topic. Deletion is not cleanup. Is there a reason this page must go? Srnec (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't see an issue. It's a valid article about recorded instances of exotic animals turning up in an area to which they're not native in pre-modern times. As long as it's sourced that's fine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it's not sourced. did you read the article? ltbdl (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you looked at the sources in the subsection helpfully named "Sources"? Cortador (talk) 07:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Article is decently sourced, so I don't get why the nom is claiming that it isn't. Seems fine to keep as is in my opinion. CycloneYoris talk! 09:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    have i gone mad? are we reading the same article? ltbdl (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Stechschulte[edit]

Tom Stechschulte (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 dead actor with no significant lead roles. Has had requests for sourcing for 15 years with zero improvement. Macktheknifeau (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macktheknifeau and the fact that an article subject is dead, has nothing to do with notability either. Liz Read! Talk! 05:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being dead does have much to do with his notability, because it makes it practically impossible that he would suddenly gain notability now. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Tons of sources on ProQuest. From School Library Journal reviews, ProQuest 211681802 "superbly narrated by Tom Stechschulte, whose gift for dialect and for conveying the essence of the characters is nothing short of pure magic.", and ProQuest 211687754 "Narrator Tom Stechschulte brings each character to life with his excellent renditions of their voices and personalities" and this review by the Chicago Tribune are some examples. S0091 (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some sources but between ProQuest and Newspapers.com it's a lot to wade through because of his long career. S0091 (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The main activity of his career was in a time period where there won't be a lot of internet hits for more in depth pieces. Given the stuff mentioned above + looking on proquest myself, he seems notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tile Studio[edit]

Tile Studio (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)

Unsourced, non-notable software. No significant coverage in reliable sources. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Tile-based video game per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Passworddictionary (talk • contribs) 06:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article mainly relies on its website. No significant coverage from reliable sources could be found. I have done a quick Google search and much of what is found are tutorials, YouTube links, and other info that fails to cover the subject in depth. For now, will go with delete. _ Tumbuka Arch (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree with A412 that Softpedia isn't really great in this context and overall the mentions to me don't seem to justify anything more than a name-drop in Tile-based video game, especially as AFAIK this hasn't been used to develop any notable titles. ― novov (t c) 06:00, 7 April 2024 (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 04:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Informal romanizations of Cyrillic[edit]

Informal romanizations of Cyrillic (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 single reliable source (Frolov) that discuss the subject at a minimal reasonable detail, but even it is not cited, neither it supports anything in the article (but does blurb something on the subject). - Altenmann >talk 01:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Lisa Solomon[edit]

Murder of Lisa Solomon (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)

Delete: as non-notable murder. Not all murders are meet WP:NOTABILITY. This domestic incident has no wider social ramifications -- nothing to do with law enforcement, racism, sexism, nationalism, nationality, etc. See WP:MURDER. Nirva20 (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article doesn't really show this, but this does seem to meet WP:NEVENT. It has had more or less 30+ years of sustained coverage, and if you look it up has multiple articles describing it as "one of long island's most famous murders". Also just because a murder doesn't tie into broader social issues, that doesn't mean it isn't notable??? It's about the depth and length of coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I live in NYC and only found about it today while watching a crime show network. I seriously doubt it qualifies as one of Long Island's most famous murders, at least anymore. That would probably be Ted Ammon, btw. Nirva20 (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If something is being mentioned thirty years after it happened on television and has numerous articles discussing it in detail to this day, it is probably a notable event.
Do you have a deletion rationale other than you didn't know that it happened, therefore it is unnotable? PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No lasting consequences. "Sustained coverage" is not demonstrated, just occasional popping up. - Altenmann >talk 01:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Other than the person getting out of jail in 2019, there was hardly any coverage in between the murder and his release. Burst of initial coverage, then featured on tv shows that go over hundreds of cases each... I don't see lasting effects, no changes in laws, no critical discussion of the police etc. Oaktree b (talk) 01:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, Events, and New York. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NEVENT criteria due to lack of WP:SUSTAINED and WP:DIVERSE coverage. This is a classic case of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE where we have bursts of news coverage at the time of the murder, and upon the release of the murderer, but no coverage outside of a routine news context. We would need to see other types of coverage such as journal articles, books, writing outside of the routine news cycle, etc. to show it passes NEVENT. That currently hasn't been demonstrated in the article.4meter4 (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to those stating that WP:SUSTAINED is not shown: The article states that the entire trial was broadcast live on the News 12 Cable News channel. That looks like an unreferenced source, but I checked the NYT citation that follows a couple sentences later and it is stated there. That NYT article has a whole section dedicated to the media frenzy over pre-trial publicity, how the cable news channel had two live anchors providing commentary during breaks in the trial, the defense had made a motion to move the trial out of Suffolk County due to the publicity, and a motion for mistrial due to statements that the prosecutor(? I didn't look close enough who "Mr. Mazzei" was) had made to the press during the trial. One of the witnesses in the trial was a "L.I. News Tonight" reporter about some of the coverage his organization had shown on television. I'm still on the fence about the article, but the statements that "Other than the person getting out of jail in 2019, there was hardly any coverage in between the murder and his release" and similar statements are provably wrong. RecycledPixels (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Curtis[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and shows no real notability. Pretzelles (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as long-unsourced BLP, regardless of notability. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Note that the article had a two-paragraph biography until a couple of weeks ago, when an editor deleted it for being unsourced. From that old text we can see that this actor had some TV credits as a kid but has not acted since age 14 in 1990. I can find no significant coverage that covers his acting career in any encyclopedia way, and he can only be found in basic directory listings. After 1990 he was in some non-notable local bands and now works as a lesser-known studio producer, which in turn generated a self-promotion attempt in the old version of the article. None of this qualifies for Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:11, 4 April 2024 (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. As per the DRV result, no need to wait any longer--or at all--before closing this.

