Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 8

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

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Surprised to see so many editors weighing in on this particular AFD. Maybe it's a sign we'll soon have more editors thoughtfully participating in the hundreds of other open discussions which would be welcome! Liz Read! Talk! 22:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Louton[edit]

David Louton (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)

Likely doesn't pass WP:NPROF. None of the sources provided on the page are independent of the subject. Google Scholar indicates he's been cited 553 times since 1996 with one second-author paper cited 115 times. Otherwise, I've searched Google, NYT, AP, and the Wiki Library without anything finding notable. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:57, 8 January 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. Just a reminder, "Soft Delete" is not possible if any editor has argued to Keep an article in the discussion or if the article has been previously PROD'd or brought to AFD before. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elshad Mamedov[edit]

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

There is no independent reliable sourcing on the subject. It's all sourced to Azerbajaini government outlets. The subject died during a coup attempt on Azerbajain's authoritarian regime and was subsequently martyrized by the regime. Nothing in the article is verifiable. Thenightaway (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you point to one independent reliable source that covered the subject? Thenightaway (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the sources were authored by the subject and the government of Azerbajain is authorative on who it considers a national hero. Other sources: [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source you linked to is neither reliable nor is it about the subject of the article. The "Elshad Mammadov" mentioned in the source is not the same person as the subject of this article. Thenightaway (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it hard to believe that there were two national heroes called Elshad Mammadov Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be a reasonably common name in Azerbaijan. The one in your source died about 25 years after the one described here. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless more SIGCOV is found. For a claim as big as him being a national hero, I need to see WAYYY more sources than the ones provided so far. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft delete Has some sources, but not independent, could be a notable subject, but a search on google returns results unrelated to the subject.
Geardona (talk to me?) 00:00, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He apparently played a role in suppression of 1995 Azerbaijani coup attempt, but the page does not say it. What role, exactly? Not clear. The page is so poorly sourced and written that I am leaning "delete". My very best wishes (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Not seeing anything from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV are found.  // Timothy :: talk  06:50, 15 January 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vazeh Asgarov[edit]

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

There is no independent reliable sourcing about the subject. They do not meet general notability requirements nor notability requirements for academics or government officials. One of many articles spammed by a ring of editors who are singularly focused on promoting the Azerbaijani government/elites. Thenightaway (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thenightaway: Considering the large wave of Azerbaijan AfD's like this one that involve WP:MEAT, have you considered alerting WP:COIN? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Keeping high administrative positions in scientific institution is not a proof of notability. My very best wishes (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC) Please see discussion below. My very best wishes (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. I don't want you to misunderstand me. But I have a question. He is the rector of the university. Doesn't that make it notable? Azerbaijan State Oil and Industry University is one of the first universities of Azerbaijan. And not a small university. Even, French-Azerbaijani University operates under this university. I have seen an article on the English wikipedia about rectors of universities much smaller than this university. Atakhanli (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is covered by Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria. One can argue #6 would be applicable here i.e. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.. I assume this means "a major academic institution" at the international, rather than national scale. What is the international academic ranking of this institution according to reputable RS? If it is within first 500, I would say he passes #6. My very best wishes (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. So, in your opinion, how correct and fair is it to compare Azerbaijani university with the universities of giant countries such as the USA and Canada? I searched for that university in Shanghai Ranking (Academic Ranking of World Universities). No result. I even searched for Baku State University, the first university of Azerbaijan. But still no result came out. I also searched for "QS Rankings". But no university of Azerbaijan is in the TOP500. Atakhanli (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I also checked Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes #6b ("Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of president or chancellor (or vice-chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc."). Hence, he might pass. However, after looking at this page, there seems to be a WP:COI issue with creating this and other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it seems like the sensible thing to do would be to compare this university to other universities in the same country, rather than against all universities internationally. But I don't know anything at all about the system in Azerbaijan so I'm not sure what would be reasonable to suggest. Is there a domestic university ranking? -- asilvering (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt about this in general. For example, the best university in a very small country may not qualify as a good/notable educational institution. Therefore, one needs international rankings. However, I think that this specific institution in Baku could qualify as "a significant accredited college or university". But again, accredited by whom? For example, an advanced degree issued by this institution would probably not be recognized as such in the USA. My very best wishes (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said that these universities are not in TOP500. But you killed it :D Of course, these universities are accredited and their diplomas are recognized around the world. Recently, even the report of accredited universities in Azerbaijan was published. I can't find it now, but I will tomorrow.
This university even has a dual degree program with the University of Warwick. Atakhanli (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The international acceptance of something like PhD or Candidate of Sciences degree depends on specific field. My very best wishes (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "good" and "notable" are the same thing here, and I don't think whether its degrees are recognized in the USA is relevant to the notability of its chancellor/rector/etc. -- asilvering (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need some clarity on ACADEMIC here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. WP:PROF#C6 has always been interpreted to confer notability on anyone who has the highest-level academic post at a university whose degrees are widely accepted. The only reason that it doesn't simply say "at a university" is that the title "university" is not protected in the US as it is in most of the rest of the world. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft keep. Unless someone more familiar with higher education in Azerbaijan weighs in with good evidence that the subject does not meet WP:NPROF as the rector of Azerbaijan State Oil and Industry University, I think we should accept that argument (see comment thread above). Moreover, he has the Ordre des Palmes académiques, which indicates a certain degree of recognition in French academia. -- asilvering (talk) 07:10, 15 January 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. The addition of sources was helpful in the consensus for a keep. TLA (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Vänersborg[edit]

Battle of Vänersborg (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 the sources to show this meets WP:N, or find a possible merge target. Boleyn (talk) 09:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Norway and Sweden. Owen× ☎ 09:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have somewhat expanded the article, adding at least a basic source. I have books which ought to have more detail. I'll investigate in a couple of days, once I'm done with the Christmas celebrations. /Julle (talk) 12:50, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added a couple of references (most importantly from the book Vänersborgs historia : Tiden till 1838 by Carl-Fredrik Corin, the museum website is more of a passing mention) and expanded the article somewhat. /Julle (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not too happy with this. A few words in a newspaper in 1645 is not great, and I've always been somewhat skeptical about using museums as sources. I'll assume the book is good, since I have no access to it myself. I'd be inclined to !vote to merge to Torstenson War for now, but that is also in a rather abysmal state I'm not really feeling that either. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ljleppan: The book is better than the other sources, but perhaps not enough on its own supported only by two weaker sources. I've requested an interlibrary loan of two other books which I hope will either prove useful, or where the lack of proper information should indicate this topic shouldn't be a separate article. /Julle (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Julle: sounds good, let me know how it turns out. I'd be happy to change my !vote if the books warrant it. Ljleppan (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any !votes in light of sources added since this discussion began?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/Rational 15:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Torstenson War as an alternative to deletion - Notability remains questionable and even if notable, this looks like it'd function better as a part of the broader article. No prejudice towards recreation if enough sources are found to actually make this any meaningful length. -Ljleppan (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not opposed to Vänersborg as an alternative merge target, per asilvering below. Ljleppan (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak keep - The second book source identified by Julle below drags this over the line for me even if I somewhat dislike their age. I still think the current content would better work as part of some larger article that gave more context, but that's an issue to better addressed through normal editing rather than deletion. -Ljleppan (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've requested an interlibrary loan for two books which could be useful here, Vilhelm Vessberg's Bidrag till historien om Sveriges krig med Danmark 1643-1645 : Kriget på norska gränsen and Carl Oscar Munthe's Hannibalsfejden 1644–1645 : Den norske hærs bloddåb. They should hopefully prove useful in building out this article. If not, that'll have convinced me this shouldn't be a separate article. /Julle (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Julle Any luck? -- asilvering (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Asilvering: They have replied to my request and sent for at least one of them, but it hasn't arrived yet. /Julle (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The books have arrived, but have to be read at the library; I can't bring them home. Hoping to find the time sit down there over the weekend. /Julle (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, nevermind, only one of them had arrived. Still waiting for the other. /Julle (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ping asilvering and Ljleppan. Bidrag till historien om Sveriges krig med Danmark 1643–1645 : Kriget på norska gränsen wasn't terribly useful (it mentioned it, of course, but about in the same detail as some other sources), but Hannibalsfeiden 1643–45 : Den norske hærs bloddåb had an entire chapter called "The Norwegians' failed attack on Vänersborg and their retreat within the borders of Norway", which convinces me that this is a reasonable topic for a Wikipedia article. /Julle (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: "merge without prejudice" per Ljleppan seems the right way to go here, but I'm not crazy about adding it to Torstenson War, as there really isn't any other information at that detail level there. Given that the sources on the battle article include the local museum, I assume it's of more interest on Vänersborg. Thoughts? -- asilvering (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good to me. Ljleppan (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Vänersborg per above comment (unless those sources come in for Julle in time, in which case ping me). -- asilvering (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, since sources did come in in time. -- asilvering (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Carl Oscar Munthe's Hannibalsfeiden 1643–45 : Den norske hærs bloddåb ("The Hannibal War 1643–45 : The Baptism of Blood of the Norwegian Army") has an entire chapter called "Normændens mislykkede angreb på Wenersborg og deres retræt indenfor Norges grænser" ("The Norwegians' failed attack on Vänersborg and their retreat within the borders of Norway"). It does cover more than the attack on Vänersborg, but there's plenty of focus on subject of the article here. In combination with the other sources, I think this is enough that it makes sense for us to have an article, not least because I don't think this level of detail would fit well into the current state of the article about Vänersborg. /Julle (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice work finding the book, I've adjusted my !vote above. Ljleppan (talk) 17:24, 13 January 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! 22:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maratha raid on Delhi (1737)[edit]

Maratha raid on Delhi (1737) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources seem to be (where I can view them) a collection of snippets and/or fail wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge: I am also concerned about verifiability of several portions but the incident itself is regarded as a indicator of the decline of the Mughal Empire. While the article does cite a Mughal victory, the reality is that Bajirao did successfully evade the Mughal army, attack the outskirts of Mughal capital and retreat before the Mughal empire could effectively mount a counter attack. It must have had a tremendous effect on morale. Check out page 116 of Mehta's Advanced Study in the History of Modern India, it's available online. It's also described in some detail in Mountstuart Elphinstone's book History of India Vol II on pages 609-610. There are several additional sources that discuss the longterm effects of the incident, but I'm heading to work so I'll leave you with the few available online:

