Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 04 March 06 >

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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix of country subdivisions[edit]

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

Apparently has not cited any source since 2009. Could be considered original research, since which English word is used to describe the top-level division of each country has to be determined in ambiguous cases. Considerably less comprehensive than List of administrative divisions by country, which it duplicates. -- Beland (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Closing as a keep since the consensus lean towards keep now, with the presence of sources denoting notability (presumably) exists. The addition of the sources can be done further in the article, which requires expansion to incorporate those citations. Other subjects such as the notability of the award(s) itself can be discussed outside AfD, if required, in the respective talk pages. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oskar von dem Hagen[edit]

Oskar von dem Hagen (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)

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV found in reliable sources (some passing mentions exist). Iron Cross alone does not establish notability. — Moriwen (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Germany. — Moriwen (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And where did you search? Geschichte (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Usual places -- books, scholar, news, jstor, reliable sources search, took a look at the German article to see if there were any more sources cited there.— Moriwen (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Geschichte, are you able to find significant coverage to support notability? I haven't, but I expect that my geo/language settings limits the results that might be available in other languages. Schazjmd (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated, yes it, receiving the Iron Cross does account for notability, as per WP:Notability (people). Antny08 (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Antny08 (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Side note, person mentioned in article has article about him in German that has not been removed from Wikipedia, because he has enough notability. Antny08 (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each language Wikipedia has its own rules for notability. And Iron Cross tells us that in WWI, nearly 5.5 million Iron Cross (combining 1st class and 2d class) awards were made, so I don't think receiving that award alone is sufficient for notability. Schazjmd (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Wikipedia does not state that the amount of people who have received the award is a factor into notability. It is still an important and significant award, which passed the guidelines present. Antny08 (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want us to create a second Wikipedia's worth of articles over such a meaningless award? Lettlerhello • contribs 20:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He actually recieved the Oak Leaves on his iron cross, which only 95 people ever recieved posthumously. Antny08 (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Antny08, you're referring to WP:ANYBIO (1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor). Please note the lead under Additional criteria which points out: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Schazjmd (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it does not guarantee automatic notability, it contributes heavily. This factor combined with this website (https://www.tracesofwar.com/persons/50101/Hagen-von-dem-Oskar.htm) which is a reliable biography on this person should prove all notability needed. Antny08 (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.feldgrau.com/WW2-German-Officer-Oskar-von-dem-Hagen This site is also another source specifically about him. Antny08 (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha! Turns out, he received the oak leaves on his Iron Cross posthumously, which only 95 people ever received, as shown in Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. This is far more rare and significant than 5.5 million people. I believe this should more than enough prove his notability. Antny08 (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: He existed, [1], but that's about all I can find. A name in a long list doesn't get you notability here, we'd need a biographical article or something else about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.tracesofwar.com/persons/50101/Hagen-von-dem-Oskar.htm
    Please refer to this source here. Antny08 (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'd like to keep articles about WW2 people, but this man doesn't pass WP:GNG. There's the generals.dk source, which is unreliable, and nothing else. Lettlerhello • contribs 20:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated earlier:
    "Person mentioned in article has received the Iron Cross award, which per Wikipedia:Notability (people), is enough to make him automatically notable enough for Wikipedia. While the first source may be unreliable, the second source present in the article, which also states he has received the Iron Cross like the first one, is in fact reliable." Antny08 (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I mentioned on the article's talk page, I was unable to find any significant coverage, and I couldn't find anything in the German WP article to support notability. Nearly 5.5 million Iron Cross (combining 1st class and 2d class) awards were made, so that isn't significant enough for notability on its own. The links that have been mentioned in this discussion so far are basically entries in non-selective database-type websites. Oskar von dem Hagen isn't mentioned anywhere else on wikipedia so there aren't any relevant redirect targets. It's possible that there are German-language history books that might provide significant coverage but not that I can find (possibly due to my geo location and language settings), so unless another editor is able to come up with significant coverage in reliable sources, I think the article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Schazjmd (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I just replied to one of your other comments, it turns out, "he received the oak leaves on his Iron Cross posthumously, which only 95 people ever received, as shown in Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. This is far more rare and significant than 5.5 million people. I believe this should more than enough prove his notability." Also, he is mentioned in the Battle of Zeeland. Antny08 (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for catching that mention; I didn't find it because they used his first initial instead of Oskar. Nothing in the article about him though, so still not a very good redirect target. Schazjmd (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject fails GNG. WP:MILPEOPLE is no longer the rule here. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I wouldn't say the article passes WP: SIGCOV. But passes WP: GNG. For an army general who contributed in the First & Second world war obviously was notable. For someone who was most active in 1800's and 1900's, there should be WP:SYSTEMICBIAS especially with the lack of online sources. I wouldn't vote for now, till I get to read the cited books. Otuọcha (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He was an officer in WWI and WWII but not a general during those wars. He was a colonel in WWII and promoted posthumously. Schazjmd (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's difficult to see how a colonel who was killed in battle was notable absent other information. The German-language article is barely referenced; the Almanach de Gotha entry is presumably about his family, not him. I don't have access to Deutschlands Generale und Admirale but it sounds like an encyclopedia with entries on general officers; that can't be used to establish notability either. The claim that he's one of 95 posthumous receipients of the Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves is not indicative of anything. For one, the claim in the main article is unsourced. For another, there were 882 total recipients of that grade of the award, including 78 army colonels and 43 generals. The article prose is concerning as well: "significant roles" (which?), "tragically lost his life" (MOS:EDITORIAL). Mackensen (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    882 recipients, but only 95 awarded after death. Antny08 (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as you've said and as I noted. The claim the 95 were awarded posthumously is unsourced. If true, it's about 10% of the recipients. What is sourced in the article is that issuance of that grade peaked during the Battle of France, which would seem to lessen the individual importance. Mackensen (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How would that lessen the importance? Antny08 (talk) 00:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Knight's Cross with Oak Leaves qualifies under WP:ANYBIO #1 although an ordinary Knight's Cross would not. Considerably fewer of that grade have been awarded than the Victoria Cross or Medal of Honor and we wouldn't dream of deleting anyone who had won those awards. I have restored the article. We do not redirect articles under consideration at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article creator has blanked the article and also prematurely closed this AFD discussion with a closure of Redirect. I have warned them that a third attempt at derailing this AFD will result in a block. Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is my article, should I not be able to decide what to do with it? Antny08 (talk) 00:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It is not your article. See WP:OWNERSHIP. Nobody owns the articles on Wikipedia. Once you've posted them they belong to all of us. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why do creators of articles are able to faster delete the articles using speedy deletion? They have more privileges than others. Antny08 (talk) 12:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they don't really. They can request a speedy deletion, but so can any other editor. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has anyone looked at the book sources in the German article, which seem to be the main source of information for what seems to be a good quantity of text? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but somebody should. I do not speak German. Antny08 (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We cannot say someone who meets WP:ANYBIO with a major award is non-notable when we haven't even looked at the main sources! The presumption of notability there has to mean something! This should not be deleted unless someone actually looks at the German book sources and determines that they do not cover him in-depth; although considering how much of the German article is based off those sources, I'd be inclined to believe that they do cover him significantly. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I totally agree. We need somebody to look into the book source to gather this information. Thank you. Antny08 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I've found a couple of seemingly good sources that devote a fair few pages to covering his interwar activities and not only his death or awards: [2] [3]. Since I'm not a German speaker (I understand basic stuff but that is about it) I cannot really flesh out the article based on those, but maybe someone else can. Ostalgia (talk) 12:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ostalgia interesting find, though I'm not sure they help. The second source is a master's thesis (Magisterarbeit) and probably not usable as a source. Both sources are concerned with the same event: a military mission to the United States in 1928. Our article doesn't mention that mission specifically, but it does note that he was serving in the Abteilung Fremde Heere [de] during the relevant period. Mackensen (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware that it's a master's thesis, and I would not recommend using it for any particularly contentious claim, but it does, I believe, help establish notability and to an extent can be used for purely factual information (or so I believe). Similarly, it could probably be used to 'fish' for further references that may not be available online. This being said, my position is still that of a weak keep. If consensus is that there's not enough to make a decent article for this fellow and the article's time has come, then so be it. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Person mentioned in article has received the Iron Cross award (with Oak Leaves), which per Wikipedia:Notability (people), is enough to make him automatically presumably notable enough for Wikipedia. While the first source presented may less reliable, the second source present in the article, which also states he has received the Iron Cross like the first source, is in fact reliable. Other sources in German also exist, but due to language barrier, I cannot understand them.
Antny08 (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources present combined with the German sources seem to establish some notability. Since he has recieved such a significant award, I believe that he is probably notable enough to be on Wikipedia.
2601:8C:97F:30D0:5D1A:4762:7C6A:64E1 (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)— 2601:8C:97F:30D0:5D1A:4762:7C6A:64E1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This account could be a fake account. They do say they lost their old account and need to make a new one. I am not sure. Antny08 (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion was solidly in the Deletion camp until recently when editors coming to this discussion favored Keeping this article. Relisting to help come to a decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Article and comments mention Knights Cross of the Iron Cross, but ref.2 in the article only seem to list his two Iron Crosses, which represent a far lower (and more common) level of citation. None of the others appears to be a Knights Cross, but my German is rusty -- if I've missed it, apologies. I would be interested to know if this can be clarified, for example if anyone has ref.3 book available (or other source). LizardJr8 (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the publication date, I do not think a 1924 book will bring any clarity to an event that happened in 1940. I'll try to see if there's anything else confirming this award. Ostalgia (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I think I know what happened. Our subject did not, in fact, receive the Knight's Cross to his IC, but he received (on top of his IC) a different award, the Knight's Cross of the Royal House Order of Hohenzollern with Swords (this is probably referenced in that 1924, since he must've received it bwfore the Empire went bust). I would assume that whoever introduced that to the article used a machine translation from German and ended up combining the two awards into one (the most familiar one to military history buffs). Probably a good faith mistake with a side dish of WP:CIR. Ostalgia (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But he couldn't have received oak leaves to the Knight's Cross of the Royal House Order of Hohenzollern in WWII, as it was no longer awarded. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, that's why I said he received it bwfore [sic] the Empire went bust. Over at the German Wiki he is reported as having received that award, and that line is supported by the 1924 source in question. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but this article says he received the Knight's Cross of the Royal House Order of Hohenzollern with Swords and then, in 1940, the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves posthumously. That looks like two different awards. It may be wrong, but it doesn't look like it's conflated the two awards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A confusion based on a mistranslation is the only explanation I could come to while assuming good faith. I see no evidence that he was actually awarded a KC to his IC (and with Oak leaves, to boot). Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I’m not too sure about this. I know he definitely received the Iron Cross. He also received many other awards. Could the fact that he was a colonel during the Battle of France, an extremely significant and major battle, count for nobility? Antny08 (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct me if I am incorrect with any of this information, but according to this article, only 8000 people ever received the Knight's Cross of the Royal House Order of Hohenzollern with Swords. Apparently, over 13,250,000 men served for the German Empire in WW1. That means he received an award that only 0.06% of men ever received. I believe that alone is notable enough for Wikipedia. Antny08 (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This source, Scherzer, Veit (2007). Die Ritterkreuzträger 1939–1945, might contain information on if he received the Oak Leaves or not. However, it is in German, and I am not sure where to get access to the book. Antny08 (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with BeanieFan11 and, after reviewing the existing sources, I do believe there must be sources in German. While it isn't a BLP or promotional content, I don't see any harm in keeping it while someone gathers the references. - The9Man (Talk) 14:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources provided. NYC Guru (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – there's valid analysis of the sources above but I think the points raised that it does pass WP:NBIO. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 15:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Based on the discussions above, I believe additional sources exist. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 16:51, 13 March 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 List of Donkey Kong characters#King K. Rool. New sources have been brought up and I see a consensus among editors to Merge this article (I assume to the same target article as in the first AFD). To correct one participant here, a Merge is not a deletion, just the decision that content about this article subject should be consolidated on a different article page and that this page changed to a Redirect. After two AFDs over the past six weeks, I see no benefit to a Relisting so this is my discussion closure. Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King K. Rool[edit]