Firstly, neither G4 nor G5 apply here. The article has been edited by various good-faith editors, and is no longer essentially identical to any deleted version. I also find no basis in policy or guideline that coverage for North American people must come from North American sources. Promotional tone should be fixed editorially, and is not a valid deletion criterion unless the page meets G11, which this one does not.

Conversely, I also find most of the Keep arguments weak. Being famous in certain circles or starting a big teenage media company are not P&G-based arguments. In the end, as always, things boil down to source assessment. And on this front, the Delete views correctly argued that in marginal cases like this, WP:BIO compels us to delete the page. If the subject was indeed as notable as the Keep participants claim, surely there would be sources offering more significant, independent coverage than the few interviews cited, as pointed out by several participants.

Finally, a proposal to Draftify received limited support here. Without a concrete plan to work on the page, including both editors ready to do the work and potential independent sources to prove notability, all within the six month timeframe, moving a potential BLP violation to draftspace seems ill-advised. Owen× ☎ 13:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Jin (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

I can't find any reasonable purpose for a standalone article. I noticed this could be vandalism since the parenthesis isn't movable except by an admin. Well, I can't find sources which didn't provide me enough reasons to be inclusive. Fails WP: GNG. The founding company doesn't seem to be notable or reach any WP: ORG and some of not all seems to base on the company and not the subject (there could be mentions) but still Notability is not inherited. While I believe Notability is not permanent, The young subject can be notable in the future All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Business. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: hello, I'm the person who accepted this out of AfC. i agree with you that the company is not quite meeting notability, which is why i rejected it, as the sources are clearly predominately about the founder. the sources in question, though, include Billboard, The Source, El Caribe, and Independent Nigeria, all of which profile Justin Jin quite in-depth and are generally reliable. She was afairy 07:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I also found this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Jin. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You should have found that before nom'ing this, as the article is a G5G4 candidate. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @UtherSRG G4 applies for the articles which are accepted from draft too. What i knew or personally believe was only for mainspace articles. DIVINE 11:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what your point is here. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As you’re administrator of english Wikipedia, i want to know from you that does G4 applies for the Wikipedia articles which were approved from draft where multiple contributors has already participated? DIVINE 14:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can read it yourself at WP:CSD#G4. But yes, drafts moved to article space are included, as long as they are still substantively the same as the deleted article. It matters not that other editors have touched it, only that the material is sufficiently identical. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it wasn’t identical then why we re’ debating here in deletion discussion. DIVINE 17:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Fails WP: ANYBIO, WP: CREATIVE and WP: BASIC#1 since it clearly states, 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 where the articles if not all talks about the teenager and a non notable company he founded. I am also sensing WP: UPE since this page from the previous AFD discussion and salting when i wanted to move to Justin Jin (removing the parenthesis). I have tried to take info from all the sources, but they kept talking the same thing about the subjects media industry. I meant there is no context or importance of meeting notability. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: G5G4 of Justin Jin - UtherSRG (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it doesn't quite make sense where your G5 vote is coming from, UtherSRG: if the article's author isn't blocked, and in any case, i believe i've already applied some relatively substantial edits. She was afairy 12:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops! I should have said G4. I've amended. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i'm not sure that works here. the above discussion took place one year ago, and according to the source assessment table, 0 of them are repeated? She was afairy 13:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    G4 is about content, not sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it applies to sufficiently identical copies, and according to the wayback machine, there are very significant differences, completely failing G4. She was afairy 13:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    sufficiently identical is vague. The content is essentially the same. There is no new information in the new article, there are no new assertions of notability. For me, that is sufficiently identical. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The nominator's peculiar passion to delete this page and the imprecise G4 rationale by an administrator (having been deleted over a year ago, with strong changes and a massive increase in sourcing, and no hoaxes) seem to reflect a common trend I've seen on Wikipedia. Young, relatively notable subjects such as Rishab Jain, Avi Schiffmann, Jenk Oz, Kevin Leyes (which has since been recreated under Leyes (singer) due to new sourcing, which is evidently the case here as well, are often a target of editors. For instance, comments by editors like "I don't see what is special about this kid" is borderline derogatory. (I'm excluding sports people by the way, who have relatively lower requirements for notability). I came across this person when creating a draft of a different person of the same name, which firsthand pulled up a USA Today Contributor piece, which does not establish notability, and hence why I disregarded it. The sourcing presented here is strong (six four generally reliable sources), though I'm not going to place my vote just yet.