Annwfwn (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources you have used here fails WP:RAJ. But I do agree that Bajirao successfully defeated a Mughal contingent at the outskirts of the Delhi. But they were defeated by the Mughals during the retreat march. Consider reading this section. Imperial[AFCND] 05:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, he was eventually defeated, hence the Mughal victory is appropriate. I do concede you have an excellent point about Elphinstone, though. Annwfwn (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"eventually defeated"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Annwfwn this seems like a good argument for dealing with the raid on Muhammad Shah, Mughal Empire, and Mughal–Maratha Wars, rather than in a separate article. -- asilvering (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a good idea. But there are hundreds, may be thousands of such "Battle of X" kind of articles in wikipedia of Indian history itself. I am pretty sure that there are many articles that fails GNG and poorly sourced (just mentioning in a line in books, and doing SYNTH for making up the article. Even I did that sometimes.). So, should we go for all of it? Imperial[AFCND] 05:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well... yes. If the topics don't meet GNG and are poorly sourced, they should be dealt with - by redirecting to appropriate parent articles, by incorporating into a list article, by deletion, or by whatever other means make sense for the topic at hand. That's true of all poorly sourced, non-notable articles, not just ones on Indian military history (though there certainly are a lot of Indian milhist articles that fit this description). -- asilvering (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. In this case, this military conflict is a part of campaign of Marathas aganist Mughals. In that campaign itself, over 5 military conflicts happened. So should we create a single article for the whole campaign consisting all the conflicts, or should we delete this with just a redirect(context is already covered)? Consider Battle of Jalesar too. That was the part of the campaign. And I agree with the point of @Annwfwn that this campaign have a significant role for the Maratha-Mughal conflict in 18th century. I would go for merging this article with Battle of Jalesar, and then move that into a better title. Imperial[AFCND] 10:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two wrongs do not make a right, if you know of any other articles like this nominat3 them for AFD, do not use it as an argument to keep this one. We can't know about every article that exits here, only that that crosses our radar. Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. When did I say that two wrongs would make a right? I said it would be better to create an article for the entire campaign instead of having articles for minor conflicts that would have low notability. Neither I supported keeping this article (see my vote). Imperial[AFCND] 12:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its indentation makes it clear, that was not a reply to you. Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I have a foolish behaviour that I reply to every comments I get notified thinking that is for me. Imperial[AFCND] 12:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Er, was it supposed to be a reply to me? I'm not sure how what I said could possibly be read as an argument in favour of keeping this article. -- asilvering (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all, I think @User:ImperialAficionado has a valid suggestion that it can be merged into an article with the Battle Jalesar and the additional campaigns of this period. I've revised my position. Annwfwn (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion. We can merge this with the Battle of Jalesar (1737), and could move the article into a suitable name other than the current name. So in that case, we could build a better and more notable article as both the Battle of Jalesar and the raid on Delhi was the part of the same event.Imperial[AFCND] 06:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cannot find significant coverage dedicated to this battle in any scholarly sources. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge properly sourced content to Battle of Jalesar (1737) per above.  // Timothy :: talk  04:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any properly sourced content worth merging. -- asilvering (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, right now, it seems opinion is divided between Deletion and a possible Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sources like hindu.com on history subjects are unreliable and when I looked into the raid that the article is on, there is source missing and the one that is there does not get the assistance from the source and fails verification. This holds no warrant to have an article of its own due to lack of significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now. Not great WP:SIGCOV that merits a standalone article. Merge would be possible, but I would like to see better sourcing for the content. TLA (talk) 05:31, 15 January 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! 22:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Udgir[edit]

Battle of Udgir (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)

One source, for a "battle" with fewer men than a pub brawl, really? Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What part of it? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how are they related apart from the fact that one party was common. Panipat battle was with Durranis some 1600 kms away from Udgir where Marathas fought Hyderabadi Nizam. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merge is unsuitable as this article is not reliably sourced. -- asilvering (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which source used in the article is unreliable? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No cosensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I do not find a complete detail or even a paragraph heavily describing the battle and most of the sources are unreliable. There is no noteworthy notability for a justification to have an article of its own.RangersRus (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails GNG and NEVENT per above. Not every individual fight mentioned somewhere in a book needs its own article. I'd be open to trimming and merging if someone can show proper sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk  07:28, 15 January 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! 22:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of current USFL team rosters[edit]

List of current USFL team rosters (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)

League no longer exists, thus there are no "current team rosters" now. In addition, these lists are WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Let'srun (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and American football. Let'srun (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to and create List of current UFL team rosters, to update for the newly-merged league. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a rationale as to how this constitutes a "summary-only description of a work", "lyrics database", "excessive listing of unexplained statistics" or "exhaustive log of software updates"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply, these types of lists simply regurgitate and reproduce the non-independent and primary roster lists at the teams' respective websites (violating both LISTN and INDISCRIMINATE to their core). Unlike NFL or NBA team rosters where secondary and independent sources most definitely exist, this and many of the other lists on this type don't serve any useful purpose for navigation (due to many of the subjects within them not holding notability themselves, and as such they don't provide any real info beyond that of a database. Readers are much better off simply visiting the league and team websites where they can see automatically updated rosters with more info on individual players than what is contained here, or in a hypothetical merge. Let'srun (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Will keep replies at Xfl discussion so as to not waste twice the effort explaining the same thing. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy create List of current UFL team rosters and speedy redirect both this and the similar XFL page to the newly created page in order to protect the respective page histories. The XFL and USFL no longer exist so there is no reason to have a current roster page. In my opinion this does not need to go through AFD but we are here anyway. I agree with Beaniefan that these lists do not violate NOTDATABASE as most of the listed athletes are notable. Frank Anchor 22:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Resliting. Again, get started creating these Merge/Redirect target articles!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a great example of why Wikipedia should rarely (if ever) host "list of current..." pages: they're all at risk of becoming irrelevant, like this one has. Since notability is not temporary, we must infer that these topics weren't notable to begin with. If we really must maintain lists of team rosters, they ought to be per season, rather than "current". pburka (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Where else contains all of this information? League and team websites, where such primary directory data are more accurate, updated automatically, and linked to more info on these mainly non-notable players. We are not a mirror of directories on the internet, we are supposed to summarize a topic that has itself already received significant secondary independent coverage.
JoelleJay (talk) 05:48, 11 January 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. There is consensus here that this is adequately sourced content that should not be deleted. There is not consensus as to whether it should remain as a seperate list or be merged into the parent article. This AfD closure should not be understood to prejudice any merge discussions on the article talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

List of Negima episodes[edit]

List of Negima episodes (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 The list contains the episode information from three(!) different TV series sharing a name. Not to mention that the article has no sourcing demonstrating WP:GNG, I don't believe that this article is up to WP standards and should be WP:TNT. Tooncool64 (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Anime and manga, Lists, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/split/rename or whatever you would call my decision: per WP:NLIST, pages like these can exist. However I don't think there's any reason to include the pages for the other two series based on the manga. So here's what I would do:
  • 1. either merge the episode list for the original Negima anime to the original article at the Anime section, or if it gets too long, keep it there. If the latter happens, rename the article to List of Negima! episodes or List of Negima! (TV series) episodes. I don't know much about naming conventions so I don't know if a ! is enough disambiguation especially with the similarly titled TV series with a !? instead.
  • 2. Merge Negima!? episodes to the corresponding article.
  • 3. Merge the Negima live-action episodes to the section in the Negima manga page... or not? I haven't seen any other pages for mangas that have been adapted for live-action series have a whole episode table yet unless it's notable enough for a separate article (see Komi Can't Communicate, Erased, Guilty or generally many of the articles in Category:Japanese television dramas based on manga).
So, yeah, that's my opinion. Spinixster (chat!) 10:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - agree with Spinixster, this page is too cluttered with three different media properties. Should be split and merged into their respective topics. Kazamzam (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Each show should have its own episode list article, so keep this one for the main show, and create articles for the other two. Dream Focus 11:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Offering a multitude of possibilities only helps if there is a large group of editors participating in a discussion who can assess the benefit of each suggestion. With a low attendance (like many AFDs these days), right now this looks like a No consensus closure unless more people show up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. General practice is for TV shows/animes to have lists of episodes in separate articles for the sake of convenience: we don't require independent notability for the list of episodes as its own topic. Splitting pages is a separate issue from deletion (and seems like it is a good idea here, but that is not germane to AfD). jp×g🗯️ 19:38, 9 January 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! 22:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of current XFL team rosters[edit]

List of current XFL team rosters (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)

League no longer exists, thus there aren't any "current team rosters" anymore. These lists violate WP:NOTDATABASE as it is. Let'srun (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and American football. Let'srun (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to and create List of current UFL team rosters, to update for the newly-merged league. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hard disagree on a merge. Do you have a policy based rationale that these lists don't violate WP:NOTDATABASE, other than WP:OSE? Let'srun (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a rationale as to how this constitutes a "summary-only description of a work", "lyrics database", "excessive listing of unexplained statistics" or "exhaustive log of software updates"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply, these types of lists simply regurgitate and reproduce the non-independent and primary roster lists at the teams' respective websites (violating both LISTN and INDISCRIMINATE to their core). Unlike NFL or NBA team rosters where secondary and independent sources most definitely exist, this and many of the other lists don't serve any useful purpose for navigation (due to many of the subjects within them not holding notability themselves, and as such they don't provide any real info beyond that of a database. Readers are much better off simply visiting the league and team websites where they can see automatically updated rosters with more info on individual players than what is contained here, or in a hypothetical merge. Let'srun (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've done a vague wave to NOTDATABASE, but haven't explained exactly why it applies. Now, you state that this has no purpose for navigation because many of the subjects within them [do not hold notability] and that Readers are much better off simply visiting the league and team websites where they can see automatically updated rosters with more info on individual players: well, a good majority I'd say (~75%?) of the athletes in these leagues are notable and, although you may think that readers are better left off to read the rosters at the team websites, 775 people a day would disagree with you. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy create List of current UFL team rosters and speedy redirect both this and the similar USFL page to the newly created page in order to protect the respective page histories. The XFL and USFL no longer exist so there is no reason to have a current roster page. In my opinion this does not need to go through AFD but we are here anyway. I agree with Beaniefan that these lists do not violate NOTDATABASE as most of the listed athletes are notable. Frank Anchor 22:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think if you want to redirect or merge this article to a nonexisting page, then those who wish this to happen should create this article yourself. I doubt random content creators will be happening to browse through this AFD discussion and take your hint.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a great example of why Wikipedia should rarely (if ever) host "list of current..." pages: they're all at risk of becoming irrelevant, like this one has. Since notability is not temporary, we must infer that these topics weren't notable to begin with. If we really must maintain lists of team rosters, they ought to be per season, rather than "current". pburka (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed with Pburka and Let'srun. Such rosters are just less informative, poorly-updated versions of the league/team websites and create a maintenance timesink.
JoelleJay (talk) 05:41, 11 January 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 Ministry of Economy (Azerbaijan). Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Zones Development Agency (Azerbaijan)[edit]

Economic Zones Development Agency (Azerbaijan) (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 recent initiative by the Azerbaijani state that a COI account immediately created a Wikipedia article for. There is no independent reliable sourcing on the subject. It's solely sourced to government outlets. Thenightaway (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 8 January 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 Steel Storm. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kot-in-Action Creative Artel[edit]

Kot-in-Action Creative Artel (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 doubtful IgelRM (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention, should be suitable redirect to Steel Storm, IgelRM (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Steel Storm. Could not find any significant coverage through a Google search. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 11:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect – per nom + passing mentions. TLA (talk) 06:36, 14 January 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 List of Miss Intercontinental winners. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patraporn Wang[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Patraporn Wang (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)