AfDs for this article:
King K. Rool (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 first AfD was correctly closed as merge & redirect. Per a new information application at DRV, consensus was to allow a subsequent AfD to consider this potential new information. Please see the close at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 19 for more details. This is a procedural nomination and I offer no opinion. Daniel (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Side discussion about whether the DRV close was correct. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologise for being blunt @Daniel:, but that was the worst deletion review close I've come across. I have absolutely no idea how you got that there was a consensus to relist the article at AfD based on that discussion. It needs to remain deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 23:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respectfully disagree. There were good-faith editors moving forward the view that there was new information that should have been considered. That, combined with the fact that the significant editor wasn't notified and missed the opportunity to present this new information, means a further discussion is the best option to provide closure on the new information. If this debate again closes as 'merge and redirect', we will be better for having that affirmed in process following a conversation about the new information. Daniel (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion at deletion review directly covered the new information which needed to be considered. This is needlessly extending the deletion procedure. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      For the record, I had the opposite reaction. I thought this was well-considered and exactly the right thing to do. Discussing new sources at DRV for a recent AfD is tricky. Plus, frankly, the last discussion was really bad. Hopefully this one can be better. As we should, the keep side will supply sources and people can figure out what they think about them. Hobit (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) From Wikipedia:Deletion review#Commenting in a deletion review: "The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum." (emphasis mine) The proper deletion discussion forum to review potential new information, where said new information wasn't outright dismissed as insufficient by consensus at DRV, is AfD, not DRV. As a general process statement, we prefer more discussion on new information put forward by good-faith editors that isn't outright dismissed as insufficient, not less. Daniel (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge 2: Electric Boogaloo The new sources haven't modified my opinion. IMO this shouldn't have gone through deletion review, I agree with SportingFlyer that it seems incomprehensible why it got relisted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge once more. There is nothing here indicating the notability thresholds are met, and my previous argument at both the previous AfD and deletion reviews still stands. Consensus at the deletion review did not seem to indicate a relist, so this relist seems unnecessary. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the article itself is not in a great state (partly because of excessive linking to primary source videos of gameplay), the character of King K. Rool meets notability guidelines. There is coverage of the charcter in relatively conventional news media like Newsweek and Variety and in games journalism like Polygon. Outside of journalism, Todd Harper's "Fighting/Fat: Fighting Game Characters and the Emptiness of Video Game Fatness", Journal of Electronic Gaming and Esports 1, no. 1 (2023), DOI:10.1123/jege.2022-0043 interprets the King K. Rool character as part of an analysis of aesthetics of fatness in gaming; and Chris Scullion's Jumping for Joy: The History of Platform Video Games (Pen & Sword Books, 2022) covers the character's role in the Donkey Kong Country franchise. This is sufficient to keep. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first source is dev info, which while great, is not helpful for notability unless his development is a major part of his notability. The Variety source doesn't really do anything. The Polygon source is alright. Certainly not the best article, but I guess it's something? I can't speak on the other three sources you cited since they haven't been linked nor do I have quotes. Would you be willing to cite the parts you believe contribute to notability? I believe that will help clarify a lot in terms of these sources' viability in establishing K. Rool's notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is development not part of the information about a fictional character? I think a good version of this article would include cited information about K. Rool's development.
    Sources not necessarily available online can also contribute to notability. Here is one excerpt from Harper's article:
    King K. Rool, gets a partial pass—an anthropomorphic crocodile is likely a little less subject to the body norms applied to fully human-appearing ones—but he still shares a similar body shape to other fat characters, including fellow Smash playable Wario: a wide, somewhat squat body. Notable in particular in K. Rool’s case is his golden breastplate, which specifically is molded to the shape of a pair of vaguely flabby pecs and a large, round belly with an outie belly button. (page 4)
    I'm afraid I don't have a personal copy of Jumping for Joy, but I was able to see on Google Books that the character is covered on pages 16–32. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment@User:Pokelego999 - The first source you asked about can be found here, and the book can be found here. Both are extremely trivial mentions of the character. The article barely mentions him specifically - that one quote above is essentially the bulk of the "coverage" on K. Rool in there. The book is simply a database of platform video games - K. Rool is simply mentioned in the very brief plot summaries for each of the DKC games he appears in. Just to give an example, the only coverage on page 32, mentioned above, is literally just the sentence "Donkey Kong's banana hoard has been stolen yet again, but this time it isn't King K. Rool and the Kremlings who are to blame". Rorshacma (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the link to "Fighting/Fat". The coverage is brief, but is it trivial? The analysis displayed is interpretive, and I think it's plainly more in-depth than the classic example of trivial coverage (In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice). There are Wikipedians who believe that one hundred words of coverage is sufficient to establish notability.
    As for Jumping for Joy, as I mentioned, I can keyword search the book on Google Books to see pages where the phrase "King K. Rool" appears, but I'm not able to read the pages themselves. I am left to trust your sense of it, if you are able to see more of the book. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Dev info is important, but Reception should be prioritized. There's very few occasions where I've seen dev info heavily contribute to a character's notability beyond the basics, especially in the video game scene where there's a lot of cases of very little dev info existing.
    Looking at the bits shown, these seem very trivial, since they don't really discuss the character beyond recognizing their existence. I'm afraid these don't contribute to notability. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop fixating on development versus reception. It does not matter. What we need is significant coverage from reliable sources, whatever it may be. Reception sections are just one of many paths to proving notability. Sergecross73 msg me 18:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - for reasons noted by others in previous discussions. LizardJr8 (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for the exact same reasons it was deleted before. No efforts were made to improve this article for a subject previously determined by a community consensus to not be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. The said consensus still applies, and nothing has changed. With all due respect to the nominator, to call recreating a previously deleted weak article just to nominate it for deletion again "incomprehensible" would be an understatement. λ NegativeMP1 00:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Merge - The initial AFD was correctly closed as a merge, and the sources presented since the relisting are, quite simply, not good. The original consensus at the recent AFD should be restored. Rorshacma (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per my previous reasoning, examining the new sources as presented above:
  • Jumping for Joy can be viewed here simply by scrolling through the pages rather than using the search function, and we can see...it's just a straight synopsis of the games.
  • While the Newsweek article offers some information on dev, it's also extremely small and offers no real commentary beyond that. While I'm not opposed to citing smaller articles, this is realistically barely anything.
  • "Fighting/Fat" is an article I've cited before for Rufus (Street Fighter), but runs into a problem of considering SIGCOV in this case: the times he's discussed, it's right alongside Wario in terms of shared body types and briefly at that, and only a small bit of commentary can be gleamed beyond that. One needs to consider what can actually be cited in instances such as this. That would probably be more useful for Tekken's Bob or Guilty Gear's Goldlewis for a better comparison as to what can be constituted as commentary within such an article for reception purposes.
  • The Variety article isn't even...saying...anything? It's a rather strange article to say the least and would be questionable to cite for anything. A video existing and a website pointing out offers nothing. Commentary is more a factor, and trying to argue this counts as significant coverage makes me feel the "throw anything and hope it sticks" approach was the goal, which never works.
  • Polygon's article also was a bit odd in that I was hoping somewhere there was character commentary or reaction, but instead it's straight gameplay reaction. Gameplay tends to be harder to cite, as it's extremely game specific, and often doesn't give a glimpse of how a character was received as a whole. Compare it to this article from Polygon on Gengar, which not only discusses gameplay but provides the author's own reaction to the new form and the character overall.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per my previous !vote and Kung Fu Man's analysis of the new sources that came out at DRV. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thank you for notifying me of the deletion nomination. I have significantly expanded the Reception section, primarily focusing on character commentary outside of gameplay from several new sources.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Some of the sources are more "reliable" than others, but there is significant evidence to conclude that King K. Rool meets the notability requirements. How many sources are necessary? toadster101 (talk/contributions) 04:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - The copious amount of low quality listicles and unreliable sources already present in the article throughout this and the previous AFD were not convincing before. Adding in more of the same is not really going to change much in that regard. Rorshacma (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also completely agree listicles do not count for notability. SportingFlyer T·C 16:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to do an analysis real quick for those at this debate.
    1. "The final boss battles are all frankly bizarre but after you've beaten K. Rool around a little, dropped some lights on his head and watched him slip on a banana peel (obviously), you are then tasked with tickling the evil King's feet to defeat him." is practically all that can be considered, coverage, and it's just a recap of the method to defeat him. Nothing here strikes me as being notable, especially since this is part of a "Top 10" ranking
    2. K. Rool is mentioned about three times in this article, and none of them in a significant context beyond insinuating DKC as a whole may be taking inspiration from the Banana Wars.
    3. This is basically saying "He stole bananas and is evil." I guess it's citable? But it's incredibly weak and barely contributes anything to the article.
    4. Doesn't really have any commentary on the character beyond being a bit jokey in the fact that he frequently changes his aliases.
    5. Doesn't seem to be coverage, and per discussions about reliable sources, articles from TheGamer prior to 2020 are considered generally unreliable.
    6. This is talking about K. Rool's airship, not K. Rool.
    7. This is from The Onion, a satire news website. They don't do actual reporting beyond making satire of current events, and all of their articles are meant for comedy. It's an unreliable source per past consensus on the subject, as well.
    8. This Newsweek source has already been discussed, and is only developmental info. No commentary on the character.
    9. While a surprisingly interesting theory, this doesn't really contribute to notability. Nothing is said about K. Rool other than a hypothetical role in a hypothetical movie. This doesn't speak to anything about the character, and anything that may be said is inherently minor and tied to a hypothetical.
    10. This just says "K. Rool may be funny if he was in a movie," and that's it. It's basically the definition of a trivial mention.
    In short, none of these are good sources for proving notability, and do not contribute anything to the discussion beyond further establishing the lack of coverage on K. Rool. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is impossible to argue against these claims when the goalposts keep moving. Nothing in the notability guideline stipulates that the articles have to be written about the character specifically. Nothing in the notability guideline stipulates that "listicles" do not count for notability—especially if said lists are from reliable sources and feature commentary. How is a description of the character's personality traits not "commentary?" How much commentary is needed for a character to be considered notable? How many sources? For example, you dismissed the Arcade Sushi article for not having commentary on the character "beyond being a bit jokey," as if K. Rool's comedic personality and "identity confusion" don't meet the threshold for commentary based on undisclosed, subjective criteria. No additional research is needed to extract the content in any of these articles, aside from perhaps the one from The Onion. I am well-aware that The Onion is a satirical news website; the only reason I cited it was due to its popularity—and thus giving exposure to a purportedly "non-notable" character—though in retrospect I shouldn't have included it as I was unaware of the past consensus. Toadster101 (talk) 03:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Toadster101 The goalposts aren't "being moved", the problem is the sources are weak, you need actual discussion in the sources, something indicating thoughts were presented on how they reacted to the character preferably as a fictional character. What you have here are a bunch of small one off comments, sometimes not even *about* the character, that don't even make full statements. This is the sort of material that characters like those in the Dead or Alive series tried to fall back on (SOOO many sources focused on a passing mention about their breasts...) or even many Pokemon back in the day. Instead of reacting with confusion why other articles are here but K. Rool is getting bashed, look at the discussions going on in the reception section of those other articles. But this "anything goes!" approach where you're citing stuff like Cracked.com...that's not it chief.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically my thoughts above. I'm perfectly okay with using listicles and articles not inherently focused on a character for Reception, and I've done so before, but the sources provided are all very trivial, maybe one sentence of actual coverage in most of these. There needs to be significant discussion of the character for an article to be justified, and really only maybe the Polygon source right now can be considered SIGCOV. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Goalposts are indeed moving, or rather, the threshold for what qualifies as a "strong" source. I keep hearing that the sources are trivial and don't go into enough depth, but again, where is this requirement stipulated in the notability guideline? What qualifies as "depth," in this case? Many reliable sources have been cited copiously throughout the article—including Den of Geek, Game Revolution, GameSpot, GamesRadar, IGN, New York Magazine, Newsweek, Nintendo Life, Paste Magazine, Polygon, and Variety. The ones that aren't "reliable," as per Wikipedia, are merely supplementary. I have included an additional citation from Game Revolution, which does, in fact, pertain to K. Rool specifically and cover the character—and the fandom surrounding him—in greater detail. While each article should be evaluated separately, it's worth mentioning that the "Reception" section—which seems to be the only section that's relevant here, as the reliable sources that discuss K. Rool's development history have been dismissed—for Donkey Kong himself is mostly "listicles" and has less commentary of the character's personality traits than K. Rool's does. Would you make the argument, then, that Donkey Kong is not notable? Or would you contend that notability can be achieved without needing an arbitrary number of thinkpieces from gaming journalism websites, which K. Rool has anyway?
    I recognize the stringency of Wikipedia's citation policies, but to say that K. Rool doesn't meet the notability requirements in light of the new evidence that has been posted is, frankly, absurd. Attempts have been made—and are ongoing—to improve the article to meet the impossibly high standards that the character is now being held to nearly six years later. As the notability guideline specifies, notability is not temporary. Toadster101 (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't the sites themselves that are weak. The sites themselves are strong, but the coverage they're providing just isn't enough to be considered a "strong" source. Anyways I will state that the GameRevolution source is a decent one, but it's not enough to salvage the whole thing given the overall lack of significant articles like it.
    As for DK, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. An article being in bad shape does not have anything to do with the state of K. Rool's article. DK needs improvement, but that's a separate discussion, not something to be talked about at another character's AfD. I would argue, personally, that he likely is notable, but the DK article would need source searches and improvements before any AfD could be made.
    In any case, these standards are not "impossibly high" since many, and I mean many characters, have met these kinds of thresholds, and on far less sources than K. Rool. See Bobby, for example, who was a recent keep at AfD. He only has nine sources but safely meets thresholds since almost every article covering him actually gives deep commentary and analysis on the character. There's a weak source or two in there, but there's enough in-depth sources to guarantee notability. K. Rool, on the other hand, is primarily weak sources with a rare in-depth source in the mix. Just because there's a quantity of trivial mentions does not mean a character means GNG, they need some actual, significant discussion. Notability isn't temporary, but notability guidelines need to be met for that argument to be valid, first. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. All of the additional sources that were added were unreliable like The Onion, meanwhile GameRant's listicle sources don't help WP:GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 05:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Expanding on Greenish Pickle's comment, while I don't hold a negative view on Valnet sources the ones used are not really saying anything, and the others added i.e. WhatCulture, ComingSoon.net are unreliable sources. In addition, the AfD is currently being canvassed on twitter by a user I suspect is Toadster101 (no bad faith, just it's been twice now with the same timing, once here and once in the AfD review).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The linked post has been deleted by the original post author, but it was the same Twitter account used in the DRV for canvassing purposes. I won't speak more given I can't speak more for their reasons, but this should likely be kept in mind by the closer. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep overall. More than sufficient sourcing. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What sources would you consider to be strong? Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the arguments at the DRV and at the last AfD. I stand by my previous comments that this AfD is superfluous. SportingFlyer T·C 16:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Citations used in the article's most recent version before deletion, as well as its subsequent updates, include sufficient analysis and/or discussion of King K. Rool and his reception, outside of the context of his games of origin, to qualify the character a standalone page. While some citations link to less traditionally "mainstream" sources, compared to what might be referenced for fictional characters from other mediums, the sources are of sufficient prominence with relation to the gaming medium, while also being of sufficient quality, to meet significance requirements. Above "merge" suggestions do not meaningfully specify criteria precluding the sources in question from being of a sufficient quality to count as significant. The previous deletion discussion notes that the King K. Rool article previously had been deemed in compliance with notability standards. A partial factor in the page's nomination for deletion, that King K. Rool "is not on the same level as Bowser," appears nowhere within said notability standards. IFoundALemonTree (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC) — IFoundALemonTree (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    What sources would you consider significant then? Nothing in here is really all that strong, and any sources brought up during this debate have been debunked rather quickly. The comment Zx made about Bowser also seemed to be more of a personal comment than him citing policy, and it did not seem to be his main reasoning for deletion, either.
    Also, to closer, this account was non-existent prior to today, and their only contribution has thus far been to this AfD. As a result, they are likely to be a result of canvassing per the Twitter advertising. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to respond here as my words are being mischaracterized. I said that K. Rool doesn't seem to have notability, which indicates he is not akin to a Bowser-like character. I am obviously not so inexperienced to assume popularity is the indicator of an article's notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I find the reopening of this AfD confusing, especially in light of the fact that there was brigading involved. Furthermore, the reasons to reopen the AfD were deeply unconvincing, including no evidence whatsoever that the result of the AfD was in any way, shape, or form faulty. The editors pushing for it to be reopened should have made their argument to unmerge it on the talk page, and I'm uncertain what the argument was that suggested the AfD result was not proper. As far as the argument made for "keep," it remains unconvincing, except for the Polygon source. I feel like there is a misunderstanding, too, of what sources are usable, when The Onion is being cited as a usable source. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This discussion was re-opened to evaluate new sources. Echoing the fictional character regulars above, none of those sources are strong enough to justify a standalone article, not going into epiphanic depth on the character himself. It should stay merged. czar 22:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - the sourcing is still rather weak. Most either come from unreliable/low grade sources, and/or say little of substance. I think it's best to be covered in the respective Donkey Kong articles. Sergecross73 msg me 18:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Webb, Kristian (January 14, 2021). "10 Intimidating Video Game Bosses With The Strangest Weak Spots". WhatCulture. Retrieved March 5, 2024.
  2. ^ K, Merritt (November 21, 2019). "The Donkey Kong Timeline Is Truly Disturbing". Kotaku. Retrieved March 5, 2024.
  3. ^ Ferguson, Brad (August 23, 2021). "10 Nintendo Villains That Did Surprisingly Dark Things". Comic Book Resources. Retrieved March 5, 2024.
  4. ^ Langley, Alex (February 17, 2016). "10 Video Game Villains Who Won't Stay Dead". ArcadeSushi. Retrieved March 5, 2024.
  5. ^ Desmarais, Guy (June 11, 2017). "The 15 Biggest Scumbags In Nintendo Games". TheGamer. Retrieved March 5, 2024.
  6. ^ Smith, Mark (October 29, 2023). "The 7 Most Iconic Airships In Video Games, Ranked". Game Rant. Retrieved March 5, 2024.
  7. ^ "Cut It Out: You Can Criticize King K. Rool's Actions Without Resorting To Insulting His Weight". The Onion. November 16, 2021. Retrieved March 5, 2024.
  8. ^ Martinez, Phillip (August 10, 2018). "King K. Rool Creators Give Origin Details After 'Super Smash Bros. Ultimate' Reveal". NewsWeek. Retrieved March 5, 2024.
  9. ^ Raymond, Charles N. (February 21, 2024). "Super Mario Bros. Movie 2 Already Has An Easy Way To Replace Bowser (Thanks To Donkey Kong)". ScreenRant. Retrieved March 5, 2024.
  10. ^ Legacy, Spencer (April 12, 2023). "7 Nintendo Franchises We'd Like to See Made Into Movies". Comingsoon.net. Retrieved March 5, 2024.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aliyaa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. UtherSRG (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as references in article seem to all be listicles and/or reviews and therefore do not meet the requirements of WP:NCORP. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep the reference in the article are not paid reviews and speak about both the history of the location as a prominent Sri Lankan restaurant and provide non bias statements on the location. The article should be kept. Jana1989sl (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jana1989sl: Please list on the talk page the WP:THREE WP:SIRS you believe demonstrate notability per WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sources are routine local coverage or lack depth, fails NCORP. Reywas92Talk 14:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator Mevoelo (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fusebox (programming)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fusebox (programming) (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. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary sources or reviews or anything at all. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Consensus here is that sources are sufficient to demonstrate GNG. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brittani Nichols[edit]