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://billboard.ar/la-carrera-musical-secreta-de-justin-jin/ Yes Yes WP:RSMUSIC Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.elcaribe.com.do/gente/a-y-e/de-nino-le-encantaban-los-videojuegos-ahora-justin-jin-esta-construyendo-un-imperio-mediatico/ Yes Yes Newspaper of record Yes ✔ Yes
https://www.excelsior.com.mx/trending/justin-jin-entre-la-innovacion-y-la-travesia-en-la-era-digital/1636100 Yes Yes established Mexican paper ~ ChatGPT? ~ Partial
https://thesource.com/2023/12/28/inside-justin-jins-poybo-empire/ Yes s Yes WP:RSMUSIC Yes ✔ Yes
https://independent.ng/teenagers-are-building-africas-youth-media-empire/ Yes Yes WP:NGRS Yes WP:100WORDS ✔ Yes
https://nl.mashable.com/entertainement/9316/minecraft-made-justin-jin-a-star-now-hes-a-media-mogul Yes ~ WP:MASHABLE Yes ~ Partial
https://africa.businessinsider.com/local/leaders/exclusive-teen-mogul-justin-jin-agrees-to-divest-some-media-assets-to-expand-african/fqfvl4l No Prob press release ~ WP:BUSINESSINSIDER ~ WP:ROUTINE ✘ No
https://dailytrust.com/meet-the-billion-view-digital-upstart-and-its-16-year-old-founder/ Yes Yes WP:NGRS Yes ✔ Yes
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}}.
TLAtlak 16:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARY: Sources 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are interviews. Interviews are not independent and do not count towards GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An overachiever in Silicon Valley who has been discussed in a myriad of publications including ones presented in the “source assessment table”. According to the General Notability Guideline, “Significant coverage” is a factor and these reliable sources do address Mr. Justin Jin in great detail. 205.220.129.230 (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How does three or four article talking about a media company and their founder notable? The articles is lacking context and should not be inherited from his "media company." Otherwise, It fails Business People guideline. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Otuọcha your line of inquiry in this discussion appears to be quite flawed, and overall a bit questionable. isn't there much more than three or four articles which all vastly revolve around Justin Jin? how are they lacking context? you should also probably review WP:INHERITED. the hyperfocus on Justin Jin is why I believe the company itself falls short of WP:NCORP. the articles profile, analyze him, but not exactly much about what the company itself does. the company is likely a too soon case. i agree with TLA's summary, although I think business insider should be treated completely as a press release and routine coverage. She was afairy 06:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By TLA's summary, if you're referring to the source assessment table, I've already pointed out that interviews are not considered independent and are deemed as primary sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to adjust my table, but from what I understand is that the independence of interviews depend on the actual content. Is there anywhere that specifically states that interviews are not considered independent, full stop? TLAtlak 03:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point to the policy that says "independence of interviews depend on the actual content"? WP:PRIMARY says Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. Here, the interviewer is obviously involved, and the interviewee is the subject who is talking about themselves. For clarity, WP:PRIMARYNEWS, WP:ALLPRIMARY and WP:SPIP discuss interviews as sources. Majority of the sources here are interviews, which do not count towards GNG: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking for clarity because I participate in AfD often and reviewing pages. I've come across that in many other AfDs (I don't want to link to them to canvas) but there is one going on right now in which two autopatrolled+NPP users have stated although the interview itself is primary, the information the source often provides before the interview can be considered a secondary source. In addition, the WP:PRIMARYNEWS you linked to me contains an example of an interview primary source: The reporter quotes the politician's speech. The talk show host interviews a celebrity. If the reporter simply relays what the politician says that is primary, and a talk show host interviewing a celebrity is just a plain question & answer, and that's primary. These sources are far from that. I also see that you said below that WP:INTERVIEW is an essay, and that is true, but it is useful and there really is no other place that writes extensively about a rather relevant policy. TLAtlak 01:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most interviews conducted by reputable journalists or news publications typically begin with a brief overview of the subject, which may be considered secondary and the information can be used in the article(without attribution). But, the gist will not have significant coverage and the point here is that they do not count towards GNG. WP:INTERVIEW is an essay and has no weightage in AfDs. Not sure if you have noticed the last part of Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability, "...can be considered as evidence of notability". Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A "myriad"? Surely that's an exaggeration. Deb (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, Interviews can be a secondary sources per WP:INTERVIEW. The Source and the Daily Trust articles only have 10-15% quoted from Jin, the rest is analysis or comparison, so this meets biographical notability requirements. Captain☎ 10:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that CaptainBottle (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
    CaptainBottle: WP:INTERVIEWS is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you're relatively very new perhaps days to Enwiki. The article may be filled as WP: REFBOMB. There can be WP: LOTSOFSOURCES yet no credibility. I know how Nigerian Media works per Independent Nigeria, Daily Trust, etc and I must say; the sources just treated the subject as the teenage founder of a media industry. In analysis, there is always a way to show Notability. I can't find the subject being treated alone on news per his achievements/or career and a media qualifier, or any award for media excellence since he is the CEO of Poybo. Being the CEO of Poybo is not enough to be inclusive and the media industry is not notable per WP: ORG/WP:N unlike Amazon, Dangote Group, etc or like business moguls who had won awards of excellence or profiled as an influential person". I believe I have cleared that Many sources are not enough! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Otuọcha this is rather incoherent. If the pubs you are referring to are treating the subject as the teenage founder of a media industry, what do you mean by can't find the subject being treated alone on news per his achievements/or career and a media qualifier? Poybo doesn’t have an article for notability inheriting and awards are not necessary for establishing notability. I would also advise against the possible WP:BLUDGEONing of this discussion. TLAtlak 03:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This may be my last comment. I don't understand when you stated WP: BLUDGEON. Well, per WP: SATISFY, "Offering a rebuttal to a comment is also fine, although arguing repetitively is not." All I am saying is this article is a G4 which I realized later after trying to remove the unnecessary parenthesis. For the article in question, it fails GNG and not quite SIGCOV. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage is really thin making it a borderline case for the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG; a compromise is inadvisable in a businessperson biography. Nor am I convinced of the "independent" and "multiple" aspects of the sources presented. Regarding the latter, all the sources are saying more or less the same thing, which is very little. Regarding the former, I am taking into considering previous history of the article, the fact that non-regular editors have shown to vote keep on this article which was never indexed and is under a title with disambiguator. The fact that the sources say more or less the same thing also contributes to a lack of confidence in them regarding independence. Also adding to the same, is the fact that the sources presented are of Latin American and African origin while the subject is Canadian, though there is no convincing case made that the subject has predominantly and exclusively worked in those far away places. Finally, the claim to notability in itself is really thin. I get the idea that it's a young person who's been doing some things, but it's hard to see a coherent and persuasive picture of the totality of his activities, how integral he may be to those and what if any lasting impact they might have. I see an element of WP:CRYSTAL in the coverage that exists and in a potential presumption of notability we might make. If he stopped doing everything he's been doing today, would we consider him a notable businessperson in 2044? The answer for me is a firm "no", on the merits of the sourcing presented. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – There is no inheriting in terms of notability from the Poybo company here — it actually seems the other way around or at the very least equal. As well, Poybo doesn’t have an article for inheriting. Coverage revolves primarily around the subject, not the company. WP:G4 is also utterly inapplicable — not only being a speedy delete, the previous AfD (12 months ago) cited none of these new applicable sources as Shewasafairy noted, the current article writes about a new company, and has potential for expansion. The African sourcing does make sense per the selling of a subsidiary or whatever, but that really shouldn’t be hypothesized/considered about and is not a policy. As well, Spanish language should not be considered per WP:GNG. With WP:Interviews#Notability and reviewing past AfDs and discussions regarding the independence of interviews, interviews can help establish notability, and regardless the interview sourcing used here has considerable secondary content. There’s also sufficient non-interview sourcing. I’ll also say that the nominator’s rationales throughout has been a bit contradictory, maybe that's a language thing, but that doesn’t play into my analysis. Neither the previous history of an article nor whatever SPA may be going on here should be any part of determining notability. Unless, of course, an article is recreated under G4 with no substantial changes or additions to sourcing, which is not the case here. WP:CRYSTAL should apply to the Wikipedia project, not apply to the coverage itself; on the other hand, if I’m going to counter crystal, what person would stop doing everything he’s been doing today, and would more coverage appear rather soon that would undoubtedly push this arguably borderline subject over the edge, much less by 2044? I think so. Finally, the claim to notability — having founded what a couple sources deem the largest teen media companies — here is strong enough (it was added a couple hours after Usedtobecool’s vote). To be fair, WP:TOOSOON was originally a potential consideration for me, which is why I was a little hesitant to place a straight-up vote, but with further review of the sourcing and that the second criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER may potentially apply here, this meets and exceeds our notability criteria based on real policy. TLAtlak 02:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A very weak argument expanded into wall of text. WP:ENTERTAINER is for actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities. I believe he fits none of the categories. Stop bringing essays into XfD arguments, they are not policies. There’s also sufficient non-interview sourcing, Could you please provide the sources in the reply below? I would like to review. While the secondary content from interviews can be added into the article, the interview source as a whole is not independent. Therefore, it does not count towards GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, it was not my intention to make a wall of text/essay. My small point with WP:ENTERTAINER relates to comedians, vaguely, with the fact that the subject seems to make comedy videos and that the company itself posts a lot of memes. TLAtlak 11:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Entertainment? you’re modifying your own comments. DIVINE 17:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per the above users, Fairy and TLA, what has to be noted here is that while WP: Interview is not fully reliable, the articles written so long before the interview or partial interview are subjected to reliable sources. DIVINE 06:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Striking !vote not made in good faith; see Special:Diff/1217066849. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. it may be worth disregarding the G4. i disagreed with it, but after the changes added a couple days ago it objectively directly addresses the concern with no new assertions of notability. She was afairy 07:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per my comments regarding the source assessment table and WP:INTERVIEW essay [61][62]. I am willing to change my vote to keep if someone can provide three independent and reliable sources with significant coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I still disagree with you directly calling these sources containing small portions of an interview a non-independent source, but here are just three with nothing quoted from the subject, two of which are RS and one is an established WP:NEWSORG: Billboard, Independent, Excélsior (this reads slightly promotional from the start, but later on Pacheco writes this success comes with increasing scrutiny of the company's labor and ethical practices, especially regarding the exploitation of young creators and the hiring of workers in precarious conditions in developing countries (translated) so it's probably a Google Translate issue. TLAtlak 11:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Putting aside for a moment the fact that, again, it's Billboard Argentina covering a Canadian figure, not Billboard US or Billboard Canada, are we sure Billboard Argentina is the real deal? Looks like you're inheriting its reliability and reputation from Billboard, a US organisation. The links in the about section of that article just reload the page, and the twitter link takes you to an account with 200K followers compared to 14M for Billboard. Clicking through Billboard Argentina indicates its ownership and licensing belongs to an Argentinian company, compared to Billboard Japan or Billboard Brasil which state in the lead that they are associated with the US Billboard. I go back to concerns I raised in my !vote again. We usually associate this kind of brand theft, if it is that, with covert advertisers and spammers, and often even covert Wikipedia UPEs. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the real deal. TLAtlak 12:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But you are inheriting the reliability and reputation from the US Billboard, yeah? — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They co-publish a chart and Billboard Argentina is a frequent writer for billboard.com. At the moment, my assumption is that it is reliable. TLAtlak 12:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since it calls an obscure 17-year-old Canadian a "mogul", a word usually reserved for the likes of Rupert Murdoch, I am thinking not so much. In any case, I think you should amend your source analysis table, lest people think RSMUSIC lists Billboard Argentina as a reliable source. When you take out the rumors, speculation, unattributed quotes and empty praises, there really isn't much there. One of the sources of that piece is "google search". The most it can give is: "Justin Jin is a media entrepreneur and youtuber who owns Poybo Media Group." — Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is common for publications to use an eye-catching word in the headline. The definition of "Mogul" certainly vague, and the piece does actually verify a connection to a 500,000 monthly listener "secret music career" from the Poybo producer. TLAtlak 14:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Excélsior article is a joke. There is no significant coverage about him on the article apart from the PR fluffery. The article only has praises and admiration about the subject, but not a single detail about his life or work in-depth. I am yet to check the other two sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair. I don't really like that source either, there is a section without praise, but it reads somewhat like an edited AI entry. Jeraxmoira, as you mentioned once that reputable publications need analysis and commentary, I suggest reading Daily Trust, and that secondary sources typically begin with a brief overview of the subject, I also suggest checking out The Source. Both are RS. TLAtlak 14:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop sharing sources before analyzing them yourself. The article from Independent does not have significant coverage. Daily Trust and The Source are interviews. Do not selectively quote from my previous comment, I only said "Most interviews conducted by reputable journalists... - ... which may be considered secondary and the information can be used in the article(without attribution)". I never implied that it counts towards GNG. At this point, I am only repeating what I have said all this while, so I'll not be responding here unless you have something policy backed. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did analyze them. The Independent meets WP:100WORDS, an essay but what constitutes WP:SIGCOV itself is vague. I'm maybe going a bit far here, but I have seen in this AfD (I think I remember seeing another one but I can't find it nor do I want to hunt for it) you state the Hindu article contributes to GNG, while the Hindu article contains considerably more quoting than the two interview sources I mentioned as well as that canvassed (?) user.
    Are you saying here that any interview = not contributing to GNG? There is very minimal direct quoting in many of these sources containing interviews. For now, I don't want to get involved further in this as we are practically going nowhere, and will be retaining my keep vote. TLAtlak 12:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop selectively quoting my comments out of context, [63]. The paragraph on Independent has very little detail about him i.e., 'he is 17' and 'he leads Poybo'. This is nowhere near significant coverage. All the sources say the same. Does the source have anything new to add or is this a WP:BLP1E candidate? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Focusing on source assessment would be more helpful than arguing about applicable guidelines or speedy criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Analysing the sources. The first source here [64] was from the citation doubtful of the subject when this writing was made: A mysterious artist profile, 50mMidas, was discovered late last year while scrolling through Spotify's top song charts. The account, with an equally random Instagram page, has been rising through the ranks, becoming a competitive music artist on the platform with over 500,000 monthly listeners and another paragraph began; A Google search revealed that the artist likely belonged to Justin Jin, the teen CEO of the world's largest teen media company. Accessing the first citation was without doubt it was bias-written from related point of view.The second citation here [65] was written by a contributor and sounds promotional. For me, it may have been created from a related view since some wordings lacks editorial pass. The third source here [66] was written focusing on "one Muraty" with a/few mention of the article's subject "Jin". I won't say it is inclusively a source. The fourth source [67] was marked yellow by my citation highlighter meaning; the source is likely to be reliable. Looking into the article, it systematically wasn't news, it's a bit of few quotations of "Jin". The source was created perhaps by a contributor since there was no indication it was written by an author at Mashable. The [68], [69] and [70] for the article were cited for, Jin lives in Ambleside, West Vancouver. He goes to Mulgrave School. As of 2024, he hasn't attended college All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Has a very PROMO feel to it. No coverage at all in Canadian sources, only a few conferences. Coverage in Argentina and in India [71], which seem to me to be undeclared paid promotional content. The IBT source is a non-RS, so this has PROMO-vibes. Oaktree b (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "PROMO-vibes" is not a strong assessment. the ib times source is not even used here. 6/9 of the sources here are green-label (reliable). She was afairy 02:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The colours don't necessarily represent consensus. Even if they did, there's always more to source analysis than whether it comes from one considered generally reliable. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A good amount of them do. There is 6, and to me, 5 of them meet our requirements for significant coverage and independence. TLAtlak 12:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's most fit when citations are from reliable sources. Like @Usedtobecool said, its more to verifiability (considering the basis of the citation and at some cases: what it cites). It is not regarded to take for example a hoax that cites, "John Doe was born in Italy but grew up in Iowa. He is a socially influencing personality known for his diverse way of accepting fact of his company in Iowa also. His parents were the first CEO but handed it over to him because he was a good and god-fearing child. Even I, the editor love such narrative!". Looking at that above, it may have been written maybe by Mashable, NY times, Al Jazeera and many others. Are you saying it passes GNG when it came from a reliable source but fails verifiability, credibility and editorial..ity? All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment came across a sh*t storm. Leaning towards keep and improve. so this Kid Justin Jin at first glance appears to meet the the notability criteria for biographies on Wikipedia WP:BIO, particularly as an individual who has gained recognition in the media industry as a young entrepreneur and media executive. The issue I am having hard time believing that with the sources, is if we all couldn't find 2-3 reliable sources... Some of the sources do seem unquestionably strong. There are no required set amount of sources to establish notability.