AFD as PROD is likely to be contested. Article has been deleted before in this AFD. The contest itself is considered as not-notable per this AFD. In my opinion, this article failed WP:GNG as the subject of the article is not notable enough. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 18:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Events, Beauty pageants, and Thailand. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 18:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's quite a lot of coverage surrounding her pageant participations this year, though most of it isn't particularly high quality.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] --Paul_012 (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although the subject has been involved in and won more notable pageants (Miss Supranational Thailand) since the first deletion, I don't believe there is enough significant coverage from reliable sources to pass GNG, with the above linked coverage seeming to be mostly tabloid based. pinktoebeans (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, since there was a prior AFD, Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 8 January 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. While several of the keep !votes are not based in Wikipedia policy, there appears to be a consensus since the final relist that sufficient coverage does exist to meet WP:GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 14:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dolores Cannon[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources, and thus fails WP:BASIC. As Cullen328 pointed out in a deletion discussion for this article a decade ago, the subject is a "non-notable crank". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please see the Authority control databases at the bottom of her article. In additional to international sources relating to her, there is also: the Library of Congress link brings up 22 resources (1931-2014), WorldCat has "481 Results" (likely duplicates therein) I think she's notable. — Maile (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just to be clear Maile66, all the results and resources at the Library of Congress and WorldCat are her own self-published books on reincarnation, prophecies, UFOs, and other WP:FRINGE topics (e.g. Conversations with Nostradamus, The search for hidden sacred knowledge, and Between death & life : conversations with a spirit. Check the plot summaries if you're not convinced on how bonkers she is. ) This is not enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR, which is presumably what you were referring to. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Being "bonkers" is not means for deletion. She is an author with a significant following who has written 16 books. Her work documents her personal experiences in hypnotherapy, which still gains consistent attention even after her death. She's frequently referenced by other authors and figures within spiritual communities. Yeah, some of her works are pretty speculative and controversial, but she's still a significant person nonetheless. 170.103.65.126 (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Her books are all self-published and none of the attention/frequent references provided thus far meet the requirements outlined at WP:GNG. You are free to provide ones which do. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The impact and relevance of an author should not be dismissed solely based on whether they are self-published or traditionally published. The value of her (controversial) contribution lies in the content and influence of her work within spiritual communities. Ultimately, her contributions have played a role in ongoing dialogue and practices within the hypnotherapy movement. For these very reasons she shouldn't be deleted 2600:1004:B192:1F2A:F0D2:B902:344E:2F03 (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not a source. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: I have created a publication list for the article. At least two of her books were published by a British firm and three by American West Publishers. As for the rest, self-published as we think of it today is not exactly the situation here. She established a New Age publishing company that eventually worked with more than 50 authors from around the world and still exists today. Her books published through this company were reviewed in trade publications, the NYT, and the Washington Post. Her books were issued in many languages and distributed around the world. Most are still in print today and were reissued as ebooks and audiobooks. I even found an article where she was invited to attend the American Library Association conference because of her new book. Although these books are not sources, I do think we should consider their impact regardless of the publisher. Rublamb (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
      Rublamb (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Didn't we just have a conversation about deletion for her at the end of December 2023 which resulted in keep? DaffodilOcean (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we did on December 21. Thanks for bringing that up. Looks like someone is going to keep listing this, until they get the result they want. I'm striking myself above, because I don't want to get caught in that loop. That, and the fact, that I'm not real thrilled that the nominator has to tell me how to interpret the sources I listed. — Maile (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT Fails NAUTHOR. This was deleted years ago and should not have been re-created. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article just needs a more citations and improvement flag at top from WP:CLEANUPTAG. Just because no editor swiftly stepped forward to improve the article is no reason to delete it. Wikipedia:Deletion policy says: If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. The above list of potential sources appears on the article's talk page for any editor to use to improve the article. 5Q5|✉ 12:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Mentions" are not significant coverage, 5Q5. Let's take a look at your first seven sources (I cannot access the newspapers.com sources. perhaps they contain the necessary coverage?)
Source Text on D. Cannon Comments
https://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/media/dolores-cannon-10471/ "Dolores Cannon directed the Ozark Mountain UFO Conference from 2013 until her death in 2014. She is shown here in 2013." Consisting of two sentences and an image, this clearly does not meet SIGCOV.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7894e/past-life-regression-therapy-mind-zoom "I reached out to Teja Priyadarshini, a certified past life regression therapy practitioner from India, who uses a technique called Quantum Healing Hypnosis Therapy developed by Dolores Cannon, a self-proclaimed hypnotist, past life regressionist and… UFO investigator." Consisting of half a sentence clearly dismissing D. Cannon as WP:FRINGE, this is clearly not in-depth, significant coverage.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/16/books/review/tracy-k-smith-interview.html "Dolores Cannon, who refined a method of regressive hypnotherapy by which subjects felt able to encounter their own past lives, has been an enormous consolation and inspiration to me during times of anxiety and 21st-century world-fear." One sentence from the poet Tracy K. Smith on what she likes to read in her spare time. SIGCOV? No.
https://www.theportugalnews.com/news/2023-08-25/what-is-quantum-healing/80827 Now, there are various ways in which to practice quantum healing. One of these is the hypnosis technique, created in the 1968 by author and hypnotist Dolores Cannon. “QHHT© achieves the deepest level of hypnosis possible, the Somnambulistic level of trance,” according to the official QHHT© (Quantum Healing Hypnosis Technique) website. “By creating a safe and effective method that bypasses the chatter of the conscious mind and focuses on obtaining unlimited information in the somnambulistic state, Dolores Cannon discovered that time travel is possible at any time or place to relive anyone’s past lives.” Cannon also claims that this technique allows for access to our unconscious minds, what she calls The Subconscious, or The SC, which is “that greater part of ourselves that is always connected to The Source, or God, and has unlimited knowledge and an unlimited ability to heal the physical body.” Dolores Cannon passed away in 2014, seemingly not having used the aforementioned unlimited ability to heal the physical body on herself, but you can still learn the basics of what she made up for just $997. Two paragraphs, most of which is quotes to ridicule a technique the author explicitly states is made up, not SIGCOV of Cannon.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/cheryl-been-meditating-reading-aliens-24354598 "And she also said that the one book that "changed her life" is New Earth by Dolores Cannon. Dolores Cannon is a UFO investigator, hypnotist and past-life regressionist who believes alien spirits have been sent to Earth to help humanity ascend to the 'New Earth'." Two sentences (not SIGCOV) from an interview with Cheryl (singer) on what she does in her spare time, published in a marginally reliable newspaper specializing in tabloid journalism.
https://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/news/local-news/conference-puts-focus-on-hypnosis-alternative-healing He will offer a group regression workshop based on the work of Dolores Cannon, an American hypnotherapist and psychic researcher . Half a sentence, not SIGCOV.
https://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/meet-the-woman-behind-the-popular-awakening-starseeds-series-radhaa-nilia Another author whose books influenced me is Dolores Cannon. Her book, The Three Waves of Volunteers and New Earth. I highly recommend both of these timeless books. Three sentences from an interview with Radhaa Nilia, a self-proclaimed "visionary leader, expert in the Sacred Feminine and Archetypes, Goddess Activator, Publishing Priestess, etc. Not reliable or SIGCOV.
  • Delete I spent a while looking, but didn't find the sort of reliable non-fringe discussion of her that we would need to build an article here. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:AUTHOR is the notability guideline to be used here not WP:NBASIC and she passes one or more of the tests. 5Q5|✉ 12:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added links to multiple books available on archive.org that present Cannon's work. She is covered in these books in length ranging from one paragraph to several pages (see article for page numbers). Hence, within these fields, even if they are WP:FRINGE, her work is cited in books. I have also edited her page a little to clarify that the books are her representation by others as I feel this is more neutral. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is dangerous territory to erase and eliminate speech. Dolores Cannon inspired millions of people for good, and whether you beleive her methods or not, we should always err on the side of free expression vs. silencing ideas. This is how humanity evolves. In fact, many of her quantaum regression theories are generating interest in their grounding in science. Remember many of the secrets of the universe can be interpreted through the microcosm. We do not want to live in an Orwellian world. KEEP ~~ Danieltate (talk) 16:25:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)— Danieltate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    ^This 100%. She's made significant influence within several fields, and maintains relevance even 10 years after her passing. Erasing her influence and voice, especially her theories based on whether someone agrees with them personally, creates a dangerous precedent that leads to censorship. The commentors supporting the deletion of her page are supporting restriction of the open exchange of information. Just because someone doesn't believe her theories to be credible, doesnt erase her accomplishments and influence 170.103.65.126 (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)— 170.103.65.126 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep: I have worked on this for a bit and have added sources. Source #11 is a scholarly paper that discusses her role as a leading figure in the past life regression and alien conspiracy movements. Source #2 is another new source that has a Japanese television crew interviewing her. Source #22 is a long review of her book in the Washington Post. Source #21 is a shorter review in the New York Times. Some of the other book sources have at least half a page on her. I have found mentions of her in other many New Age books and she also trained many current practitioners (some sources to back this have been added to the article). Seems to be an important figure and there are now adequate secondary sources to prove her notability. Rublamb (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Source #11 is an editorial from a graduate student; it has not been peer reviewed, so I wouldn't call it a scholarly paper. #22 and #21 are reviews by the same author, and I don't believe two reviews make a notable author, even in the New York Times. Even with these sources, that leaves a lot of information in the article from unreliable references, and if all that is taken out, we would be left with an article about an author with 2 book reviews making fun of her and a disparaging editorial using her as an example of a gateway to conspiracy theories. Reconrabbit 21:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A scholarly paper does not have to be peer-reviewed, nor is peer review required for a reliable Wikipedia source. Regardless, the source in question provides significant coverage by a scholar and and is published by a university which works for notablity this instance. It does not matter that the two book reviews, written two years apart, are by the same author. In fact, it is fairly normal for a critic to specialize in a certain type of books such as the New Age genre. And, reviews in The New York Time and The Washington Post are a big deal when determining the importance of an author and their book because these are major US newspapers that and very difficult to get into if published through a small press. Other reliable references to consider include many newspaper articles. I have not looked at every book or author that citated by others from the Internet Archive, but note that some are published by respectable presses. There may be a high reliance on primary sources but that does not preclude the article from meeting notability in this instance because other sources exist to prove notability. Rublamb (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: After looking at the book sources, here are the ones that probably meet significant and reliable coverage: #1 is published by a reliable press, its author has a LH.D and is considered one of the original researchers in the field of near-death. #16 was published by Piatkus which is an imprint of Little, Brown and its author has an article in Wikipedia. #18 is a press that specializes in new age themes and the author has a Ph.D.; Cannon is discussed throughout this book. Rublamb (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Of the four tests for notability at WP:AUTHOR she passes the first two. Only one is required.
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; 5Q5|✉ 13:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the significant new technique in question is Quantum Healing Hypnosis (which is variously named Quantitative Healing Hypnosis in the article as well, though I can't find it called that anywhere else), then there would need to be a lot more documentation than there is on the page now regarding it. Many of the other articles on hypnotists have references from sources that do more than promote hypnotherapy and similar treatments. Reconrabbit 21:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say her biggest claim to fame is as an originator of past life regression hypnotherapy, regardless of the trademarked name she used for her training program. I did not add more details on her techniques because everything I found on this topic is a complex layer of pseudo-science that lacks analysis to provide a balanced perspective. A link to the article on past life regression seems the best option as it has some analysis of the topic. Her secondary importance is as a conveyor of alien and other conspiracy theories that persist today in the New Age realm. This is pretty well detailed through the scholarly article and the topics of her books and presentations. Although she did write many books, I don't believe she needs to meet WP:AUTHOR because the sources exist for general biographical notability. That is, there are multiple reliable secondary sources that provide significant coverage. Rublamb (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because:

Is about an American author that has written 17 books.

Is about an American hypnotherapist. a profession that in many American states does not required licensing for its practice.

Is about one of the most well know past life regression therapist in the 20th century.

I also consider that the other 3 articles about Dolores Cannon in the Dutch Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia and Chinese Wikipedia should be preserved. --Zchemic (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pd. This is the 3rd times the article is trying to be deleted for the same reason... What? Is this keep going to continue until the 97th time when nobody knows that the article is obsessively being trying to be deleted again?