Brittani Nichols (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)

Lack of notability — in this case, lack of produced work of their own, seems like the person was only limited participant in smaller projects and no outside work of their own credit (that I could find). Article mainly cites primary sources and the living person’s own social media.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 305Askins (talk • contribs) 21:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, what is the Merge target article you are proposing? Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, what Merge target article is being proposed here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Suicide Kale (which I think is what the above person meant to propose?) PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be appropriate. Bearian (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject looks notable to me. Based on my own search and research, she has an ample amount of coverage, which to a large extent establishes notability. Mevoelo (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject easily meets GNG and has significant coverage in multiple media sources. For example, CNN, Variety, Huffington Post, The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, Entertainment Weekly, among others. The subject has also won an NAACP award and was nominated for a major emmy (now added to article) Affied (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC) 20:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The above sources show WP:GNG. Variety is brief but qualifying coverage. The HuffPo article is an interview, but there is journalistic coverage at the top; the Tribune coverage is the same. The NYT is a full feature. The other two are not qualifying sources. -- asilvering (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elvira Vikhareva[edit]

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

Too small and insignificant Russian politician. Significance according to WP:POLITICS is not observed.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated lies for the purpose of harming and destroying important historical records. The activities of this politician and the importance of this article are supported by many references to publications in leading media. Dina about (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Individual seems notable but article is not appropriate for mainspace in current state. AusLondonder (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - again, AfD is not for cleanup, and it's not awful. Bearian (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - this is a WP:BLP, and according to the Telegraph in March 2023, Vikhareva was "largely unknown in Russia" (but see the Nov 2022 Le Monde source focused on Vikhareva). Draftifying could also help develop neutral and balanced content that is not WP:PROMOTION, with independent and reliable secondary sources. Vikhareva has continued to be quoted in news sources, e.g. NYT in May 2023, Politico in June 2023, so further development seems possible, but core content policies seem to favor removing this article from mainspace for now. Beccaynr (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable per Le Monde source, Meduza article, and various Russian sources. I've attempted a first pass at cleaning the article up, will try to work on it some more later today or tomorrow. I think at this point it isn't TNT worthy, if not particularly great. Rusalkii (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between those editors arguing to Keep and those advocating Draftification. No additional support for Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok if we send it to draft, nothing wrong with a rewrite to help make it better. Oaktree b (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with thanks to Rusalkii for the cleanup. -- asilvering (talk) 20:12, 12 March 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 Egyptian Armaments Authority. Liz Read! Talk! 20:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Forces Arming Authority (Egypt)[edit]

Armed Forces Arming Authority (Egypt) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's a better article of this: Egyptian Armaments Authority. 18Carlox32 (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:09, 5 March 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! 23:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Polomský[edit]

Pavel Polomský (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)

Despite having finished top 10 in 1994 (seventh place), bobsleigh athlete Pavel Polomský has not received enough criteria that meet WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. The only source I can find regarding this person is Radio Prague International, but it does not report any individual activity on his own. Corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia is also a stub. Given Polomský's current age, we can assume his bobsleigh career is over. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Czech Republic. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some sources. He is among the best Czech bobsledders in history. Btw it is irrelevant if his career is over or not, we don't delete athletes' articles after their careers are over. FromCzech (talk) 08:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FromCzech. Seems to fall down on the right side of the notability/being referenced fence. Geschichte (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:09, 5 March 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 Parishes and dependencies of Antigua and Barbuda. Liz Read! Talk! 20:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of capitals in Antigua and Barbuda[edit]