      • The references provided suggest significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, including international media outlets that discuss his international work and impact on youth-led media WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV The comparison to established media figures like Henry Luce and Rupert Murdoch indicates that Jin's activities have sparked attention beyond trivial mentions. However, the article would benefit from additional citations to address the [citation needed] tag and to strengthen the claims made, particularly with regard to Poybo Media's status as the world's biggest teenager-led media company. The [better source needed] tag also suggests that a more reliable source is required for the Business Insider claim. This kid looks like he is doing youth activism according to the sources, and while this article needs cleanup. I also saw users saying the WP:intertviews weren't valid, becauase: "thats an essay on wikipedia" well we hold essays to high standards. WP:Draftify is an Essay, yet if fail to follow the guidelines set out in that essay, you can lose perms for not following. I am going to do some scrolling. Before casting my vote. I am really confused as to why it seems like an us vs him thing. It gets to the point where others may make interpretations of WP policy based on their understanding of it.
      Comintell (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Justin Jin, being a media 'mogul', will obviously have a good enough PR team to set up interviews for him. Unless you have a very strong reason as to why WP:INTERVIEWS should be considered in this case and why Justin Jin should be treated as an exception from GNG, please don't waste your time bringing up the essay again. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Its only primary if its based on a vanilla/routine interview right? Which don't contribute to GNG (like a talkshow/whatnot??) WP:Interviews seemed appropriate towards the argument for the ones you brought up with @I'm tla, because they didn't seem to be the exact definition of a routine interview like this one from The Source, which appeared to be an article that featured original insight and analysis + quotes from the subject? Are you sure that references like that don't count towards GNG? What throws me off is the fact that they don't seem to be routine "interviews," which is what I thought didn't count. This entire AfD seems split divided.
      Even though i'm still not 100% convinced that the page should be deleted, I am going to just drop the stick considering there's a mixed bag of opinions in this discussion. I hope you see where I was coming from and why I brought up WP:Interviews. Hopefully my response is up to the high standards you've framed. Sorry if I upset you. I'm going to excuse myself from this discussion. Thank you for sharing your opinion. Comintell (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Let me summarize. I am not going to be lenient in this particular case just because he gave interviews to several news media outlets. Despite being the founder of the world's largest teenager-led media company and working in the media/entertainment industry, the absence of independent coverage is a huge red flag. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess I'm going to continue my involvement here. I don't know about you, but being the founder of the world's largest teenager-led media company rings a bell at WP:ENT#2. It might also be worth mentioning that while the number of subscribers certainly cannot determine notability, it can only help at WP:ENT. The independent coverage I presented above satisfies me, but it appears I missed Dana Mathews' (GQ's Entertainment Director) profile of Jin here from being on the cover of the GQ's Power Issue.
      WP:BLP1E really does not apply here. Founding a company is not an event, and I don't see how starting a (presumably) high-profile one would make a person remain a low-profile individual. Citing an essay again *sigh* WP:BLP1ENOT. TLAtlak 09:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This is the second time you've brought up WP:ENT in the discussion. Have you even checked the first line of WP:ENT before assessing the subject for criteria #1 and #2? You mentioned he was a comedian previously, but none of the sources I've seen so far have indicated that. Can you please stop introducing SNG criterias you're not familiar with as it is prolonging this AfD thread unnecessarily. And the GQ article you mentioned was posted, archived on the Wayback Machine and deleted on the same date (March 15, 2024). Another red flag? How you came across the archived version is a question for another day. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, I think I am familiar enough with WP:ENT. See WP:YTN, and I would, again, say that memes = comedy.