  • Delete. While I have heard of her, ironically through a late friend who was a spiritualist, there is scant evidence by was of SIGCOV that she actually meets our standards, which are well established. I can't anything useful. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be easy (but incorrect) to delete this article because the subject's views are fringe. But what matters is does she meet WP:AUTHOR with WP:SIGCOV and after reading all of the comments, that is still not clear to me. I would caution those who are "supporters" that launching into conspiracy theories does not help your argument to Keep this article, what matters is notability by Wikipedia standards which is demonstrated by independent, secondary sources. At any given time, there are hundreds of these AFD discussions occurring so this is not a matter of singling out this particular article. Presenting cogent arguments for the outcome you are seeking and discussing them is the way decisions are made on this project.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I am a bit concerned about the lack of neutrality in comments on both sides for the AfD. We are not discussing whether you believe in this person's theories or whether or not the content of the article is "useful" to you. Rather, we should be analyzing the sources to see if there is significant coverage of this individual. The article and its sources have been significantly expanded since this AfD started. As discussed above, I have identified more than six sources that provide significant coverage from reliable sources. At least one of these sources has more information that is not yet included in the article. It would be helpful to get responses to those specific sources. I can create a table if that would be helpful.Rublamb (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I added the IMDb template to the article in External links, not many but all Self credits. One of them was an appearance on the A&E Networks TV series Biography, the episode about Nostradamus. I note also that in the Washington Post article on her, which is already referenced in the article, her name appears 21 times. I feel she does meet WP:AUTHOR. The article just needs Template:Unbalanced or Template:Undue_weight at top to encourage some additional balanced content. Maybe she is discussed in Skeptical Inquirer but buried in issues somewhere. Either of these templates will encourage searching. As I wrote above, Wikipedia:Deletion policy is to not delete if editing can solve the problem. 5Q5|✉ 14:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    5Q5: Finally found and added some critical review of her work and theories. I also replaced or removed some of the primary sources. Still needs work but should be more balanced now. Rublamb (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm circling back here, and I think there's just about enough to meet GNG. I don't think her work is significant enough to meet NAUTHOR, however. We have: 2 or 3 reviews of Conversations with Nostradamus in mainstream press (1, 2, and (maybe) 3, depending on how you consider Heard writing both the NYTimes and WaPo piece); this separate article about her; and at least this research note and bits and pieces in some of the less-fringe books cited. The article has been ref-bombed somewhat to oblivion, and some of the comments are above are not overly helpful, but imv when cutting through all that there's some substance here, too. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability established by book reviews in major publications, appearances on network television, and the Encyclopedia of Arkansas Gamaliel (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep due to her passing GNG and her books being reviewed. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – due to the multiple obituaries on WP:RELIABLE cites. TLA (talk) 05:36, 16 January 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! 22:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saúl Lara (footballer)[edit]

Saúl Lara (footballer) (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)

Nobody deserves to die at 32 but this is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Page was made just after death and there is national coverage in very brief of the death of this footballer, [9] but it's actually quite common for a death of a young footballer to be a daily news story even if they're an amateur. [10] I don't see national coverage of his life or his legacy. This player does not even pass the very generous defunct WP:NFOOTY guideline as he only played as high as Spain's third division, and that was just for 22 games in two seasons a half-decade apart. [11] Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:06, 8 January 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! 22:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FaithLife Financial[edit]

FaithLife Financial (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 for 9 years; can't find much proving this company is notable in any way. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 20:40, 8 January 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! 22:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Genoa[edit]

Chris Genoa (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 doesn't appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Pennsylvania. Owen× ☎ 19:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cannot find any independent, reliable coverage on this author, only databases of his books. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. pinktoebeans (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No coverage in independent reliable sources. His novel Foop! is much closer to meeting the GNG with at least a couple of reviews that might be usable but it's borderline. The author, on the other hand, has no usable coverage and is a very clear delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:31, 15 January 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! 23:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Stranded (comics)[edit]

The Stranded (comics) (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 has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. It's borderlnie, buy I couldn't find the level of sources to demonstrate WP:N. Possible WP:ATDs are merge/redirect to Sci-Fi Channel (United States) or Virgin Comics, but it could unbalance those articles. Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 8 January 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. Nominator withdrawn. TLA (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My Best Friend Bob[edit]

My Best Friend Bob (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 appear to meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. There is a possible ATD of redirecting to Georgie Ripper, the author, but I am not sure if that is worth doing. Boleyn (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. "Brian and Bob: The Tale of Two Guinea Pigs". Kirkus Reviews. Vol. 71, no. 17. September 2003. p. 1130. EBSCOhost 10757170. Archived from the original on 2024-01-10. Retrieved 2024-01-10.

      The review notes: "An improbable tale, but a happily-ever-after one, so young readers will suspend their disbelief as they pull for the reunion of Ripper's guinea pig protagonists. Narrative and story architecture aren't Ripper's strong suits--left to them alone, she'd be wise to fold her hand--but she trumps readers with her winsome artwork: it's not easy to convincingly make a guinea pig scowl or to cross its arms in a huff, but it's visual magic when it works, and Ripper does it with aplomb."

    2. Merrett, Sarah (Autumn 2003). "My Best Friend Bob". School Librarian. Vol. 51, no. 3. p. 132. EBSCOhost 11008919.

      The abstract notes: "Reviews the book 'My Best Friend Bob,' by Georgie Ripper." I do not have access to the full review.

    3. Ward, Elizabeth (2003-09-14). "For Young Readers". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2024-01-10. Retrieved 2024-01-10.

      The review notes: "Brian & Bob: The Tale of Two Guinea Pigs, by Georgie Ripper (Hyperion, $15.99; ages 2-5). This soon-to-be classic is right up there with Anne Mazer's The Salamander Room (1991, but still in print), which also tweaks kids' hearts while teaching them about the things pets really need. Brian and Bob are two fat guinea pigs, with innocent dots for eyes, who lead a "nice, comfy" life together at Pete's Pet Palace. One day, Brian is sold, leaving Bob devastated; even peanuts can't console him. I hope it's not giving away too much of the plot to say that the double-page spread depicting the pair's ultimate reunion ("BRIAN!" "BOB!") is among the most heartwarming denouements to be found in recent children's literature. Guinea pigs, you see, are social animals and should never be bought or kept alone."

    4. Dow, Sally R. (December 2003). "Ripper, Georgie. Brian & Bob: the Tale of Two Guinea Pigs". School Library Journal. Vol. 49, no. 12. p. 124. Archived from the original on 2024-01-10. Retrieved 2024-01-10 – via Gale.

      The review notes: "Charming, whimsical illustrations in pen and watercolor capture the emotions of the two small, lifelike animals. Children will readily empathize with the characters and their situation."

    5. "Brian & Bob: The Tale of Two Guinea Pigs". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 250, no. 42. 2003-10-20. p. 52. EBSCOhost 11126960. Archived from the original on 2024-01-10. Retrieved 2024-01-10.

      The review notes: "Ripper's unadorned prose and pared-down watercolor compositions eloquently describe the joy of close friendship and the sorrow that comes from its loss."

    6. Salisbury, Martin (July 2003). "My Best Friend, Bob". Books for Keeps. No. 141. p. 19. Retrieved 2024-01-10.

      This book review is listed in Children's Book Review Index.

      The review notes: "The ensuing happy reunion concludes a book whose success is built on the totally convincing visual characterisation of the animals. Their facial expressions, gesture and movement are all spot on. The image of the dejected Brian, lying in his food bowl, idly flicking a peanut in the air, is a particular delight."

    7. Bell, Mae Woods (2003-11-23). "Books can thrill child at Christmas". Rocky Mount Telegram. Archived from the original on 2024-01-10. Retrieved 2024-01-10 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: ""Brian & Bob" (Hyperion) by prize-winning artist Georgie Ripper is a charmingly illustrated tale of two guinea pigs who live happily in Pete's Pet Store. Every day they do the things guinea pigs do, hanging around the food bowl and playing I Spy together. But one day Bob is adopted, and Brian is left all alone. Brian trundled off to find a peanut to cheer himself up. It doesn't help. Eventually Brian and Bob are reunited, playing I Spy and tossing a peanut. Brian falls fast asleep right in the middle of a game of I Spy. Little guinea pigs can't read this book, but this human wasn't able to resist this endearing little tale of friendship and Ripper's illustrations."

    8. Ross, Kathryn (2003-04-12). "Stories that bloom in the spring". The Scotsman. Archived from the original on 2024-01-10. Retrieved 2024-01-10.

      The review provides 94 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "My Best Friend, Bob (Macmillan Children's Books, €9.99) by new writer and illustrator, Georgie Ripper is a delight not to be missed by children, adults or guinea-pig owners. Brian and Bob are best friends. They share a cage in Pete's Pet Palace and do the things guinea pigs do best - eating, sleeping and playing "I Spy". Then one day Bob is taken away and Brian is inconsolable; life has no meaning without his friend. Luckily fate steps in and in a scene of unbridled joy Brian and Bob are reunited. A funny, heart-warming classic.'

    9. "Children's picture books". The Herald. 2003-05-03. Archived from the original on 2024-01-10. Retrieved 2024-01-10.

      The review notes: "Bob the guinea pig rarely wins I-spy games against his pal, the sleek Brian, at Pete's Pet Palace. But when Bob is sold, Brian pines. Each day he feels more miserable. Though typically blob-like, the guinea pigs have wonderfully expressive little paws. Illustrations and text combine powerfully to heighten anxiety as we wonder if the friends will meet again. The ending is suitably cathartic."

    10. Nowak, Susan (2003-05-28). "Georgie's fun children's books show she's made of write stuff". St Albans & Harpenden Review. Archived from the original on 2024-01-10. Retrieved 2024-01-10.

      The article notes: "This month the 25-year-old sees the publication of not one but eight books My Best Friend Bob, the book that actually won the prize, devised, written and illustrated by her ... My Best Friend Bob is a cosy tale of two little guinea pigs living happily together in Pete's Pet Palace until one of them is bought and the chums pine for each other. Naturally, it has a happy ending. But it is Georgie's gorgeous larger-than-life pictures that really make the book."

    11. Dowen, Rebecca (2004-03-23). "Pigs, bears, mice star in bedtime stories". The Noblesville Ledger. Archived from the original on 2024-01-10. Retrieved 2024-01-10 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: ""Brian and Bob: The Tale of Two Guinea Pigs" tells about two guinea pigs that live in a cozy cage at Pete's Pet Palace. Brian has short shiny hair and Bob has long unruly hair. One day while playing I Spy, a little boy comes into the store and brings along a cardboard box. He buys Bob and renames him Fluffy. After a couple of days, both guinea pigs become extremely depressed but they soon get together again. Children in first and second grades love this book. "Brian & Bob: The Tale of Two Guinea Pigs," written by Georgie Ripper, was published by Hyperion Books for Children. The suggested retail price is $15.99."

    12. Westmoore, Jean (2003-10-26). "NewBooks: Children's selections". The Buffalo News. Archived from the original on 2024-01-10. Retrieved 2024-01-10 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "Brian the guinea pig is desolate after his friend Bob is sold at the pet store in this endearing story of friendship by an English author-illustrator. The expressive illustrations bring to life the different personalities of Brian and Bob. (Ritter won the Macmillan Prize for Book Illustration for "Little Brown Bushrat.")"