List of capitals in Antigua and Barbuda (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 reason to have a separate list from Parishes and dependencies of Antigua and Barbuda, where these seven are listed as well. These "capitals", apart from the real capital Saint John, are very small villages and don't seem to get special attention as a group apart from their role in the parishes, which is treated at the other article. I redirected it but was reverted. The minimal extra information here can easily be merged into the other article if necessary and sourced, and if the sources then work (many of the ethnicity pdfs don't load in either the original or the archived form, and I don't see where e.g. the "foreign born" percentages come from, the census document only gives these figures per parish) Fram (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have spoken to the Statistics Division to fix the demographics links. All the other sources appear to be intact and prove that these are in fact parish capitals. CROIXtalk 13:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect - seems to pass NLIST, but my preference would be to keep. The foreign born issue can be solved through editing. SportingFlyer T·C 23:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does it add that can't be (or isn't already) covered in the proposed target article? Duplicating information just because NLIST doesn't specifically disallow it (and NLIST doesn't disallow anything it seems) seems like a bad idea. Fram (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Then there should have been a merge discussion. There's no information in this article that needs to be deleted apart from maybe the foreign born percentages. But I don't think it's as duplicative as you're arguing. SportingFlyer T·C 23:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or merge The main article already lists all the capitals, and the population could be added there. Reywas92Talk 14:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 27 February 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) 22:09, 5 March 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. Closing as no consensus after multiple relists. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Zaabal Engineering Industries[edit]

Abu Zaabal Engineering Industries (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 Wikipedia:Notability. Additional sources I found like Reuters are not reliable enough to change the situation. BoraVoro (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issues with the article. 18Carlox32 (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I concur with the above Keep vote. The Arabic sources when used with Google Translate display articles that have a lot of info about the subject.Maxcreator (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The sources mentioned above do not meet the criteria as already been pointed out. Eluchil404 pretty much admits the sources are "fully independent" and "don't help much for notability". The arabic sources in the article are no better; one is a page displaying the logos of 23 companies with no in-depth information, another relies entirely on info provided by the company and the chairman, another is PR relating to a visit by a government minister, another reports on a meeting where the company attended for continued/increased government support. None of those sources meet the criteria and I am unable to locate any that does. HighKing++ 15:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. My position is that the FAS, GS, and Carnegie Middle East Center sources I listed above are independent and substantial. The FAS and GS sources are basically copies of each other, but they are clearly independent of the company/the Egyptian government. They are fairly short. The CMEC source is again fully independent and has at least two paragraphs of coverage which I would condider substantial in this context, but others might not. My comments about sources lacking independence or significant coverage referred to other sources I found but did not list. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response The fact that the GAS and GS website pages are *identical* proves that at least one is not independent content. Can't be independent if its a copy. The FAS info is from 1999 and predates GS by 12 years so my guess is GS is the copy. The GS info is a total of 5 sentences. Inadequate to meet WP:NCORP criteria. The last reference only appears to mention the topic company once, in passing, also not NCORP. HighKing++ 15:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I'll just add that the term "British Rabbit Council" did give me a smile with an image of British rabbits gathering to discuss out business of the day like expectations for this year's carrot crop. Liz Read! Talk! 20:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Rabbit Council[edit]

British Rabbit Council (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 has been a tag about notability since 2018, I've read it through it and I'm leaning towards delete but not entirely sure. Searching for the organisation itself brings up little reliable sources - one of the first results is a forum asking what it is. When I searched via the news section all I got were articles in Britain about rabbits with them being cited. I'm unsure whether this establishes notability, it shows that in this context reliable sources consider it a reliable source/notable source to ask for comment, however these are basically trivial mentions, they aren't in depth. Sources that may establish notability are: [1][2][3][4] Finally if the BRC isn't notable enough for an article can it be considered notable enough to establish breed notability? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article is important enough to keep alive. The BRC is, after all, the pre-eminent organization in the UK for owners of pedigreed rabbits, and rabbits are a quite popular pet in the UK (more so than in the USA, I think). The BBC invariably mentions the BRC in any story involving rabbits, and there should be enough information in those pieces to sufficiently expand this article. Oliver Phile (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - on the nom's final question: no, of course there is no connection between a body's real-world importance and its Wikipedian "notability". The BRC maintains the rabbit Breeds Standards Book, which is the authoritative source on rabbit breeds recognised in the UK, and that will remain an authoritative source entirely independently of whether or not the BRC has a Wikipedia article. Ingratis (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-36289017
  2. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-66301393
  3. ^ https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pet-rabbits-are-lonely-distressed-and-diseased-c2kqtrlx0
  4. ^ https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/people/meet-the-yorkshire-rabbit-show-judge-with-70-bunnies-ahead-of-the-crufts-of-the-small-animal-world-3727615

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep after User:Tacyarg's edits. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - (after reflection) - the article is weak and does the organisation no favours, and sources are admittedly thin on the ground, but there are more than have so far appeared. So major improvement is necessary. Nevertheless, the BRC is the close equivalent of the American Rabbit Breeders Association, which has a much stronger article based on similar sourcing. As above, it has a significant function (in the world of rabbit breeding) as the acknowledged authority since 1934 on official rabbit breeds accepted in the UK, which despite an overlap are not identical with the accepted US or European breeds, and publishes the authoritative Breeds Standards Book as well as other standard publications. Ingratis (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative or weak keep per WP:HEY If and only if the sources found are added to the article. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added contents and refs to the article. I think it meets WP:GNG based on coverage. The organisation has been involved in national events - promoting the rabbit as food during the depression and the Second World War, and supplying expertise and activism during myxomatosis. I think there is also likely to be further coverage of its predecessor organisations, and would expect offline coverage of the BRC in memoirs, studies of hobbies, and in histories of the Home Front. Tacyarg (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coterie Insurance[edit]

Coterie Insurance (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)

None of the sources are sufficient for notability per WP:NCORP. Three are trade publications and one is a database, and they are either routine coverage or entirely based on information provided by the founders (failing WP:ORGIND). I couldn't find any usable sources after a quick search. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure whether this falls under G11. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search found no independent, significant coverage, mostly funding and partnership announcements. The insurtechinsights source is the most in-depth coverage, but as an interview it is not an independent source, and contains precious little but quotes from the CEO. ~ A412 talk! 22:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A disclosed-paid article about a recent start-up finance firm. Leaving aside routine funding and partnership announcement coverage and a vendor case study, which fail WP:ORGTRIV, there is a FinTech Breakthrough award and inclusion in a Fintech 100 list [10], neither inherently notable. Clearly a firm going about its business, but I don't see enough to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aliza Landes[edit]

Aliza Landes (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. Of the listed reliable sources, the most she gets is three paragraphs in the Tablet Magazine one. The i24 video source has her answering two questions, partially but not wholly about a project she was involved in. The Atlantic is a single sentence plus a paragraph quoted from Tablet (and thus adds nothing for notability per WP:NBASIC.) Forum (which may or may not be a reliable source) has one paragraph plus on sentence on her. Sources regarding the Wall Street Journal article mention her in passing (or, in one used the article author re-added, is on screen for a fraction of a second while showing an image of one of the other sources.) Coverage of the WSJ article here is problematic, as our article's subject had no known involvement in the WSJ article -- the link is that she is pals with a co-author of said article, with no involvement by her in the article having been shown. (Creator of this article has been highly focused on that WSJ article, as can be seen by their work on UNRWA October 7 controversy, their creation of a now-deleted attack page on the co-author of the article and of a scheduled-to-be-deleted category about the co-author.) Further sources listed are not independent. I'm not finding anything better through Google including Google News. Newspapers.com search brings up three paragraphs (one about her, two quotes) in a 37-paragraph story on the IDF's social media in the St. Louis Jewish Light and her being quoted as part of 2 paragraphs from a much larger Boston Globe story about a Jewish school she was attending when she was 14 (and I have not sought to verify that the Globe quote is not from a different person of similar name, because it's inconsequential in any case.) Nat Gertler (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your characterization of the Carrie Keller-Lynn as an "attack page" is disparagement for which I ask you to apologize. I was writing about a major controversy in journalism, where front-page articles in US newspapers of record appear to be nearly lifted from the Israeli State and where new journalists with close connections to the Israeli State suddently appear as authors. I did not create the controversy, I only documented it. You have in the past accused me of WP:SYNTH; I did not say that Keller-Lynn and Landes' relationship is indicative of any bias in the WSJ article, but rather I documented the significant coverage of that issue being raised, among others, at the heart of the controversy about the article.
Secondly, you accusation that I am "highly focused" on the UNRWA October 7 controversy article...which may or may not be coded disparagement, implying that I am obsessed. Yes, I have made many edits, and frankly gone in circles are because of non-stop removals by you and another editor who appear to have a political agenda to remove any content which might cast a light on the influence of the Israeli State in the US press, however I do not accuse you of that as I don't know exactly what your motivation is. The reasons given are usually pedantic. I spend literally hours and hours, gathering the exact quotations and permutations of RS to support points that were clearly supported already by other RS and WP:COMMONSENSE. I have done so despite many of the reasons given not even being WP policy. I guess I did a good enough job finding the exact right references that now you are submitting the article for deletion.
Why not lay off the disparagement and simply ask people to decide whether the subject of the article is notable or not?
Be aware I will not back down and refrain from adding well-supported, balanced and truthful material about Israel/Palestine simply because of non-stop attempts to delete information that doesn't happen to reflect positively on the Israeli State.Keizers (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Positive or not, this person hardly has anything covering her, and I'm unsure what the claim to notability is. Running a social medial presence is rather routine these days. Even in 2009 it was somewhat routine. Oaktree b (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Cryptocurrency, Military, Advertising, Israel, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Atlantic article is fine (rather briefly mentions her), not strictly about this individual. Rest are non-RS or not even about this person. Founding a social media policy is fine, it's nothing notable. I don't see any additional coverage about this person. Delete for unclear notability and no sourcing regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, including per WP:NOT and WP:BLP policy, e.g. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives This article includes a substantial "UNRWA/Wall Street Journal controversy" section with what seems to be an WP:UNDUE focus on a report of a screenshot of a negative tweet about the subject that is extensively quoted in the article, and another quote of reported sensationalism about the subject, and a summary of a report about more tweet comments. While some of this can be fixed by editing, the minimal sourcing available to support notability as well as a neutral and balanced article according to WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:BLP policies support deletion at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 06:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a substantial edit to the article to remove content based on policy concerns raised in my comment above; this is the version of the article I was referring to when commenting. Beccaynr (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A biography that does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO when the biographical elements that can be reasonably encyclopedically treated are considered; the subject's name is mentioned in relation with some noteworthy events but this doesn't translate into notability of the subject.—Alalch E. 00:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Brodie[edit]

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

Very simply does not hit either requirement of WP:NACTOR BrigadierG (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. The consensus here is to Delete this article but any editor is free to create a Redirect. Liz Read! Talk! 20:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Stuckenberg 2024 presidential campaign[edit]

AfDs for this article:
David Stuckenberg 2024 presidential campaign (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)

Stuckenberg, nor his campaign, have substantial media coverage from reliable and notable sources. He has been polling constantly below 10 individual votes and creating an article for his campagin opens a can of worms of making an article for every minor presidential candidate polling in the dozens Scu ba (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it looks like David Stuckenberg made an account to comment on this AfD. Of course I could be wrong and it might be a fan or something. Either way, bias seems to be there. And votes to merge seem rather strange to me, as I don't know what additional content they would want at the proposed target that isn't already there. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WTAF. If an article about the person isn't notable, their campaign surely won't be unless WP:1EVENT applies. – The Grid (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stuckenberg is the last remaining non-withdrawn candidate on the ballot besides Trump. See [[12]]. Him and Trump are the last 2 standing! DStuckenberg2024 (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— DStuckenberg2024 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete Merely standing as a candidate doesn't give notability per WP:NPOL, nothing to show that there is enough coverage of this campaign to make it notable. Shaws username . talk . 18:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 2024 Republican Party presidential candidates. He is on the ballot in a bunch of states so it’s worth mentioning that there are non-withdrawn candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B063:AC82:FD4E:C094:689D:E954 (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - my most serious concern is one of WP:COI - either the subject, or a member of his campaign, created and/or edited this page. I join with the others concerned about lack of significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More American election season cruft. Receiving 25 votes out of 324,575 cast in New Hampshire. Less votes that people writing in ceasefire. Nearly 20 times more people wrote in Joe Biden in the Republican primary in New Hampshire than voted for this guy. Someone thought this deserved an article? Where's the significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources? AusLondonder (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the 2024 Republican Party presidential candidates page. His formal registration, appearance on several state ballots, and votes received (while miniscule) are enough for a placement on that page. There is definitely not enough coverage for a separate page.Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 23:08, 11 March 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 Luxembourg women's international footballers. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Wengler[edit]