      The GQ piece is in the article itself. I'm tla (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, but I am done. I don't think you have enough competence to understand what the other editors and I are trying to convey. You first cite WP:INTERVIEWS and then once it failed, you dug up WP:ENT. It was clearly explained and is also well known to anyone who is part of this AfD that the subject is not known/notable for his meme(comedy?) videos and to add on, the channel has been inactive from 13 June 2023. Now, you have stumbled upon another essay, WP:YTN, which also mentions that only 7% of articles have been kept of subjects with < 100k subs, but you seem to ignoring it. You can keep digging up more and more essays, but justin jin does not pass WP:GNG and the rest of SNGs do not apply to him. The GQ piece is very suspicious as I have already mentioned that it was created, archived and deleted in a single day and now you have the archived version with no trace of it anywhere else. Below, you have mentioned 4 statements that clearly belongs in the Poybo article if and when it is created. There is a reason why the article about Alakh Pandey, the founder of Physics Wallah, was and is still being redirected or merged to the company's article whenever someone tries to recreate it. I am not saying the same outcome should be given here as every AfD needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and not by previous consensus on other topics or AfDs. When there are only/mostly interviews by Justin as sources right now, it makes it really hard to verify all the claims made by them as obviously the next interviewer is going to do their due diligence from the previously written sources to add their own secondary analysis and comments in between their interview, which ultimately violates the WP:OR (WP:PSTS section) policy. From what I have seen till now, none of the sources are detailed enough, they are largely just puff pieces. Note to closing admin: The above statement should be considered with my previously casted delete vote. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Failed? I still partly stand by WP:INTERVIEW and a couple other people seem to have also noted that. Although, thank you for letting me understand that essays can be quite weak in AfDs. That canvassed (?) user noted that 10-15% of the Source and Daily Trust articles are quotes, and using a word counter that is true, so it is far from primary. You noted that the interviewer is obviously involved, involved in what? Interviewing? Obviously. The policy states only those close to an event are not primary, and the examples given at WP:PRIMARYNEWS are very different.
      That above makes this subject pass WP:GNG, and I located WP:ENT because that is also passed. My point is that the entire company is based on memes and comedy, both based on the social media accounts I could locate and the press coverage. The company has 7 million followers according to El Caribe. Note that the El Caribe article has an interview, but the conclusion is entirely secondary. Finally, you seem to agree that the GQ piece is strong, but you're saying that it is very suspicious when it is still indexed online. I believe our discussion has been robust and productive, though I don't want us to be screaming in each other's faces so I hope we can agree that the baseline here is a draftify, until good more sourcing is discovered. TLAtlak 12:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      GQ website says The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, "cached" or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast. Good luck with using the GQ article that you think, "I seem to agree that it is a strong piece", Btw nice interpretation of my comments. Entire company is based on memes and comedy and The company has 7 million followers, please proceed to create an article for the company and stop wasting your time here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I wonder how that adds to WP:ENT. @I'm tla, your argument on the sources seems not worthy and biased. You jumped from accessing the sources to ENT. If the company is verbally the largest, give me three worthwhile sources (not interview or reporting what the founder had said) that analysed the bigness../or how its was the largest and I will withdraw! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, that's the point of a discussion.
      Billboard: 1. world's largest teen media company.
      2. Independent: the startup has been endorsed by several media enthusiasts as a necessary innovation needed to accelerate youth media in Africa.
      2. AMG’s Poybo Africa among the largest youth media companies in Africa, according to Business Insider’s analysis
      4. GQ: a money-making enterprise often deemed the largest of its kind. I'm tla (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not satisfied with that. For independent news, that should be totally not considered. I know how the media works in Nigeria and this article lacks coverage. Seems to be paid additions to news. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It is very unclear what you mean by For independent news, that should be totally not considered. By the way, the one source out of the four I cited above that is Nigerian is the Independent. I've given you sources that verify it is indeed the largest. TLAtlak 12:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep… coming as a bulgarian reader who has known 50mMidas (Justin Jin) from YT. No one asked me to come here, I don’t usually care about such situations but something is fixing up. I have seen young dudes whatnot getting sent to Articles for deletion and then seeing a wave of people voting a delete. Maybe when we are all younger in high school we’ve done something cool, been a smart student, maybe got interviewed in the local paper. But there is a difference between that and the teen who starts a business and gets multiple interviews in reliable news sources about it. Starting a business young won't make anyone notable, even making a ton of money or getting a bunch of subs like this guy won't win anyone notability. But having reliable sources write about your business does start to get you genuine notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.68.88 (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its good you came as you said. Well, I would suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:INTERVIEWS and see all about them. You argument should be a young teen starting a business is not considered notability because he/she may not be noticeable. But when that teen has appeared on multiple interviews, it shows he/she is notable because it's difficult teens being interviewed. I don't know but that's my interpretation . The article has WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, but they are blatantly seeming paid works even. Looking at them, there isn't a coverage, rather ones that do come a time and the other next five days. The argument is that the subject is not notable per WP: ENT and meets no SNG for Wikipedia. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete… Written in a promotional style. Deb (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it’s eligible if we go with WP:NPOV @Deb ? DIVINE 19:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying you didn't write it from a neutral point of view? Deb (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am just curious and asking as you’ve mentioned promotional style. While that falls under [WP:ADV]] #CSD and there was question mark ❓ DIVINE 06:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Promotional article with questionable sources, and the past promotional edits around all of this push me towards delete. Ravensfire (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Maker here. The Justin is notable. Meets GNG due to source assessment way above that I agree. Even if some are interviews that is okay because they have a lot of evaluation. Language of source does not affect reliability according to GNG policy. Also meets #2. of WP : ENT because of starting the biggest teenager media company in the world. Articles for deletion is not for cleanup so if article is written promotionally I’m sorry my English is not the best but that can be fixed with editing. I see new sources are coming out like recent GQ article added and being published continually. Deondernemers (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He does not meet WP:ENT to even assess the #1 and #2 criteria listed on it. The GQ source is useless unless you have written permission from Condé Nast allowing the use of the cached version. He did not create or contribute anything unique, prolific, or innovative as the short videos, reels, relatable content and memes already existed. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after a non-admin closure of "no consensus" was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 27. Any admin may reclose at any time if warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify Wasn't going to vote after the last AfD got chatotic originally, but given the controversial previous AfD and the relisting, this isn't ready for mainspace, and as others like TLA have pointed some sources a good, but there may not be enough to establish notability yet given some of the arguments presented by other editors... But there seems to be an indication that this subject could very well pass GNG if more WP/RS become available. Draftification seems to be the most uncontroversial.