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow My Best Friend Bob (also known as Brian & Bob: The Tale of Two Guinea Pigs) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:34, 10 January 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) 17:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SkyLink Aviation[edit]

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

The article does not show notability. It only has one reference to the companies own site which is dead. The only other reference to it I could see was Skylink Aviation Inc. Completes $200M Recapitalization Transaction (unclear date) and SkyLink Aviation recapitalises after failing debt repayments (dated 2013). All the external links are either dead or to the Waybackmachine. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:20, 8 January 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) 17:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 New Year pardons[edit]

2023 New Year pardons (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 relevant on its own. Apparently created as part of the agenda of User:Dentren, whose sockpuppet Guariflor is the author. Bedivere (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Seems notable and has a few references, could you elaborate?
Geardona (talk to me?) 17:16, 8 January 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 a keep. Other than the nominator, there was very strong consensus . TLA (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proprietary software[edit]

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

This article doesn't really seem to have a subject at all, let alone a notable one; 'proprietary software' is just, 'any software that isn't Free and Open Source', and the FOSS article already has a section comparing it to proprietary software. This article is really just 'The benefits of FOSS' but from the other direction.

It's also a sort of vague rambling essay about all the things that are wrong with 'proprietary software' structured like a Wikipedia article. We already have Commercial Software and Free and open-source software this article is trying to fill a gap between them that doesn't exist. JeffUK 16:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep,Redirect or Merge Not sure, but this article describes a somewhat common practice in the industry, although you are right it needs work.
Geardona (talk to me?) 17:19, 8 January 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 (a bit early per WP:SNOW). This and the prior AfD show that there is a clear consensus to keep this article at this time. Any future AfD nomination should clearly explain why the sources in the article are insufficient to establish notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Selin Köseoğlu[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Selin Köseoğlu (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 Atakhanli (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Artists. Atakhanli (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The reasons outlined in the previous deletion nomination, which was closed just a few weeks ago, still apply. @Atakhanli: did you have a chance to read the recent nomination (closed few weeks ago)? Acknowledging it in your nomination would be helpful and respectful of the community's time. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. The article has been nominated for deletion in the Turkish Wikipedia and the Azerbaijani Wikipedia. I saw that it was deleted in Turkish Wikipedia. It escaped my notice that it was previously submitted for deletion in the English Wikipedia. I am sorry. Atakhanli (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per previous Geardona (talk to me?) 17:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As with the previous - and very recent - AFD, the nominator has not bothered to explain why it is "not notable". Two-word nomination statements are so 2006. Moreover, Selin Köseoğlu being so non-notable is neither clear nor self-evident from looking at the article. Geschichte (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 19:28, 8 January 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) 17:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firebrand Boy[edit]

Firebrand Boy (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 to meet any notability guidelines. Violates policy on biographies of living persons because it contains original research. It is not suitable for an encyclopedia because it was written by them subject themself as a form of self-promotion Mellowmending (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your contribution to the discussion. Mellowmending (talk) 18:05, 14 January 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. and then Redirect to Leopard Capital Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Clayton[edit]

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


Apparent COI/PAID vanity page created to avoid the previous deleted article about the same subject Douglas W. Clayton (afd-deleted). Article doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG, contains brief third party mentions, with significant coverage only related to his firm, Leopard Capital and is highly promotional in content. The creator of this article has been blocked indefinitely for Promotional editing, undisclosed paid editing was also involved in the creation of a series of paid articles related to this firm including Kingdom Breweries (afd-deleted), Nautisco Seafood (afd-deleted), CamGSM (afd-no consensus). (See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Douglasclayton. Lethweimaster (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it looks like he's mainly notable for being CEO of Leopard Capital. Any other information is either uncited, based on passing mentions or unreliable sources, or wouldn't help him meet notability guidelines (like the fact that he's contributed op-eds to publications). BuySomeApples (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like a resumé written in a non-neutral tone.
Geardona (talk to me?) 17:24, 8 January 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) 17:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sugarmonkey[edit]

Sugarmonkey (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)

Some indications of significant coverage, but not backed up with actual sources. I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years now, so hopefully we can resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 15:49, 8 January 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 procedural close. Malformed nomination of talk page. Could be a G7 even. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Lynn Hoffman (author)[edit]

Talk:Lynn Hoffman (author) (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Lynn Hoffman (author)|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 WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Arguments for keeping it at the 2007 AfD were poor. Boleyn (talk) 15:46, 8 January 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) 15:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keren – Vocational Rehabilitation Centers in Israel[edit]

Keren – Vocational Rehabilitation Centers in Israel (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 founded solely for advertisement, as evident by the first author. There is no mention of this organization in reliable sources or news outlets. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Israel. Owen× ☎ 12:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the provided link is to a private law firm which has nothing to do with the public trust. The trust's name is "קרן למפעלי שיקום למוגבלים". I wasn't able to find how the trust calls itself in English, and there is no corresponding page on he-wiki, but "keren" only means foundation, fund or trust, so as a minimum, the page should be renamed. I was able to find this, which helps verify the content, but not establish notability. Owen× ☎ 14:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability and Health and fitness. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – wrong title and writeup, plus no references and target make an ATD irrelevant. gidonb (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The only provided external link is to a website apparently promoting medical malpractice lawyers "ambulance chasers". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gidonb. Marokwitz (talk) 06:47, 11 January 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! 17:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University Medical Complex-Karachi[edit]

University Medical Complex-Karachi (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)

Largely promotional and seems to be more of a blog of the project than an informative article. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (he|she|they) 19:14, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Recently created so soft-delete probably not ideal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:16, 8 January 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. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know or ask at WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ferns N Petals[edit]

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

Promotional piece, with very poor sourcing. This actually looks like something from a real newspaper, but there is no byline and it reads like a press release. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The byline is present, but easily missed. It is from a news agency called PTI. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824 that's not a byline. A byline gives the name of the journalist who wrote the piece. -- asilvering (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, of course. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag for promotion, Although it seems that the only available press coverage of this company is trivial, there is significant coverage in a number of text books.[1][2][3][4]

References

  1. ^ Rajagopal (2019). Competitive Branding Strategies: Managing Performance in Emerging Markets. Springer International Publishing. p. 54. ISBN 9783030249335.
  2. ^ Rajesh Jain (2023). Startup to Proficorn. Jaico Publishing House. pp. 59–61. ISBN 9788119153084.
  3. ^ Arun Kumar (2011). Marketing Management, 2nd Edition. Vikas Publishing House. p. 390. ISBN 9788125942597.
  4. ^ Ali Farazmand, ed. (2023). Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer International Publishing. p. 1366. ISBN 9783030662523.

SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 14:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article is clearly promotional and full of puffery. The coverage in textbooks as listed above appears to be trivial, as well as the press coverage. Redtree21 (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Source 3 is a RS, more of a description of the founder than the company, I'd use it for GNG. I can't find much else though... Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify – It’s WP:PROMOy with press releases. Text books might be interesting, could be WP:TOOSOON TLA (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Eisai_(company)#History – the sources brought up include mere passing mentions, which don’t meet WP:SIGCOV. TLA (talk) 07:23, 14 January 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! 18:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taar-e-Ankaboot[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG, tagged for notability since 2022.

A redirect after a PROD was reverted DonaldD23 talk to me 13:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak keep well known dramathat passes notability. Creater needs to work on it. Skt34 (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC) Editor blocked for sockpuppetry. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:39, 20 December 2023 (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 14:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I find refs to a 1960 Iranian film of the same name, but nothing for this. Mccapra (talk) 13:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a controversial show based on a taboo topic as I still remember a lot of speculation was made regarding the serial back than. Referencing seems fine to me and should be kept.182.182.19.93 (talk) 20:28, 1 January 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, Daniel (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Several of the sources cited in the article make no reference to the film whatsoever, leaving only trivial mentions of the film on several websites. Redtree21 (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources do not hit the three needed points of RS, IS, and SIGCOV. UtherSRG (talk) 15:45, 8 January 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 without prejudice to a move to a better title. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Ibrahim Jassam[edit]

Ibrahim Jassam (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 biography article needs more facts of this person's life and career in addition to this single incident. More information is needed via in-depth sources to establish notability. After searching, found social media websites and coverage of this article's events, but unable to find sources with significant coverage about the person. Article was created on 13 May 2009. JoeNMLC (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jassam's imprisonment was covered from 2008 through his release in 2010, which the U.S military admitted in a statement only happened due to a negotiated withdrawal of U.S. troops from the area. (I've been reading a lot of articles. I have at least 20 open right now, and I closed the one on the acceptance speech that mentioned multiple imprisoned journalists as well as a couple that copied the LA Times. Syndication, I think.)
Even with a date-targeted Google search I couldn't find anything other than the information on his arrest. However, I'm in the U.S., so it's possible that someone in the Middle East would have better luck.
Anything returned with this name prior to 2008 was about another person (not a photographer or journalist). OIM20 (talk) 02:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/rename. I expanded this article using all the resources I could find. I don't think the solution suggested by @OIM20 would work, even though it is a good idea, because the article suggested as a merge target has only overall details and not specifics. On notability, I think this case is significant because it was the first time US forces refused to comply with a decision by an Iraqi court, at least on civilian cases, during the US invasion of Iraq. I'm trying to find more WP:RS sources to establish this. What I would suggest is that the article be renamed to Arrest of Ibrahim Jassam because there are more details for the event than for the person. Also, I think this article could serve as an umbrella article for smaller but similar cases like those of Ali al Mashaddani and Bilal Hussein, which I'm trying to incorporate under a similar cases heading. Matarisvan (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and let Matarisvan continue their work. There clearly is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources over several years so likely meets WP:NEVENT. I support renaming the article. ~Kvng (talk) 17:13, 1 January 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, Daniel (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Seems ok, his detention is more notable than his works, but the sourcing supports notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 8 January 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) NotAGenious (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Hampton (writer)[edit]

Ryan Hampton (writer) (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)

Nominated by Oiyarbepsy with the following rationale (see request):

I've reviewed the sources listed and they are all either passing mentions, short quotes from Hampton, or the work of Hampton himself. He does not appear to meet the notability requirements. I'll add that enough sockpuppets have attempted to create articles on this person that his name made it to the title creation blacklist. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/New baba/Archive for one of the sockpuppet investigation pages.