Lisa Wengler (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)

Redirect to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers as the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I found nothing more than trivial mentions like (this and this. JTtheOG (talk) 18:38, 5 March 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! 21:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

InnoTech College[edit]

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

Very small institution with around 12 staff across both campuses. Couldn't find anything of note online - either about past achievement or current activity. Newhaven lad (talk) 18:34, 5 March 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 Luxembourg women's international footballers. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Witry[edit]

Sarah Witry (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)

Redirect to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers as the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I found nothing more than trivial mentions like this. JTtheOG (talk) 18:30, 5 March 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! 21:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aigerim Alimkulova[edit]

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Kazakhstani women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing approaching WP:SIGCOV that I found were interviews such as 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 18:23, 5 March 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 Bhagalpur district. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bal Bharti Vidyalaya[edit]

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

A run-of-a-mill school with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. While there are some passing mentions, there's nothing substantial to establish its notability. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG. GSS 💬 17:52, 5 March 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! 21:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attah Issah[edit]

Attah Issah (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)

As-yet unelected candidate for political office, fails WP:NPOL. Sourcing relates solely to candidacy. AusLondonder (talk) 17:41, 5 March 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! 21:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarsagun Patrika[edit]

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

No indication this newspaper meets either WP:GNG or WP:NPERIODICAL. GSS 💬 17:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. GSS 💬 17:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, tried a WP:BEFORE search yesterday in English and Bengali, and couldn't find any mention of it in reliable sources. The Rising Voices reference was one of several I removed yesterday that don't mention the subject; most of the original article was copied nearly verbatim (and without attribution) from Fagun, an article about an unrelated Santali-language paper. It seems unlikely to me that the news portal linked has any relation to the print newspaper mentioned in the Pothi.com reference: it appears to be simply yet another Bengali-language churnalism portal, which doesn't mention, let alone suggest subscribing to, the printed paper that this article is ostensibly about. Wikishovel (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarsagun Patrika is a popular newspaper of a Santali community in West Bengal. Everyone knows what Sarsagun magazine is? It is not so popular in all of India, but recently it is popular in West Bengal. I think this is a bit of a magazine, so Eligible I think. Faltu Katha (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
opposed undelete this article because this newspaper is best work for Santali Community. How to development their community cover this topic and conscious to Santal People's. Faltu Katha (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove the deletion template from the article, that's disruptive editing and can lead to a block here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: AfD template has been removed twice now (I just reverted it) Please stop removing it. I don't see coverage at all for this publication, the source given seems to be all there is. Not meeting notability guidelines here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    opposed Faltu Katha (talk) 03:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide some evidence of extensive coverage in reliable sources? Simply opposing the vote doesn't advance the discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    'Keep Sarsagun Patrika is Santali newspaper in West Bengal. It is ingenious tribe media portal. Faltu Katha (talk) 15:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Faltu Katha (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
  • Speedy delete: i searched a lot found nothing, even one article about this newspaper. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's the one reference already cited from pothi.com, but it's still unclear what that newspaper has to do with the Bengali language website. For anyone hunting for references, the website transliterates it as Sar Sagun Patrika, but their Facebook uses Sarsagun Patrika. Wikishovel (talk) 16:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep this is notably I found in wrs Wikilovery (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)— Wikilovery (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment article creator User:Faltu Katha (see ballot stuffing and sockpuppetry above) has been indefinitely blocked for undisclosed paid editing. Wikishovel (talk) 15:36, 12 March 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 Dratify‎. A note to the article creator: If you bypass AFC and move this back to main space with clean-up and approval, I predict it will not be draftified again, it will simply be deleted. This is your second chance, don't be in a hurry or it's likely this article won't ever be part of the main space encyclopedia. Liz Read! Talk! 21:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart Church, Bangalore[edit]

Sacred Heart Church, Bangalore (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 independent coverage in a BEFORE, all existing sources are passing mentions in primary and tertiary refs. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 17:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Courtesy ping @The Herald, User4edits, and TheBritinator: who all left comments on the draft article that existed in the mainspace prior to the AfC cleanup. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 17:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I see that the user @Ashokpillai34 has moved the article into mainspace bypassing AfC submission. Therefore DRAFTIFY with appropriate information to the user. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: (Responding to the courtesy ping as the last AfC reviewer who declined the draft) The article is still in no way for mainspace. Since the last decline, it hasn't improved per se. Still need extensive cleanup, and more independent reliable sources for verifiability and GNG. Also, I'd like to urge the editor to submit it via AfC and not to bypass the procedure. Yes, we have a backlog of 7 weeks, but if your article is upto the mark, it will be published nevertheless. A few weeks is not going to change anything. Bypassing the AfC is not acceptable and is totally unfair to other drafts that are awaiting review. Also, it is under disruptive editing. Thanks and happy editing. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I have already draftified this article once, and the author has taken it upon themselves to ram it through to mainspace once again. Good day—RetroCosmos talk 21:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The said user had previously done the same on 12 February 2024. User4edits (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if this keeps going on, a block is in order. Good day—RetroCosmos talk 15:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the nom, for the sake of consensus, I would also support draftify. If moved back to the draftspace, the previous comments and declination reasons should be added back in. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 18:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I do not believe it is notable at the moment and any existing article could reach that threshold at this time. If it were to be draftified, it should require approval from an AfC reviewer and not be allowed to be moved back to mainspace, given the article history raised by other commentors here. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 13:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Karnataka. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dont delete it guys. please approve it Ashokpillai34 (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
respectfully, with every AfC submission (10!) and multiple attempts at ramming to mainspace you are straying closer and closer to WP:CIR territory. I strongly suggest you take a read at the rejection rationale and the guidelines surrounding them. Good day—RetroCosmos talk 15:27, 7 March 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 Czechoslovakia at the 1976 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jiří Paulát[edit]

Jiří Paulát (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:NSPORT and WP:GNG; this person never received medal record or finished top 10 tournament rankings (ranked 17th place according to Sports Reference). Corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia is an unsourced stub. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Czechoslovakia at the 1976 Winter Olympics#Bobsleigh. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. FromCzech (talk) 08:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Paywalled newspaper archive Arcanum seems to have a number of results which appear to be on him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nenea hartia: I remember you had access to Arcanum: can you tell if there is any significant coverage of Paulat there? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: Yes, there are over 30 brief mentions of Paulát - if not more - in various Czechoslovak newspapers (see some examples here). From what I could see, he is mentioned as part of the bobsled teams that competed in various tournaments, but I can't find any articles dedicated to him. --Nenea hartia (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for looking. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:17, 11 March 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. which is partly influenced by the inaccurate deletion rationale. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev Connolly[edit]

Kiev Connolly (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)

tried to find some sources for this subject, but nothing apart from database entries and some small mentions in some film contests. Password (talk)(contribs) 05:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::* Keep, seems a reasonable navigational list to me, and it's not over-annotated. A lot of readers are unaware of categories or find the category system hard to use, so navigational lists like this have a place. Elemimele (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. @Elemimele, are you happy that your contribution above has been associated with the correct AfD discussion? (I ask as the title under discussion isn't a "navigational list". Or otherwise a replacement/supplement to the category system. And so the "keep" rationale/reasons that you mention don't seem to fully align with the title covered by this specific discussion....) Guliolopez (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guliolopez: Strewth, no idea what happened there. Brain-fart moment? No, you're quite right, that's not the subject to which I thought I was replying. Struck! Elemimele (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:03, 5 March 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 Pud Brown. Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

West Craft Records[edit]

West Craft Records (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)

(proceduarlly declined PROD) Label so obscure its Discogs page has two attributed releases. I strongly disagree with the previous de-prod rationale that offline sources may exist; nothing indicating that popped up on newspapers.com or the Google news archive. Moreover, many, many short-lived jazz labels came up in the late 40s and early 50s, too many for the music press to cover all of them, and the ability for one of them to sign one or two notable musicians for possibly less than a year does not indicate that coverage is likely to exist. Mach61 (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and California. Mach61 (talk) 13:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pud Brown, I'm guessing these are self-released by him. Probably covered by jazzfan magazines of the time, but I doubt coverage would be of the label, it would be of the releases, which really isn't independent of the artist. If sources for these releases can be found they can be added to the artist's article, and should coverage of the label somehow be found there's nothing lost (that would have to be re-built) by redirecting except "sky is blue" prose. I'm normally loathe to have coverage of 78rpm labels removed, because truly most of the available coverage has not been digitized, but the nom has it right on this one. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:01, 5 March 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. No new comments after two relistings so a third makes no sense. Editors interested in turning this article into a Redirect can bring up that possibility on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Center Place Restoration School[edit]

Center Place Restoration 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)

Zero evidence this meets the notability requirements established at WP:ORGCRIT namely having achieved "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:01, 5 March 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. leaning Keep with improvements to the article being made. Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Adnan Kakakhail[edit]

Syed Adnan Kakakhail (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 basic WP:GNG.. Most of the references cited are either unreliable or provide no significant coverage about the subject - merely namechecks. Saqib (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:59, 5 March 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 South Korea–Uruguay relations. as I don't think a third relisting will clarify the situation. And if non-English sources can't be used to establish SIGCOV, I'd like to see where that is mentioned in policy. I think there would be significant pushback as I'm guessing the majority of editors here have a facility in additional languages besides English. Liz Read! Talk! 22:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Uruguayans[edit]

Korean Uruguayans (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 intersecting ethnicity has some sources, but at 130 people I just don't see the notability beyond trivial information, i.e. most capitals probably have a Korean restaurant. Geschichte (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to South Korea–Uruguay relations. Side note, but I made a solid effort to find WP:SIGCOV in the Korean language about the Korean population in Uruguay and struggled to do so. Some of the Spanish-language refs on the article are actually pretty substantial discussions of the population. toobigtokale (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge Officially, SIGCOV has to be in English. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a different understanding; WP:SIGCOV seems to say Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. There's also this essay WP:SBEXTERNAL that I agree with. If sigcov really excluded non-English sources, I'd push back hard against the policy, and I think I wouldn't be alone. Most of my writing would get deleted overnight, and I'd like to think some of the things I cover that are only covered in Korean are interesting and important. toobigtokale (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also B7 of WP:BEFORE. toobigtokale (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I've made the same mistake. These non-English articles can be translated. Conyo14 (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette (Let's discuss together!) 07:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:58, 5 March 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. Owen× ☎ 07:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Fouzai[edit]