Comintell (talk) 03:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Only promotional sources. - Altenmann >talk 01:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Among others, a recent solid profile in The Nation which I mentioned at DR. There's also an exposé in The Independent which is interesting. TLAtlak 01:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-- When keeps rule in raw numbers, but their arguments are exceedingly weak, AFDs usually close as no consensus in my experience. So, I feel complelled to note,with no offence intended to the future closer of this, that this AFD has seen an unusually high participation from inexperienced editors and/or IPs. Now one of the known UPE editors who had showed up out of nowhere to challenge deletion has proactively disclosed he was paid $100 to vote keep here[72]. I suspect this article has been created for pay and still may be being held hostage. In light of this, I implore the closer to give special considerations to concerns about sourcing that I and Jeraxmoira have raised at length, and provide weight to the soundness of arguments and correctness or lack thereof in interpretation of policies that have been invoked, even more so than we usually do in AFDs. Thanks! Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:BLP policy, we need to have strong sourcing, and usually, a no consensus on the quality of sourcing should result in deletion of relevant content, which in this case would be the whole article. There have been numerous attempts to put in and to take out this claim for example. Without high quality sourcing, it's against BLP policy to include it, and removing it but keeping the article exacerbates further the WP:NPOV problems which are already close to WP:COVERT, if not already there. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What are the thoughts on this? TLAtlak 16:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The newspaper seems to be a generally reliable source. However it is based on primary sources with conflicts of interest, i.e. current and former employees, and it's not always clear which claims have been independently verified. It also contains quotes and information pertaining more to Poybo than Jin. So, I think it could be a good starting point, but often unsuitable by itself as we do not include rumours and speculations, and unspecific claims can not summarised in encyclopedic language. I also don't like that it was produced while we were discussing the article here. We first got spammy sources, then paid WP push based on those sources and when it's come to AFD, they've invited the Nation to talk to them and even showed them internal company docs? I think we should wait a few months or however long it takes to see how it develops, whether we get more reliable sources that help us decide what the NPOV view on Jin really is. GNG requires "multiple", "independent" and "significant" coverage. Used with care, I could be persuaded to count this as one on the way to "multiple". We still need a couple more, and their quality and quantity of coverage would have a significant influence on how usable this source turns out to be. If you or anyone else wants to work in draftspace while we wait for developments, I really have no objection to that. That's the standard practice for AFD-deleted articles anyway. Best, — Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I would like to add that WP:BLP puts higher requirements on sources. - Altenmann >talk 09:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The byline reads 'Our Reporter'. Here's another article promoting a business school. There is no way to tell the difference between which articles are sponsored and which are not. If they are willing to pay $100 for a vote on this AfD, it is very easy to get an article in the leading news publications as well. A suitable example will be the GQ article that you shared above. I believe it was written just to be archived on the same day and used as a source for Wikipedia. Also, please stop the canvassing. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      With some digging, while very subtle, you can actually check it here. And the GQ article is online again. What you are referring to was also not canvassing, as I was abiding by WP:APPNOTE. TLAtlak 10:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You did not follow what's on WP:APPNOTE: Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion. The {{Please see}} template may help in notifying people in a quick, simple, and neutral manner.
      Note: It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users.
      Draftify at AfD Justin Jin
      I see that you are inactive so hopefully this talk page message will notify you. Would you support a draftify at this AfD? Please read the discussion. Also, you can probably ignore the message above, it was added by a now blocked user. - How is this neutral?
      • It is not neutrally worded.
      • Does not have a neutral title.
      • You haven't used the "Please see" template. (If you had done so, it would have been neutrally worded.)
      • You did not leave a note here about the notification you gave to Shewasafairy.
      The Nation (Nigeria) and GQ
      The regular articles and the sponsored articles look exactly the same and no viewer would know that they are sponsored unless you give them the URL that you just found. No reputable news media would do this. Apart from that, The Nation (Nigeria) is accused of spreading fake news stories. How comfortable is it to find the GQ source back online exactly when the AfD was relisted after the DRV and with the updated date? These are all undisclosed paid articles. Most of the keep votes are accounts that are 1 - 8 months old with very little AfD experience( i.e. 0 in-depth analyzed votes on other AfDs)). Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jeraxmoira and Usedtobecool. Not convinced the sources are strong enough to meet WP:N.-KH-1 (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Because this might be a borderline one, I would support a draftify, and keeping it there until there's better coverage. TLAtlak 16:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

North herts premier pool league[edit]

North herts premier pool league (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 covering a local pool league, no sources, orphan article. Not been updated since 2012, not even correct title format have no idea how this article has slipped through the net.--ParkingTheBus (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources that show notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There's nothing available to use for sourcing this, doesn't seem close to having a chance at passing WP:GNG. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article was created in 2012, when the notability criteria might not have been as high. But it now clearly fails to meet the updated criteria. Nitish shetty (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2024 (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/2024_April_4&oldid=1218495940"