This is a procedural nomination; I am neutral. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Just from a quick glance for some sources, I'm finding plenty that cover his life and activities spanning years in multiple forms of publications, including the adaptation of one of his books into a TV series.
And that was just from a quick database search and Google search. So there's likely more to find for anyone who wants to dig deeper. SilverserenC 06:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep sources are not entirely about the subject, but they have enough coverage to just get it over the notability "edge". Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ones given above are ok, I'd rather these than what's used in the article to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 1 January 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, Daniel (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Sources listed in this discussion suffice. Please update the article accordingly. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well-published notable author and noted activist. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:30, 14 January 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 Cantate!. (non-admin closure) NotAGenious (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zion, auf, werde licht[edit]

Zion, auf, werde licht (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 found of any notability, the sources given are passing mentions or not independent, and no sources seem to have given indepth attention to this hymn. Fram (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is - unlike many of Bone's songs - one that is still in a current prominent hymnal, and gets sung. I'd simply say let's redirect it to Cantate! if it had not been set by composers, see DNB. I'll try to find more sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cantate! as per comment by Gerda Arendt. The article appears not to meet notability criteria at WP:NSONG - I cannot find any sources of which the song is the primary subject, most web results are simply the song's lyrics. If more sources can be found, the article could be kept, though. Redtree21 (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect hard to source per Redtree21, but Gerda Arendt is right, it is still prominent enough to be kept FortunateSons (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cantate! per the above. It might be worth merging a line, but not more. Unless someone can find more or better sources than are in the article at the moment (I couldn't) there aren't enough to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:51, 15 January 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. While the !votes since the relist don't do much to provide further analysis of the sources, the absence of any rebuttal in favor of deletion since the expansion of the article with additional sources two weeks ago makes the outcome clear. signed, Rosguill talk 14:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Spence (entrepreneur)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
John Spence (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)

Fails the general and biography-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. UtherSRG (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The person has sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources, including print media such as magazines and books, to meet the GNG criteria. Additionally, some non-routine awards also contribute to the subject's general notability --Moem-Meom (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources 6 and 19 are the only ones that are green per sourcetool. His company investing money and a profile in Indian media aren't really what notability is here... Rest don't appear to help much either. I can't find mentions of this person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've expanded the page with reliable and independent not-routine (focused on the subject of that page) sources and now the article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. Besides good coverage in such respected publications like Business News (Australia), Fortune India, Entrepreneur (magazine), The Economic Times and some Indonesia tourism/leisure magazines, I added 4 sources with significant coverage of the person from The West Australian - I accessed them via Google cache so no "paywall" issues anymore. These sources are from 2010, 2012, 2015, and 2023, showing a clear sign of a reliable media interest over a long period, as required by Wikipedia. And I added 1 piece from City A.M., a nice detailed storytelling on he subject. Briefly speaking, the coverage in The West Australian and City A.M. alone is sufficient to pass the problem with reliable sources, as I found 5 new sources with in-depth coverage. Of course, without reaching that content, the page appears under-referenced; however, coverage in magazines and other media, including Yale University, are almost enough. Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the page, which now includes multiple new reliable sources added after the AfD began, clearly meets the criteria of WP:Basic. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

  • Keep per good deep press (third-party) coverage in Australian and some other print&online media. Thus it meets ANYBIO or general notability requirements. --FightBrightTigh (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of newly added sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment noticed and read new additions from The West Australian newspaper focused entirely on the person. It should be enough to keep it. Moem-Meom (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Addition of new sources help clearly support this for WP:GNG. TLA (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as newly added sources prove WP:NEXIST as there were already reliable sources but not in the article. Also easily meets WP:Basic and GNG. 185.104.138.35 (talk) 04:46, 16 January 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. While a minority of participants maintain that GNG has not been met and that the article should thus be merged into an article about its parent district, a clear majority of editors are satisfied by the extent of coverage found and/or find it to be highly indicative of the existence of further usable coverage. signed, Rosguill talk 14:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maudrie M. Walton Elementary School[edit]

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

We don't typically keep elementary schools and the sources listed seem to be WP:ROUTINE in nature pbp 20:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:ROUTINE's definition of "routine" is: "Common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out". It is not every day when PBS, a national US TV channel, makes the school a star of a documentary on school improvement (the other RS is also tied to the school being covered in a documentary). WhisperToMe (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there may well be something here. But the existing sources are primary so a secondary source about this is required to demonstrate notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: They are not primary sources. They are secondary: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary,_secondary_and_tertiary_sources states: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."
Both newspaper articles are written by journalists affiliated with a newspaper (Matt Frazier, a Star-Telegram staff writer, and Lori Elmore-Moon, a special features writer of the same newspaper.). That makes them secondary, not primary sources.
WhisperToMe (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are primary sources. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. They are both reports about the PBS show. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the page states: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community" so it would be best to have that happen soon.
Anyhow, the page states: "A newspaper article is a primary source if it reports events, but a secondary source if it analyses and comments on those events." Therefore we can check each article to see if there is some kind of analysis and/or commentary.
  • Source #1 by Frazier: "The documentary has already been broadcast in other markets, and Walton has received congratulatory[...]" and the same source also cites TEA data. Frazier did not only report on what the documentary and people from the school said, but also brought in analysis from other sources.
  • Source #2 by Elmore-Moon: "Kemp played a prominent role in the one-hour documentary" which is analysis on part of Elmore-Moon.
Additionally, note this article is actually about a school, and not the documentary itself! (the documentary has its own article at A Tale of Two Schools). Elmore-Moon makes it clear that A Take of Two Schools itself compares and contrasts the two schools it is about.
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lakota_Tech_High_School is an example of an article that has news articles with sufficient analysis to show notability
WhisperToMe (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
High schools are usually kept and elementary schools are usually deleted, tho pbp 04:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PRIMARYNEWS is an explanatory essay, but the point is made in the policy page on OR too, see WP:PRIMARY and particularly follow note d. But it is not just Wikipedia saying this. Newspaper articles are generally primary sources. That is the settled historiographic view. It is how such sources are treated in academia. And note that just a reading of PRIMARYNEWS again indicates that even if you dice these as editorials, they remain primary. The sources are primary. What secondary sources exist about this school?
But to pbp I would point out that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES has changed although the change is taking a long time to be recognised. Any school must essentially pass the WP:GNG. None are presumed notable but elementary schools can certainly be kept if they are shown to pass GNG. However, if the only sources presented to demonstrate that notability are two primary sources, I'll be !voting delete or redirect per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the change in SCHOOLOUTCOMES, as per AFD, newspapers are treated as secondary: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hardin_High_School_(Texas) is one example of an AFD outcome. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houston Blue (there were academic book reviews, but the newspaper coverage was not discounted) is another. And the nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benbrook Middle-High School was withdrawn because of the newspaper coverage I found (which linked the building of the new school to the Benbrook community being dissatisfied with previous schooling options, so yes, these newspaper articles have analysis!). These Wikipedia outcomes say they are secondary. Wikipedia is saying this. But not only is it saying this, but Wikipedia must do this to survive. Here's why:
Regardless of whether academics technically, technically treat newspaper articles (that have analysis and explanation) as primary, it is important to note this is a general audiences encyclopedia in which many editors are not immersed in academia. Editing (in most cases) should not be too difficult for, say, the working class ordinary homemaker or a farmer, who are not schooled in academia extensively, to contribute reasonably to a field of interest. Trying to impose high level academia standards will drive away ordinary editors and leave many topics of common interest without a viable path to notability (newspapers are extensively used in notability discussions).
There is a reason Nupedia failed and it heeds to remember why.
WhisperToMe (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that participants in another AfD failed to challenge obvious primary sources tells us nothing about Wikipedia policy. The rest of the argument here is not grounded on policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What_about_article_x.3F states: "If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." Precedent matters, and the cases I cited are similar cases.
Also academia is not the be all, end all of every case, as User:Jimbo Wales has made clear in this dispute about Hugo Chavez: Talk:Hugo_Chávez/Archive_26#Chavez and food (he felt that the article overall did not have a proper reflection of the issues; some editors heavily relying on academia wrote sections that missed other key aspects). What did Jimbo cite as his rebuttal to the academia sourcing? The answer: Newspapers and magazines.
  • I quote Jimbo: "But it is also perfectly fine and often absolutely necessary to use reliable newspapers and magazines as sources. Bill Clinton came to power nearly 18 years ago, and our article has 210 references, the vast majority of which are from reliable newspapers and magazines." (and Wikipedia instructs editors to rely on secondary sources, and so implicitly they are being treated as secondary here)
There are cases like ancient history, aviation science, medicine (especially!), global warming, etc. in which academia does need to be weighted higher, but newspaper articles (so long as they have a level of analysis/explanation, and so long as it is not ROUTINE) are clearly sufficient sourcing and counted as secondary for Wikipedia purposes for school-related articles.
WhisperToMe (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nom comment: If the argument is that the school might be notable because of the documentary, shouldn't the school just be redirected to the documentary? Again, let me note that elementary schools rarely, if ever, survive AfD. pbp 04:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools a non-notable American public school is to redirect to its school district. The reason why I figured this particular school would be an exception was Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pershing_Middle_School_(Houston): an education writer featured Pershing's program in a book, and the coverage in the book was enough for Pershing to have its own Wikipedia article. Similarly, I figured the coverage of Walton in a PBS documentary for its particular program would give it notability for its own article. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (ETA - see below) - My searches have turned up no secondary sources that have significant coverage and are reliable and independent. This page therefore does not meet WP:GNG. There are two primary sources in the article (per discussion above), but these don't establish notability. There are many pages showing in searches, but these are directories, or the school's own materials (not independent). Book searches drew a blank (a couple of trivial mentions but these in directories in any case). No papers either. I am a lttle surprised that a school that was subject to a PBS dcoumentary has no other sourcing but I have found none and the conversation above has turned into something meta, rather than a search for secondary sources. I conclude none will be found. Scholar searches are impacted by the existence of Maudrie M. Walton, an educationalist, who does yield hits, e.g., [12] but not about the school. As this does not meet GNG, there should not be a page, because ultimately there isn't much that can be said about this school. However an ATD is possible, and redirects have been mooted to the school district or to the PBS documentary. I would support a redirect if there were consensus as to where that should point to. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - being one of two subject schools of an entire documentary from a highly reliable source like PBS is more than enough to show notability. The news clips that have been recently added are just icing on the cake. I really don't understand why there is a question. The delete !votes just seem to be trying to uphold the generality that elementary schools aren't notable. Generally they aren't. Particularly this one is. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Noticeable school, per the documentary coverage mentioned above. — Maile (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Thanks, Maile, for adding new text and two sources to the page. These too are primary sources (a news report and a release about a book drive), so the article continues to lack any secondary sources at all. Has anyone found any? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I absolutely do not understand your contention that the PBS documentary is not a secondary source. A news report is primary generally as it is only made up of first person observation of an event or thing. A documentary is the video equivalent of a book. It includes both first person observation of the subject, and numerous secondary interviews with experts on the subject and the producer's conclusions about all of it. By your rather unique understanding of what makes a secondary source, I guess I need an example of what would be a secondary source. In my mind, and I don't think I'm alone, having a documentary in which this school is one of two schools the author of the documentary used to prove his thesis is a better showing of notability than the majority of articles on Wikipedia have. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is not about the documentary itself, it is about the newspapers, which are primary sources. For some reason we have not cited the documentary itself, nor considered it as a source. We could treat it as a secondary source, although I note that the interviews within it may constitute primary sources, and also not meet the independence criterion. Nevertheless, in general I would be happy to accept the documentary itself as one secondary source. We need multiple secondary sources to meet GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that a documentary is a secondary source, so I suspect this school may be notable. However, this article is quite short, and I notice that the school board's article does not have much information, and this school gets lost there in a long list of schools. For those arguing keep, I wonder if you might consider a redirect and merge up to the school board's article? This seems like a better option than a short standalone on the school - just as easy to find by search, but additionally more discoverable on the school board's article. -- asilvering (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional input on the later suggestions would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep - The school is notable due to the PBS Documentary. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Fort Worth Independent School District per Asilvering's suggestion. I have struck my delete vote in favour of this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this source is good coverage demonstrating notability for the school. All other references are weak, but where there is one, there should be more. The article should be expanded to cover the full history of the school and neighborhood. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep coverage is definitely a step above routine, but I am not sure how much being chosen for a documentary weighs on the notability scale. In any event should be a redirect to Fort Worth Independent School District if not kept as an independent article. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – it seems rare that a WP:VERIFIED educational institution is deleted (WP:Notability_(high_schools), though this is not a high school). Sources above present > WP:ROUTINE. TLA (talk) 05:49, 16 January 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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salva Marjan[edit]