Mohamed Fouzai (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)

stub about an unnotable sportsperson. apparently didn't even finish in the men's Marathon - T46 event. ltbdl (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Tunisia. ltbdl (talk) 06:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, thank you for nominating the article because it gives us a chance to look into it. apparently didn't even finish in the men's marathon – I don't think this is a fair assessment of the athlete's accomplishments, because he won a silver medal in the T46 men's 5000 m at the same Games, and was 4th in the T46 800 m. When assessing a subject's accomplishments, we should always take their best achievements rather than their worst, as the subject clearly seems to be more of a middle distance specialist. Most importantly to P&G concerns, there is a book about the subject here: Paralympic Competitors for Tunisia: Paralympic Athletes of Tunisia, Farhat Chida, Abbes Saidi, Abderrahim Zhiou, Ali Ghribi, Mohamed Fouzai. ISBN 978-1-158-10041-5.. I tried to investigate if it was an AI / fill-in-the-blanks book by searching for other book titles of the same format, and I was not able to find any, so I think it is a legitimate book even though it says "Currently unavailable". Based on WP:NEXISTS, I am voting to keep. --Habst (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please reconsider, retract and strike as you see fit. The Paralympic Competitors for Tunisia book is a reprint of Wikipedia articles. It is a print-on-demand based on Wikipedia's category of the same name. I can guarantee you this. During my years on this site I have seen a lot of these floating around. They are easily identifiable by their cover (and topic). Other giveaways are the lack of author and the length of a measly 22 pages. Searching for other book titles of the same format? I get results such as:
Paralympic Swimmers of Israel
Paralympic Competitors for Singapore: Paralympic Bronze Medalists for Singapore, Paralympic Equestrians of Singapore
Paralympic Competitors for the United States
Articles on Spain at the Paralympics, Including
Paralympic Competitors for Mexico : Olympic Wheelchair Racers of Mexico, Paralympic Athletes of Mexico
Articles on Paralympic Competitors for China, Including
Paralympic Competitors for Switzerland : Olympic Wheelchair Racers of Switzerland, Paralympic Athletes of Switzerland
@User:Geschichte, thank you both for letting me know about Books LLC, I have struck the part of my comment about that. Then, we have to look for other coverage of the athlete.
I see two sentences of coverage beyond just listing race results here (it mentions when Fouzai surged in the race, not possible to glean this info from just online databases so it indicates some level of on-the-ground reporting or analysis was done): "Athletics Morning Session Review -- Repeat performances -- china.org.cn". www.china.org.cn. Retrieved 2024-02-12.. I wonder if there is a telecast of the race where an announcer may have prepared remarks about Fouzai, that seems like a good direction to go in from here. --Habst (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Was typing this up as Geschichte replied): @Habst: Unfortunately that book is published by Books LLC per its Google result, which means that it is a reprint from Wikipedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, the What Links Here featured is the quickest way to check an athlete's accomplishments. Here, we can ascertain that he competed at the 2012 Paralympics as well, so no clear WP:ATD. Woefully short on WP:SIGCOV though. Geschichte (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The china.org.cn source will be classified as WP:ROUTINE and nowhere near in-depth. It's two sentences... I'm sorry to to break it, but am just the messenger... Geschichte (talk) 21:38, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know his Arabic (I think that's what's spoken in Tunisia?) name? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: It is "محمد فوزي" Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that name, this looks to be an article primary about Fouzai as a leader of the Ministry of Youth And Sports, as a major decision-maker on Paralympic policy and naturalization of athletes: "مصر أولي بأبنائها.. وزارة الرياضة : نرفض تجنيس أبطالنا ونبحث عنهم فى كل مكان بالعالم". almasryalyoum.com (in Arabic). 28 August 2021. This article also extensively quotes Fouzai: "الشباب والرياضة: تقديم كل الدعم لمنتخب كرة القدم لقصار القامة في كأس العالم". www.albawabhnews.com. 2022-02-02. Retrieved 2024-02-18. Based on this new information, I am voting to keep as I think it is clear that sources exist, and these new positions should be added to the article. --Habst (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was not the leader of the Ministry of Youth and Sports in Egypt (or Tunisia), he (or someone with his name) was a spokesman for it. The actual minister is Ashraf Sobhy, who is clearly the person in the image of the "Minister of Youth and Sports" from the first article. It's not clear to me why a Tunisian would be serving as a ministry spokesperson in the government of Egypt, so I suspect this is a different person. JoelleJay (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Different person, as both arms are intact in the image of the spokesman in this article. JoelleJay (talk) 01:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow for the potential of more sourcing since his name in local script was identified fairly late in the window
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I have not seen any SIGCOV in IRS of this person under either his English or Arabic name. Being quoted in a news article has zero impact on notability, otherwise every single spokesperson for an org whose activities are reported in the media would be notable.
JoelleJay (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:JoelleJay, thanks for doing this research. Are you sure the caption about Fouzai being the depicted person is accurate, or if it just depicts another person at the conference in error? Because I noticed that same photo is used in an article about Ashraf Sobhi here, where Fouzai is only mentioned briefly at the bottom: [13]
I am careful with my wording to say that the subject is a leader, not the leader. Tunisia and Egypt are geographically close, so I think it is plausible that the subject would work for a sports federation as is common for professional sportspeople after their careers end. Also, what so you think about the WP:ATD of redirecting to his silver-medal-winning race article? Thanks, --Habst (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can search the pictures of spokesperson Fouzai yourself. The search term is his name plus "spokesperson".
No it is not "plausible" that Egypt would hire, as a spokesman of the federal government, a citizen of a country 2000 km away. Minister Sobhi was spokesman Fouzai's doctoral supervisor, that's why he was hired. Don't you think that link, in which Fouzai explains his background on the subject and describes what his thesis says about Olympic tournaments, would maybe mention that he had competed in the Paralympics? JoelleJay (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i don't think you meant to search for "محمد ٠وزي" "المتحدث Ø¨Ø§Ø%. ltbdl (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a bizarre error...not sure how that got turned into gibberish (or how that gibberish still seemed to generate results?!), but if this still doesn't work then you can just search "المتحدث باسم" "محمد فوزي" in images. JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being quoted or interviewed doesn't help notability here and the discussion above doesn't sway me towards notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No coverage for this person found. Even in French sources, it only hits on soccer players. What's given now for sourcing are database listings. Non-notable athlete. Oaktree b (talk) 02:55, 6 March 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) asilvering (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lich King (band)[edit]

Lich King (band) (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)

Band with no evidence of notability. Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lich King. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Strange that a band from Massachusetts gets a lot of coverage in non-English languages but I think the sources provided by Geschicte are sufficient. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 21:07, 5 March 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 Moreno Valley Unified School District. Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro School[edit]

Alessandro 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)

Does not seem to meet WP:NSCHOOL. All I could find were schools that were similarly named (e.g. "Ramona-Alessandro"). There are no sources that are available. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 04:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect over 8 years with no independent sources. Not sure if it meets NSCHOOL. --扱. し. 侍. (talk) 13:26, 8 March 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) asilvering (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pepka Boyadjieva[edit]

Pepka Boyadjieva (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)

Written like a resume and/ or list of professional achievements. Per WP:NOTRESUME and possible WP:G11 like content. Packerfan386beer here 03:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, and Bulgaria. Packerfan386beer here 03:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is about a prominent person in the Bulgarian and international academic sociological society. The Control Authority Database Section and the Referenced institutions are more than enough to prove it. It is NOT a resume but an encyclopedic review of the scientist's life and work. Elena Stoykova (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've not looked carefully, but I'm leaning towards keep. It does read like a resume in places, WP:DINC after all. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The person, namely prof. Boyadjieva who has nothing to do with the page's creation and content, has received threatening letters everyday since your deletion proposal to her personal email that the page will be deleted. The so called wikipedia editors are asking for money to keep the page. How do you comment this and do you know anything about it?
Here is the list of sociologists on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sociologists
Please, look at the pages of the living academics and tell me how the page you proposed for deletion differ from most of them? Elena Stoykova (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. The emails you describe are a scam. The scammers are lying about their ability to influence this discussion. You should forward the details to [email protected]. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Seems to me a clear keep via WP:Prof - publications and academic service: President of the Bulgarian Sociological Association (2003 – 2006). (Msrasnw (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep She has received several awards in the period from 2021 until 2023. These awards were national awards in Bulgaria (from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and the Bulgarian Ministry of Education and Science), and being named an honorary professor at the University of Nottingham. I have tidied up the awards section to begin a transition to page that is less like a resume; the page does need some other tidying up. DaffodilOcean (talk) 03:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:04, 12 March 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! 23:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Thailand Semi-pro League final[edit]

2023 Thailand Semi-pro League final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of WP:SUSTAINED notability for this single, poorly attended, lower level match. Fram (talk) 11:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source. The official Facebook of the Thailand Semi-pro League has more than 63,000 followers. This is a major tournament in Thailand's football league system. So, the final match of this tournament matters to at least 63,000 people. In addition, more than 11,000 followers of Khelang United and more than 75,000 followers of Satun on the club's Facebook also pay attention to this match. Source of Khelang United Source of Satun
Supersub Thailand which has more than 290,000 followers is the official broadcaster of the 2023 Thailand Semi-pro League final. Source
The competition regulation of the Thailand Semi-pro League is from the FA Thailand's official website. Source Gunkiet (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My friend SunDawn, please help me to review this article and confirm it. Gunkiet (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The competition regulation of the Thailand Semi-pro League is from the FA Thailand's official website. Source
    Gunkiet (talk) 01:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For notability you need independent sourcing, the FA Thailand is not independent of this competition so that source has no importance for a deletion debate. Fram (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what you mean about independent of the competition. This competition is organized by the Football Association of Thailand. There are many news agencies in Thailand that publish news about this competition. Football clubs that have the right to be promoted from this competition to Thai League 3 must have legal entity status and pass club licensing standards. In summary, the Thai Semi-pro League is part of the professional football league system of Thailand that is in tier 4. That's why I think the final of this tournament should have its own article. If you don't think so, feel free to delete it. I just want to develop the best encyclopedia of Thailand's professional football leagues. Gunkiet (talk) 17:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gunkiet, your reasoning is good enough to support the notability of the Thailand Semi-pro League, but that doesn't necessarily mean an individual article for the 2023 final match is warranted. For that, it needs to be demonstrated that there's significant interest and coverage for the match itself, not just the entire competition. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Match reports in Naewna and INN News (these are from the same source) and Ballthai.com. Supersub Thailand had a few interview highlights presented as pre-match writeups.[14][15][16] (Pinging GiantSnowman per request.) --Paul_012 (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Followers on social media mean very little without independent coverage. I don't see what this match article does. As Paul_012 says above, there's no doubt that the league's page should exist, but that doesn't mean this match is notable. Anwegmann (talk) 23:01, 6 March 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. Arguments are evenly divided among participating editors between Merging, Keeping and Deletion. This article can either be returned to AFD in a few months' time (sooner and we'll just get another No consensus closure) or those editors advocating Merge can discuss the possibility on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aichi Shukutoku Junior College[edit]

Aichi Shukutoku Junior College (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 meeting notability standards. See WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NEXIST. Avishai11 (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:54, 5 March 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! 22:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Varle[edit]

Amy Varle (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:GNG. This Bury Times article appears to be a puff piece, with statements like "Amy Varle is in the market for success". Lots of dead links in the article and in Google News searches. The Guardian article citation doesn't mention her. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Important work this person does, but we don't have enough sourcing to build an article. [17] is about all I can pull up; more of a local crusader piece, highlighting great works. I don't see national news coverage, so I don't think we have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep additional references exists: [18], [19], [20], [21]. 84.146.2.66 (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Blocked sock. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    source 2 is passing - not significant coverage. All the sources are primary and from local press. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I have added one ref, but I'm not seeing enough coverage at the national level for this person to be notable. It doesn't help that it's difficult to work out what her initiative, Socially Homes, actually does. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Tacyarg (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Consensus that the sources brought by Toughpigs are not ideal, but are enough. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Dart Yacht Club[edit]

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

No refs on the page for many years. One would think that sources might exist for a club of this age, but I'm not seeing anything which could be added JMWt (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE. If there are no sources to support the notability of any article then it should be nominated for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have nominated Royal Southampton for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Southampton Yacht Club. AusLondonder (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately simply having royal in your name does not exempt you from the notability requirements. Surprised an editor of your experience would think so. AusLondonder (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's why the club has "royal" in its name. It's not just adopted because they felt like it. It's been awarded by the sovereign. That means something. Surprised you wouldn't know that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the sources IDed by Toughpigs
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I've added the newspapers refs found by Toughpigs. This establishes half a century of solid SIGCOV in mainstream secondary sources. JMWt, Reywas92, AusLondonder: can you please give this a second look? Thanks! Owen× ☎ 16:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmm. I could quibble with the quality of some of those (one appears to be reworded minutes of an AGM or EGM) I can agree that at least two are substantial coverage. JMWt (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the references added by Toughpigs. Some are better than others, but certainly enough SIGCOV can be pieced together to establish notability per GNG. Frank Anchor 14:58, 12 March 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.

Wikipedia – The Missing Manual[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Ominateu (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dubious notability. The only sources documenting the topic merely mention the book in passing or are just regular reviews. Ominateu (talk) 13:38, 5 March 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 IAR Try again‎. Nominator is a sock. Any established editor who believes Gilbert isn't notable is welcome to start an AfD. We're not wasting editors' time here. Star Mississippi 02:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Gilbert[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jennifer Gilbert (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 event planner, fails WP:GNG. Fhektii (talk) 12:25, 5 March 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) 15:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bettina Rodriguez Aguilera[edit]

Bettina Rodriguez Aguilera (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 politician, fails WP:NPOL. Fhektii (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following are the links, I could find. Ms.Aloisia (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/state/2017/10/16/she-claimed-tall-blond-aliens-kidnapped-her-child-now-she-s-running-congress/16290875007/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/08/20/she-claimed-aliens-kidnapped-her-child-major-newspaper-endorsed-her-bid-congress/

https://apnews.com/article/5adaacef468642c4930d1ad76ff09b69

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nation-and-world/florida-candidate-for-congress-said-she-was-abducted-by-aliens/attachment/bettina-rodriguez-aguilera-facebook/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-candidate-who-claims-she-was-abducted-by-aliens-doesnt-want-that-to-define-her/

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article178813586.html

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/08/21/florida-congressional-candidate-bettina-rodriguez-aguilera-aliens-vpx-es.cnn

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/403426-florida-candidate-i-was-abducted-by-aliens-but-that-doesnt/

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/21/559143650/close-encounters-with-congress

https://thenewtropic.com/bettina-rodriguez-aguilera/

https://www.inverse.com/article/37501-bettina-rodriguez-aguilera-aliens-abduction-congress

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/10/congressional-candidate-believes-she-was-visited-by-aliens.html

https://www.thecut.com/2018/08/bettina-rodriguez-aguilar-flordia-more-than-just-an-alien-abductee.html

https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/miami-herald-endorses-bettina-rodriguez-aguilera-who-claimed-alien-abduction-10647753

https://indianexpress.com/article/world/aliens-took-me-aboard-their-ship-at-age-seven-says-florida-congressional-candidate-4894267/

https://www.newsweek.com/aliens-abduction-miami-herald-republican-candidate-bettina-rodriguez-aguilera-1081360

https://www.salon.com/2018/08/25/republican-house-candidate-claims-she-was-abducted-by-aliens-wins-major-newspaper-endorsement/

https://movieweb.com/alien-invasion-ufo-miami-congress-bettina-rodriguez-aguilera/

https://www.cnet.com/science/congressional-candidate-says-she-was-abducted-by-aliens/

https://www.thespec.com/news/world/she-claimed-tall-blond-aliens-kidnapped-her-as-a-child-now-shes-running-for-congress/article_0a51405a-b4d4-55ea-94cf-c60f871775cb.html

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/florida-candidate-says-alien-abduction-doesnt-define-her-bettina-rodriguez-aguilar/172630/

https://gazette.com/she-claimed-tall-blond-aliens-kidnapped-her-as-a-child-now-shes-running-for-congress/article_2a6e1fd6-9078-5586-b504-39085a4e1c19.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/florida-house-candidate-who-claims-she-was-abducted-by-aliens-endorsed-by-major-newspaper

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/miami-herald-bettina-rodriguez-aguilera_n_5b7c1500e4b05906b417862e

https://www.10tv.com/article/news/politics/florida-gop-candidate-says-alien-abduction-doesnt-define-her/530-72f20830-8349-487f-ae16-29dc4d5165f5

https://fox5sandiego.com/news/gop-house-candidate-i-was-abducted-by-aliens/

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/she-claimed-tall-blond-aliens-kidnapped-her-as-a-child-now-shes-running-for-congress-1763835

https://www.bustle.com/p/congressional-candidate-bettina-rodriguez-aguilera-claims-she-was-abducted-by-aliens-as-a-kid-10186243

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/republican-house-candidate-says-abducted-aliens-communicates-extraterrestrials-wins-big-endorsement-003318150.html

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2018/08/23/florida-candidate-says-alien-abduction-doesnt-define-her/

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2018/08/24/florida-candidate-for-congress-alien-abduction-doesnt-define-me/

https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/florida-candidate-says-alien-abduction-doesnt-define-her

https://www.naplesnews.com/story/news/local/watercooler/2017/10/17/florida-candidate-congress-aliens-took-me-aboard-their-ship-age-7/772280001/

https://www.fox6now.com/news/gop-house-candidate-i-was-abducted-by-aliens

https://www.irishexaminer.com/world/arid-30810135.html

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/10/17/Florida-candidate-says-she-was-visited-by-aliens-as-a-child/2761508214075/

https://www.wsls.com/news/weird-news/congressional-candidate-claims-shes-been-on-alien-spaceship/

https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/867454/Alien-abduction-politician-Republican-Bettina-Rodriguez-Aguilera-Mike-Pence-Miami-UFO

https://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2017/07/former-doral-council-member-may-run-for-ileana-ros-lehtinens-seat.html

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23931942-700-feedback-us-politician-claims-she-was-abducted-by-aliens/

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/aliens-spoke-to-me-claims-us-politician-mnlwscx0t

https://www.hawaiipublicradio.org/2017-10-21/close-encounters-with-congress

https://www.ouest-france.fr/monde/etats-unis/etats-unis-elle-affirme-avoir-ete-enlevee-par-des-extraterrestres-5324352

https://www.fox17online.com/2018/08/21/gop-house-candidate-i-was-abducted-by-aliens

https://www.wtvr.com/2018/08/20/gop-house-candidate-i-was-abducted-by-aliens

https://news.wgcu.org/2017-10-21/close-encounters-with-congress

https://www.nydailynews.com/2017/10/16/congressional-candidate-claims-she-was-abducted-by-aliens-can-communicate-extraterrestrials/

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/2017/10/16/florida-politician-who-saw-aliens/7128272007/

https://www.keranews.org/2017-10-21/close-encounters-with-congress

https://www.politicalcortadito.com/2013/04/18/doral-recall-busts-whos-behind-brito/

https://rollcall.com/2017/10/16/florida-republican-who-once-claimed-alien-abduction-announces-house-bid/

https://www.wgbh.org/news/2017-10-21/close-encounters-with-congress

https://www.local10.com/news/2017/10/16/south-florida-congressional-candidate-claims-shes-been-on-alien-spaceship/

https://myfox8.com/news/gop-house-candidate-i-was-abducted-by-aliens/

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/she-says-three-blond-aliens-took-her-aboard-their-ship-when-she-was-7-now-shes-running-for-u-s-congress

https://www.dallasnews.com/espanol/al-dia/espectaculos/2017/10/17/bettina-rodriguez-aguilera-candidata-de-florida-al-congreso-dice-que-extraterrestres-la-secuestraron/

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/florida-congressional-candidate-says-she-was-abducted-by-aliens-at-age-7/article_6113cb3d-4060-58a2-a5bf-bf8e13a5391f.html

https://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/2017/oct/17/miami-candidate-says-aliens-took-her-spaceship/

https://www.iowapublicradio.org/2017-10-21/close-encounters-with-congress

Comment, and request for clarification. Let's look at WP:POL (cited above). It says (after I remove notes, etc):

The following are presumed to be notable:

  • Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels.
  • Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.

She's not international, national, or state whatever. I don't see how she is or was a major figure in local politics. As I understand (or perhaps misunderstand) it, this person has never been elected to any position. (Was she elected as vice-mayor? The article isn't clear.) To judge from their URLs, the sources provide variants on "She says she was abducted by aliens, but she's running for office." Which I suppose is an unusual combination, even in Florida. Have I got this wrong? -- Hoary (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for a politician to be a major figure to be notable; that merely blocks automatic notability. There is also no need for anything to be unusual, because the relevant notability guideline is based only on independence and depth of sources, not on whether what they say about the subject includes any accomplishment or unusual feat. What needs to be addressed (and what other comments pro and con have addressed) is the question of whether the many sources listed above are reliable, independent of each other, and provide significant depth of coverage about the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SUSTAINED/BLP1E. Coverage is essentially restricted to sensational human-interest news on the intersection of her claims of alien abduction and her running for congress. JoelleJay (talk) 05:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, mostly per WP:BLP1E as per JoelleJay as above. We have lots of stories but only about one thing, her run for congress as someone who claims to have been abducted by aliens. I don't think her academic work rises to the level of a second thing that can save this from being about only that one thing. I did find one local news story about a different thing: her misuse of a local government website in 2013 to promote her business [26]. I don't think that's quite enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Comment This is one of a series of deletions started by a brand new account that has now been blocked as a sockpuppet. See [27]. Not sure if a procedural close is in order. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:G5 doesn't apply as checkuser hasn't connected them to any master yet. 84.146.2.66 (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    G5 is irrelevant as I have mentioned elsewhere. That is a speedy deletion reason which is pretty much the opposite of what I suggested. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That IP address looks like a duck wearing socks anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 14:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was nominated by a sock, but if it's procedurally closed, I'd immediately re-start a new AfD. This is a back-door article about a political candidate who falls under WP:BLP1E - notable only for being a candidate, albeit one who claims she got kidnapped by aliens as a child, which also possibly invokes FRINGE. Not a single article presented above talks about her outside of the context of aliens. The article is also written a bit like a CV in prose which gets me thinking of PROMO. It's a clear delete from me. SportingFlyer T·C 10:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin comment unlike the others, in favor of letting this one run as there's substantive input in favor of deletion from established editors. No issue if another admin feels differently. Star Mississippi 02:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite the record-breaking puffery in this AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:55, 12 March 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 keep‎. Nominator blocked for socking; no prejudice to re-nomination properly. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 00:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Tay[edit]

Sharon Tay (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 real estate agent, fails WP:GNG. Fhektii (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-notable real estate agent. Coverage of her time on TV is mostly about getting fired or laid off, not really helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and California. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral comment Please change your rationale; her notability came mainly from her time as a Los Angeles reporter and news anchor (for nearly forty years mind you), not in this wind-down role as a real estate agent that only started in 2020, and at the very minimum WP:BEFORE, much less actually reading the article as-is beyond the lede, is required for a proper nomination. That you failed to do so makes me question your bulk methods of nomination. Nate • (chatter) 19:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Philippines, Singapore, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:57, 5 March 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 keep‎‎. Nominator blocked indefinitely for socking. No prejudice against a new nomination by any editor in good standing. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 13:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Baumann[edit]

Leslie Baumann (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 dermatologist, fails WP:GNG. Fhektii (talk) 12:19, 5 March 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. Regardless of whether speedy applies, we have a tainted nomination and established editors clearing making a solid case for retention. We do not need to waste more time on this. Star Mississippi 02:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce W. Robinson[edit]

Bruce W. Robinson (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 physician. Fails WP:GNG. Fhektii (talk) 12:16, 5 March 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) asilvering (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michele K. Evans[edit]

Michele K. Evans (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)