Salva Marjan (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 to meet any notability guidelines, also full of wrong information. H4MCHTR (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – there are two examples of seemingly independent coverage among the sources... They read like paid promotion. A 23-year-old with one weekend of entry-level single-seater experience (Indian F4, where she DNQ'd) is neither notable nor a "professional athlete". Article is very short, poorly written and full of lies. No apparent WP:POTENTIAL. Slam-dunk delete. MSport1005 (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/drafty -- This riser is a female Formula 1 driver[13][14][15] and a female motivator.Women are rare in the more male dominated field of racing, specially in India.This is not a reason to retain an article, but as a motor sports delate she participated in a notable event 2023 F4 Indian Championship in his career and became a champion at the state level- Will this pass WP:NMOTORSPORT ? Or Or if it's a future pass then keep it as a draft and move it to main space if it comes to policy pass later.Owner of magical cat 🐈 (talk) 9:26, 08 January 2024 (UTC)
Participation in a single round of an F4 series is far from notable. There is no source for the state-level championship, and even if there were, that does not automatically qualify the driver for an article. Please revisit the page for the WP:NMOTORSPORT guideline you are referring to and take note that this driver is extremely far from qualifying for any of the guideline's points - now and in the foreseeable future. H4MCHTR (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Spworld2: She is not a Formula 1 driver; she is in Indian F4, which is several steps down the F1 ladder. Racing in F4 doesn't confer notability on a driver – please familiarise yourself with WP:NMOTORSPORT. There's nothing in the article that's worth preserving, it's extremely short and poorly redacted. On top of that her results don't suggest any sort of WP:POTENTIAL, so draftifying is futile. MSport1005 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per the arguments of H4MCHTR and MSport1005 she is not notable and won't be in the near future. Formula Downforce (talk) 19:29, 8 January 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! 08:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zimuto Siding[edit]

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

Per WP:NTRAINSTATION, train stations have no inherent notability, and Zimuto is a passing siding or passing loop, not even a station. Apart from coordinates and an unsourced statement as to why this location was selected in the steam era, most of the article is about Masvingo province in general or even Zimbabwe in general. The material on Chief Zimuto could go to a page about that chieftainship, if sources are found. Nothing to do with the railway though. Babakathy (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:Geoland is very clear that train stations are not inherently notable, They must clearly satisfy WP:N to have an article.James.folsom (talk) 01:01, 9 January 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. Liz Read! Talk! 08:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Sleeper[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Samantha Sleeper (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)

American fashion designer that does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Created by WP:SPA, references in the article as well as in my BEFORE fail WP:SIGCOV and are of borderline reliability at best (some are press releases or obvious rewrites of this type of sourcing). Ps. I note no consensus AfD in 2016. The article has not improved since and per my BEFORE, there is nothing to improve this with. As our standards improve, this seems below what we consider acceptable in 2023 when it comes for living people. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:43, 8 January 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! 07:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Rojas (weatherman)[edit]

Ariel Rojas (weatherman) (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:NBIO/WP:NJOURNALIST, might be WP:TOOSOON for an article. No widespread coverage; there appears to be two ([16] [17]) independent and reliable sources that talk about Rojas directly, but the rest are written by those working in the same news agency as Rojas, so I don't count those as "independent". Chlod (say hi!) 07:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found a third source: [18], but doesn't go into detail about Rojas himself. Chlod (say hi!) 07:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, the Bandera article isn't SIGCOV, and mostly focuses on controversy related to Kim Atienza instead. Rojas is mentioned here because he replaced Atienza as ABS-CBN's weatherman when Atienza left the agency. As for Filipino sources, I was unable to find any except the Bandera one. Again, some sources from ABS-CBN (but mostly describing his job rather than himself), but they're all either written by Rojas or his co-workers. Chlod (say hi!) 02:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO per nom. Nothing much found in my WP:BEFORE aside from the Bandera article presented by Red-tailed Hawk. SBKSPP (talk) 23:55, 12 January 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! 07:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S. R. Jangid[edit]

AfDs for this article:
S. R. Jangid (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 general, Wikipedia does not regard an IPS officer as notable unless they have accomplished a significant national or worldwide milestone. Most of the news are old. Nothing found new to meet WP:SIGCOV since its last afd. Macbeejack ☎ 07:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

President’s Medal for Jangid 2409:4085:3D88:1697:220E:BA8C:F9DC:2F78 (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jangid has received the President's Award. And has held the highest post of DGP of the state police. And Bavaria Gang was investigated under his leadership. On which two films have already been made and news has been covered in many major newspapers. 2409:4085:3E8E:B6A4:1167:8681:9F97:F03E (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia does not regard an IPS officer as notable unless they have accomplished a significant national or worldwide milestone. That would be heading a state police force 112,000 strong! Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NBASIC. The individual has received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events. These include things related to his job (like his retirement, his public statements, a time he got sued, being involved in a gang takedown), but also things like earning his doctorate. And, his actions in Operation Bawaria are apparently the inspiration for the plot in Theeran Adhigaaram Ondru, which is well-attested to by sources. My only lingering concern would be WP:BLP1E, but I don't think he meets either the first criterion (he does have some coverage outside of the Bawaria saga) or the second criterion (he was certainly high-profile in his role as head of police), so I'm comfortable supporting a keep here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that the prior AFD was closed as Delete, I'm relisting this discussion to give it a little more time to reconcile the previous evaluation from editors' views in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't delete please please - Someone ruined the article previously. So it was made into a draft, then is under construction. Previous records speaks that whenever i see article about S. R. Jangid was viewed by 30000-50000 viewers for 30 days.
2409:4085:3D83:91:F7B1:95CC:9EB6:75A8 (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does not look like a BLP1E to me. I am seeing continuing coverage not just a single burst around one claim to fame. In particular, [19] and [20] have coverage not related to Operation Bawaria. Some of the sources have limited coverage but I think there is enough to meet WP:GNG and searching in local languages would probably bring up even more. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:40, 15 January 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! 07:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive communication[edit]

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

The concept may be notable, but what we have is an unreferenced OR mess in needs of WP:TNT (footnote to dead site that doesn't look very reliable, two ELs that are no better). BEFORE as noted shows that this term is used but in various different contexts, and what we have here is just terrible (including a section on "History of interactivity", which is NOT the topic of this article). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: this reads like OR about a poorly sourced neologism. Owen× ☎ 23:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This goes beyond "broad concept article" and into the realm of blending together things that vaguely sound related. Draftification would just be delayed deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 17:23, 8 January 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. North America1000 06:07, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After Midnight (2014 film)[edit]

After Midnight (2014 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found nothing suitable or reliable enough to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While leaning keep at this stage, relisting to allow further review of the sources added during this debate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the added sources. Toughpigs (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see three usable reviews (two in the sources and one in the See Also) and a fair amount a routine coverage. That's sufficient for a film of this caliber. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:45, 15 January 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 Growth of photovoltaics. Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of photovoltaic growth[edit]

History of photovoltaic growth (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 was apparently the "unnecessarily detailed statistics" version of Growth of photovoltaics until people stopped updating it ten years ago. All of the prose and analysis a reader would actually want to read already exists (in updated form) at that article. Wizmut (talk) 05:32, 8 January 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 Communist Party of Australia. Article was converted to a redirect as a normal editing action, making a full AfD unnecessary (although one may be warranted in the future if it is expanded back into an article or the redirecting is reverted). jp×g🗯️ 19:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Communist Party[edit]

Australian Communist Party (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 notability and relies almost entirely on primary sources. Very few secondary sources can be found online. AndreyKva (talk) 05:07, 8 January 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. Two votes for keep after nearly two weeks. (non-admin closure). TLA (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jubilee Media[edit]

Jubilee Media (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 company fails WP:NCORP. CNBC source is mostly about the founder. Tubefilter source is a funding announcement, an interview, and a questionable RS at best. ~ A412 talk! 04:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tubefilter is a good source for YouTube-related content and has a significant usage in that area. The source is clear SIGCOV. CNBC source is mainly about the founder, but it also gives SIGCOV to Jubilee to an extent (after all, Jason is only known for funding Jubilee). There is also SIGCOV in Business Insider and NYT. Skyshiftertalk 05:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Tubefiller and CNBC sources each contribute to the subject meeting the WP:NCORP. NYT article is also usable for notability as well. Let'srun (talk) 21:54, 8 January 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katsiaryna Shumak[edit]

Katsiaryna Shumak (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 available SIGCOV to be found other than databases. Never won a medal nor scored a record. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Belarus. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, thank you for nominating the article because it gives us a chance to improve it. I added a reference of her hometown and location, and I added an infobox showing her Belarusian Athletics Championships results (where she is a multiple-time medalist). Looking up her native name seems to show coverage in Russian language sources. --Habst (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you specify which sources? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And finding her hometown isn't something that could prove notability in itself. You need to be finding SIGCOV which describes that the subject has enduring significance to be on this encyclopedia. If you can't find coverage from significant independent sources (not databases) which describe her notability (and don't just mention her in passing), you should consider changing your opinion to Delete or Draftify. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I found several non-database sources that discuss Shumak's results and added some to the article. I have discovered that Екатерина Шумак is actually the Russian name for Shumak, and not her native Belarusian name (that language uses different characters). So the sources that I found were in Russian discussing her, which is not where you would expect to find the most detailed coverage of someone not from that country. Do you know how we could request the assistance of a Belarusian Wikipedia user to get her Belarusian language name? --Habst (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Brestcity source mentions her in passing. Same with bfla.eu source. And telegraf.news source. All three new sources mention her in passing. This is not SIGCOV. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:42, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @InvadingInvader, thank you for responding. I would not expect to find any coverage of her under that name, because my understanding is it is not in her native language. Do you know if there is a way to find her Belarusian name, or if you can assist in finding that? It is encouraging that there are at least mentions in so many sources under a name that I understand isn't even her primary one. --Habst (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Copy and paste the name – and do Control/Command F. That's what I did. And I only got one match each in all three sources that you found. Textbook passing mention, and not SIGCOV. Any other SIGCOV you can find? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @InvadingInvader, thank you for responding. As I understand, the name Екатерина Шумак isn't actually her native name, it is just the Russian version that I originally found at ru:Шумак, Екатерина Михайловна. I am reading that the Belarusian language has different characters than Russian, and the subject would have a different name in her native language. Limiting our search to only Russian-language articles and ruling out Belarusian-language would not be a complete search. But to do that, we need to find Shumak's Belarusian name, do you know how we can do that or if you can assist? --Habst (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I think there are some problems with the Control-F approach, namely that it would not find mentions of only her last name or references to her by using pronouns like "her" (in the respective language). Not applying that to this case specifically, but I am just pointing out the caution we need to take with foreign language sources. --Habst (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you do it by last name in those three sources, I didn't get additional hits. I have no idea how to get her name, and I cannot honor finding her by her name until we have it. I will treat it as a false claim. Even after google searches with the Cyrillic name, can't find any true SIGCOV. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No SIGCOV in either Russian or Belarusian Cyrillic. I searched "Кацярына Шумак", the spelling used by the BFLA (the governing sporting org), and didn't even get a full page of hits.
JoelleJay (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thank you for finding that, it is very helpful. Based on that name, I found this other Wikipedia article which is about the same person, but the Wikidata item was erroneously not linked, so I fixed that and merged them. I found some more Belarusian sources using that name (some with the reverse order, it seems that sometimes surname-given name order is used in Russian/Belarusian), so now we do have a few solid sentences dedicated about the subject. --Habst (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a passing mention in a university press release and her name in a couple lists of competitors, not a single one of those is anywhere close to SIGCOV. Can you please refrain from alerting us to new sources unless they are actually substantial non-routine secondary independent coverage? 15,000 trivial mentions is still equivalent to 0 SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No WP:SIGCOV found for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. BLPs require more rigorous sourcing than is present here. Let'srun (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. BEFORE found stats, nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if ASIGCOV sources are found.  // Timothy :: talk  20:21, 15 January 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. North America1000 06:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kaley[edit]

Sean Kaley (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)

Unable to find SIGCOV - potentially seems to be confused with an Arkansas athlete of the same name. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Canada. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; seems to be significant coverage in Canadian newspapers, from which it appears he studied microbiology at the University of Arkansas, so is the same person. wjematherplease leave a message... 05:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, thank you for nominating the article because it motivates us to improve it. potentially seems to be confused with an Arkansas athlete of the same name -- I added an article source that confirms that Sean Kaley of Arkansas and Sean Kaley the Olympian are the same person, because it mentions his World XC results representing Canada. It is very common for athletes with dual citizenship (or sometimes foreign nationals) to go to university in America and compete in the NCAA system, but represent their native countries at the Olympics because it is easier to qualify for the Canadian team than the American team. With that association out of the way, there are many WP:GNG sources covering Kaley from his time at Arkansas, it seems like this AfD was created in error thinking that they are not the same person. --Habst (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 17:21, 8 January 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. North America1000 05:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Joel Rodriguez[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albania, Poland, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Short nomination statement here, but even if there are articles about the guy, the subject has not demonstrably done anything of note, failing WP:SPORTCRIT and rendering the coverage that may exist not significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's decently curious to ask how a Hispanic American wound up playing football in Albania at age 23, but his whole recorded career is under a minute. (see only source) Looks like this page was made to scrape the last atom of the barrel of WP:NFOOTY, it's hard to imagine a tighter pass over its threshold. Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's a source from the LA Times which explains that question nobody else was asking, but again it's just routine transfer coverage. [26] Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently the people of Albania care enough about him to want to know about his girlfriend (NSFW, arse shot) [27] but that's not notable in our books. Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Comprehensive WP:GNG failure. Jogurney (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - right now this is just sport stat catalogue entry with no indication of subject's existence outside them (no media coverage, etc.). Wikidata entry will suffice for now (WP:TOOSOON?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete interesting career but doesn't seem notable enough Marcelus (talk) 10:09, 12 January 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. North America1000 05:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Jassal[edit]

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

Fails GNG and not passes NPOL as unsuccessful candidate. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 03:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NPOL. For GNG, only the BBC article really focuses on Samir at any depth, so I wouldn't call the coverage significant. YordleSquire (talk) 02:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Passing mentions. BBC is barely WP:SIGCOV. TLA (talk) 02:57, 14 January 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) Schminnte [talk to me] 17:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henry S. Wingate[edit]

Henry S. Wingate (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 extensive coverage of Wingate and being CEO of International Nickel Company does not meanWP:INHERIT. A before search yield significant primary sources/correspondences regarding the company but not about him ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More specific analysis of the depth to which sources cover this person may be helpful in reaching a consensus as to his notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Acknowledging that it does not mean WP:INHERIT, NYT obituary is nice. There are partial notability supplements. Being on the cover of Forbes definitely meets something, and Harvard Business School regards Wingate as a top leader in the 20th century. Additionally, aren't the requirements for deceased people slightly looser than living people? TLA (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - The Harvard Business School entry seems like a usable source, and the 1967 Forbes cover feature almost certainly has SIGCOV in the actual article even if we can't access it at this moment. It seems quite likely that further offline sources exist given that the subject died in 1982. signed, Rosguill talk 14:34, 16 January 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Staten Island Economic Development Corporation[edit]

Staten Island Economic Development Corporation (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)

One reference to their own website. Seems to have a lot of mentions in articles, but none go into detail. Don't know what their relation is with New York City Economic Development Corporation, if any. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 02:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - Lots of local coverage at silive.com, and some regional/national coverage of their projects (which I think is the crux of their notability -- the Skyway, tram, and other big infrastructural/redevelopment projects seem to get attention). It's not a slam dunk, though, and the water is muddied with a lot of local promotional events ("nominate an important local businessperson!" type stuff), but there's likely enough to squeak by GNG. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't seem to be much in depth coverage about the organization itself and as such the subject fails WP:NCORP. Let'srun (talk) 14:17, 2 January 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, Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Seems to have sufficient sources, though there is room for improvement. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:43, 8 January 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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solar power in Azerbaijan[edit]

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

There is only one solar plant of note in Azerbaijan per RS[28]. An entire article devoted to "solar power in Azerbaijan" gives outsized importance to the subject and may mislead readers that this petrostate is a major producer of renewable energy. If there is any content worth keeping, it can be merged with Renewable energy in Azerbaijan. Thenightaway (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Economics, Environment, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable subject, author likely a COI SPA, part of a massive flooding of recent Azerbaijan related articles, most now in AfD. Owen× ☎ 00:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Turkishturan Can you tell us whether you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest please. If you do not have a COI do you think this article should be kept and if so why? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Actually, there are several solar power plants in Azerbaijan right now, for example in Pirallahi. The names of the solar plants are true and can be tranfered to "Renewable energy in Azerbaijan" article. But the subject itself fails WP:GNG and almost the entire article is about "solar radiation in Azerbaijan". --Surə 🗯 18:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have excerpted to that article Chidgk1 (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand your point but if we delete it now we will only have to recreate it again in a couple of years time. I have no conflict of interest and am willing to improve the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thenightaway If you nominate articles for deletion often please consider using Wikipedia:Twinkle as that should automatically notify the creator of the article Chidgk1 (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I both agree that it's doomed to be a stub for a while until Azerbaijan does more with solar, but it's also likely that they will eventually. Although I would guess ten years and not two years. Keeping or deleting depends on if preemptive creates like these are setting a good example or a bad example.
Wizmut (talk) 05:47, 8 January 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 Boxing at the 1904 Summer Olympics. Sandstein 11:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing at the 1904 Summer Olympics – Middleweight[edit]

Boxing at the 1904 Summer Olympics – Middleweight (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 topic does not meet standalone notability. It would be better to delete it per WP:NOT or to merge it to Boxing at the 1904 Summer Olympics as an alternative to deletion. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Olympics. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the moment, at least. There is a long-standing consensus from years back (around 18 years, to be exact, when this was created) that having all the results simply make the main Olympics page too long and thus an editorial decision was made to split them all into individual event articles. These have been regarded as acceptable for the past 18 years and every event in Olympic history has one; a wider discussion should take place to determine whether these are inappropriate, rather than a single AFD which I honestly don't think would be a sufficient consensus level to overturn such a long-standing and wide-spread practice. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Question unrelated. If the consensus is changed how do people perform such rearrangement cleanly बिनोद थारू (talk) 02:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if the consensus has changed to that these thousands (tens of thousands?) of event articles are inappropriate, well, then we'd have quite the cleanup project on our hands... Now, before we try to bulldoze through these I think that first, a wider discussion should be held (maybe at some part of the village pump or WT:SPORTS?) as to (1) whether they're appropriate and (2) what to do if they're not appropriate. Merging to a main event article would probably be best if these splits are deemed inappropriate; however, this has not been determined yet, hence my "keep" !vote. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Boxing, United States of America, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge without prejudice for other pages similar to it, simply because it's the only sensible thing to do. Add a fifth column at Boxing at the 1904 Summer Olympics, detailing the competition in prose. Geschichte (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Boxing at the 1904 Summer Olympics: Don't agree that this should be procedurally kept, and never agree with the constant WP:OSE arguments from BF11. As it stands, this subject does not meet the GNG on its own and as such is better covered as part of the article about the boxing competitions at these games. User:Let'srun 14:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per BeanieFan11. As much as it may seem unremarkable from today's perspective, it is an Olympic event from the beginning of the 20th century. The context for the time and relevance must be considered in this case. Svartner (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Svartner: I proposed a merge and no context or information is lost through a merge. It's not that it is unremarkable either, it's just that there was no competition leading up to the gold/silver medal match. From Boxing at the 1904 Summer Olympics, the events are linked as "Details", but there are no details here that couldn't fit into the table at Boxing at the 1904 Summer Olympics, either with a fifth column or an extra row. Geschichte (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand better, if it's not going to change the basis of the information, I endorse it for merge. Svartner (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge given the small amount of content and limited sources (I didn't find anything better than the one cited in the article in a quick search) a merge makes sense. May not be needed for other years with more bouts or easier to find coverage. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:20, 15 January 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. North America1000 05:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Brown (lecturer)[edit]

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

It's difficult to check because there appear to be several financial advisors named Peter Brown, but this one doesn't appear to be sourced well enough for WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - WP:PROMO, Peter Brown is not a "lecturer". He's one of the Baggot Investment Partners. Some of the sources are dead, but one is a podcast and the rest are financial advice from Peter Brown. — Maile (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject is not sufficiently notable. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – A few sources are reliable, but not WP:SIGCOV. Others are a profile/self-published. Overall just Peter Brown talking about stuff. TLA (talk) 02:59, 14 January 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. North America1000 05:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pfaudler[edit]

Pfaudler (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:NBIO WP:NCORP. Sources both in the article and from what I could find are routine business operations that would not confer notability. Longhornsg (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note the text in WP: BIO.
On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. 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. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary.
The article being objected to is not a biography so the objection is irrelevant. PMChefalo (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't completely thinking when I mistakenly typed NBIO instead of NCORP. Non-notability still stands. Longhornsg (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources consist primarily of press releases / (routine coverage?). TLA (talk) 06:13, 14 January 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. North America1000 05:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaclyn Johnston[edit]

Jaclyn Johnston (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 WP:NBASIC. In hopes of meeting WP:NAUTHOR, I searched multiple sites for book reviews (Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, and Library Journal) but didn't find anything. I also Googled her and her books, and although I could find some sources, none are reliable and independent, and provide significant coverage. Most sources, including those cited on the page, are interviews (see also 1 and 2). Ping me if you can find something. :) Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:31, 8 January 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 Features of the Marvel Universe. Consensus appears that the article fails GNG but the info can be included in Features of the Marvel Universe. (non-admin closure)  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 00:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden races[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with a lack of any reliable secondary sources whatsoever. This sort of content is a better fit for FANDOM than Wikipedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:25, 8 January 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. North America1000 05:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamidullah (Guantanamo Bay detainee 1119)[edit]

Hamidullah (Guantanamo Bay detainee 1119) (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 and redirect to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees. Fails WP:GNG. Being a one-time Guantanamo detainee does not confer notability, and there's no WP:SIGCOV to support WP:NBIO. The entire article is WP:DIRECTORY of the administrativa associated with the subject's case. Longhornsg (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete --Looking through the pile of unsourced material, WP:PRIMARY-sourced material, and WP:OR that make up this article, it's hard to find any there there. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A large chunk of the article is intelligence reports about the person/interviews of the suspect... Nothing else we'd use, as this is all primary sourcing. No charges were laid and the person appears to have faded away. Oaktree b (talk) 01:55, 8 January 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_January_8&oldid=1196242507"