After closing the deletion discussion about another non-notable Michelle Evans, I came across this article. It does not establish the notability of the subject (WP:BIO). Her accomplishments as a scientist appear to be substantial but not extraordinary, and she does not hold a high academic rank (WP:PROF). Also, the article does not cite "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (WP:BASIC), and I was not readily able to find such sources. The cited sources are either directory or social media entries, passing mentions, or citations to her research, but nothing covering her as a person in any depth. Sandstein 12:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. She has 15,667 citations and an h-index of 64 on Scopus. Although many of her highest-cited works are large collaborations, there are a fair number where she appears to be senior author (including articles with 306, 258, 214, 190, 170, 156, 143, 130, and 122 citations), and she has 2nd-authorship on an NEJM paper with 856 citations.
JoelleJay (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does not convince me. WP:PROF says: "Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others." Absent acual coverage of her as a person, we simply do not have enough reliable information to base a neutral article on. Sandstein 07:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ This is the standard method used to assess NPROF C1: The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. ... The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Science and Scopus. The part you quote is only cautioning against h-index and other derived metrics, but I'm referring to raw measures like her total citations and her top-cited works as a senior author. Descriptions of her senior-author work in independent academic papers would be acceptable sources to fill out the research section of her biography. JoelleJay (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I defer to the opinion of those who know about such things; I myself have no idea what citation indexes (indices?) even are. But in principle I remain of the view that all Wikipedia articles should be based on prose coverage in reliable sources, rather than numbers in some database. Sandstein 11:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in general. Though I have found in cases where there are a lot of citations and the subject is the senior author of many papers, there may be enough secondary descriptions of their work within independent academic sources that it's possible to write an article based around those. So the personal life details can be sourced to their non-independent university profiles, but the bulk of the article will be in the research section summarizing what other scholars have said about their research. JoelleJay (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per WP:PROF based on the citation counts of her research as mentioned above. That was the basis I was using when I started this bio a few years ago. TJMSmith (talk) 12:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Unfortunately there are some misquotes above about how h-factors should be used. This has recently been discussed extensively in WT:NPROF. The numbers are discipline and co-author dependent, and should not (consensus) be taken in isolation. What is needed is independent validation from society awards. Her problem is that I do not see any of these, so she fails WP:NPROF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep. Passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly passes both C1 of WP:Prof . I would also make a case for C4 because her work has had a sizable impact on federally funded research, according to the NIH (I added a citation for this to the article). Qflib (talk) 19:25, 12 March 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 keep‎. Nominator blocked indefinitely for socking. No prejudice against a new nomination by any editor in good standing. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 12:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dalia Gallico[edit]

Dalia Gallico (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 architect, fails WP:GNG. Fhektii (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I removed a claim that she is president of Università telematica San Raffaele, linked to the wrong university. That university has a rector, someone else. She appears to be president of a degree program within the university. LinkedIn says "Presidente (dal 2012) del Corso di Laurea in Moda e Design, Facoltà di Architettura e Design presso l'Università Telematica S. Raffaele Roma". Head of an entire university might pass WP:PROF#C6 (depending on the university); head of a degree program does not. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Architecture, and Fashion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Comment This is one of a series of deletions started by a brand new account that has now been blocked as a sockpuppet. See [30]. Not sure if a procedural close is in order. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:G5 doesn't apply as checkuser hasn't connected them to any master yet. 84.146.2.66 (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    G5 is a speedy deletion criterion and irrelevant. It is a procedural keep because it is brought by a banned sockpuppet and no one has made a !vote yet. AfD takes a lot of time, and we don't want editors wasting their time at the behest of banned users. Incidentally, your only edits on this IP range are to the same set of edits of the now banned nom. You are under no obligation to disclose, but I wonder what brought you here? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:42, 7 March 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 IAR Close‎. Any established editor is welcome to bring this back to AfD if there's merit. Star Mississippi 02:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Hamilton Guarino[edit]

Elizabeth Hamilton Guarino (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 author, fails WP:NAUTHOR. Fhektii (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As reviewer noted, the author fails WP:NAUTHOR. Books the author has created are not well-known and are not significant, have brought about major changes in any way.
Antny08 (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Iowa. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Comment This is one of a series of deletions started by a brand new account that has now been blocked as a sockpuppet. See [31]. Not sure if a procedural close is in order. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:G5 doesn't apply as checkuser hasn't connected them to any master yet. 84.146.2.66 (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said in all the other places you have pasted this comment, G5 is irrelevant. That is a speedy deletion criterion - the opposite of what I am suggesting.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep‎. Nominator blocked indefinitely for socking. No prejudice against a new nomination by any editor in good standing. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 13:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rade Vukmir[edit]

Rade Vukmir (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 emergency, critical care and neurocritical care physician. Fhektii (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rapper Chauhan[edit]

Rapper Chauhan (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 yet notable by WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NACTOR, WP:BIO or WP:GNG, with no significant coverage in reliable sources. A WP:BEFORE search turns up mainly social media, WP:NEWSORGINDIA paid reporting, and obvious paid coverage in faux-newspaper websites like "Punjab News Express" and "Fox Interviewer". An article on the same person at Hindi WP (hi:रैपर चौहान) has just been nominated for speedy deletion db-spam, but I tried to clean this one up and find some RS to support WP:NACTOR, as one reference here claims he won an award for a film role. That reference claims he played a police officer, but IMDB says it was a "special appearance", so if any editor has seen the film, please let us know if it's anything more than a minor walk-on role. Wikishovel (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete : Does not meet WP:GNG, I only see non rs articles. The one i see on Punjab News Express is a paid article.
Rydex64 (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, This article shows the person's biography, life-related facts. Information contained in this can solidify references. Link: https://menafn.com/1107941370/Rapper-Chauhan-Age-Career-Birthday-Family-Education-etc Nritya02 (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that doesn't show notability plus It's still a sponsored article. Rydex64 (talk) 13:39, 7 March 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.

Paul Richman[edit]

The result was Procedural keep. Nominator (and only supporter of deletion) was blocked indefinitely. No prejudice against re-nomination by anyone in good standing (non-admin closure) Frank Anchor 18:42, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Richman (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)

User:ZuluKingJoshua and User:TheCaseOfGoliath. Claim that he is a IEEE fellow is not verified. Fails WP:GNG. Fhektii (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fhekti (talk) indicated that the fact that I am not an IEEE Fellow has not been verified. But, I am an IEEE Fellow. This can be verified by going to the official IEEE website and then clicking on the following IEEE address:
https://services27.ieee.org/fellowsdirectory/getdetailprofile.html?custNum=xTbWPLcTIKa7ynu5J/RRjQ==
It also can be verified because it is also stated in my Who's Who biography/profile:
https://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/427197/paul-richman-recognized-by-marquis-whos-who-for-excellence-in-electrical-engineering Richmanpaul (talk) 16:34, 6 March 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 Heart of Midlothian F.C. players. ✗plicit 13:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Tierney[edit]

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

I can't see any evidence that this player meets GNG. I can find some routine transfer news but no significant coverage. The subject played a very small number of pro games, so probably never generated much attention. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 11:29, 5 March 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! 07:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Traub[edit]

Andrew Traub (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 contains no significant coverage and does not appear to meet GNG. The subject had a very short career in football. There are some more recent interviews with the subject online but again they aren't SIGCOV. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 08:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Powerpaste[edit]

Powerpaste (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 did a quick search and could not find enough secondary sources to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen link network[edit]

Hydrogen link network (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)

Unless anyone plans to broaden the scope to include all H2 infrastructure in the country e.g. https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/102723-netherlands-begins-construction-of-national-hydrogen-pipeline-network pipelines it does not seem to be notable enough to have an article in English Chidgk1 (talk) 07:12, 5 March 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! 05:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navneet Dogra[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. ~ A412 talk! 06:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mutant Pop Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mutant Pop Records (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)

unnotable single person operation. written like ad copy. ltbdl (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Can't find any significant coverage of the label. Some of the bands have coverage but notability is not inherited. Outside of a few blog posts mentioning it I can't find much else. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:23, 12 March 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. as the editors who have dug into the article subject believe sources exist to establish notability. Liz Read! Talk! 05:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Griner[edit]

Vera Griner (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: fails GNG. And what's a "rhythmitician", anyway? Nirva20 (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would assume a rapper, but this seems to predate that form of music. My best guess is a rhythmic dancer? Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Advanced search for: 
"Гринер, Вера Александровна"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library
  • I'm none the wiser from having read the Russian Wikipedia's article; but so many potted biographies of Гринер, Вера Александровна turn up in a quick Google Books search that I suspect that a proper biographical article is supportable from Russian language sources. Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Women, Germany, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable individual, not sure what their career was to be honest. Name is too common to find anything about this individual. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her field seems to be Dalcroze eurhythmics. PamD 10:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surprising that a thorough WP:BEFORE didn't manage to work out her field: it doesn't seem possible to say someone isn't notable without understanding the article well enough to know what she did. (OK, my school-days study of Russian still allows me to transliterate, even if I've forgotten most of the rest, so when I looked at her ru.wiki article I spotted a link to Ритмическая гимнастика - "Ritmicheskaya gimnastica", approx - and its equivalent in en.wiki was Dalcroze eurhythmics.) PamD 20:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest I suspected "rhythmitician" had something to do with dance (although I had never heard of Dalcroze eurhythmics) but I was surprised whomever created the article would use such an arcane term in the subject description hatnote so I figured I'd mention it at the outset. Article is still a copypaste hagiography that fails GNG and SIGCOV. Nirva20 (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should put those Russian language skills to work on those potted biographies that I mentioned. Start with ISBN 9785043447104 pages 49–50. Uncle G (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • LOL. I assume this is meant for @PamD. Nirva20 (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nirva20That's why it was subtly indented only to the same level as yours, ie to show it was replying to the same point as you were. @Uncle G It was a long time ago - Russian O Level was the only way to drop Latin while doing science subjects, and fascinating at the time but not used since except on one holiday in 1974. And Google Books won't show me those pages, sadly. PamD 15:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. failed WP:Artist Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as pointed out by UncleG above, she is included in many book sources in Russian, and is clearly a notable figure in the field of dance / movement / eurythmics. Her Russian Wikipedia article has existed since 2008, edited by multiple editors. This, shown as an External Link and dated 2020, seems to be a close paraphrase of the ru.wiki article, but with an added photo, and was thought worth publishing by a theatrical institute (Teatralnie Institut im B. Shchukina. Uchebnie Teatr) .... ahah: Boris Shchukin Theatre Institute, where, I've just noticed, she taught. Note that the creating editor of the en.wiki article appears to be the creator of the ru.wiki article, and appears to be a Russian-speaker rather than English-speaker, which accounts for some of the clunkiness of this article. It needs improvement, not deletion. PamD 16:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's in addition to the two aforementioned apparently an entry in ISBN 9785852700995, whose title Русский балет: энциклопедия indicates that it's an encyclopaedia of Russian ballet. There's an entry in an index of Russian and Soviet biography, although I have not found what the index, a separate book, is indexing, and what is on pages 429–430 of it. ISBN 9785898840259 page 476 has a 1-paragraph biography saying Ученица Далькроза which PamD will have to translate for us. Uncle G (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: seems to me a notable figure in Russian eurythmics and there is enough evidence for a general notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep on the merits of the person, and a sort of procedural keep anyway -- a nomination that begins with a denegration of an entire field with research journals and professors, and comments that connect Dalcroze eurhythmics with hip-hop aren't a great way to establish understanding of the norms of a field. (I'm a music prof. with not much enthusiasm for eurhythmics, but I do know that it's a well established field of studies). I'm tempted to go with weak keep because the article is a mess, but, as I've been argued against on supporting for amazing "too-soon" articles, the state of the article not part of the notability criteria. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:57, 11 March 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! 04:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana Carrier[edit]

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

I am struggling to find any significant coverage of Carrier at all. Only four hits in ProQuest. All the references are churnalism from 2013. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don Carter Lanes shooting[edit]

Don Carter Lanes shooting (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 crime. After the immediate burst of coverage following the event, there has not been WP:SUSTAINED coverage sufficient for notability (only a few local sources, mostly about the trial; this is typical for most crimes and does not indicate notability). Elli (talk | contribs) 05:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is basically nothing to say besides "it happened" and that is it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uffizio[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, sourced to databases and press releases. A search reveals nothing else. ~ A412 talk! 05:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination, I did a WP:BEFORE search yesterday, and found nothing but what's cited already. Wikishovel (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- promotional. Deb (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete i originally CSD G11'd this as it was promotional and did not have any proper sourcing. it seems the author decided to put it in the main space anyways and it is still the same story, just profiles and press release. She was afairy 04:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater 18:23, 11 March 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 Masthead (American publishing). Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flannel panel[edit]

Flannel panel (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)

See here and here: the same thing as a Masthead (American publishing) Mebigrouxboy (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • When a deletion nomination says "same thing as" and points to another article, one knows that the nominator has failed to stop at project:duplicate articles first. Uncle G (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevertheless, delete. The article consists of only two sentences. The first is a dictionary definition of only half the term (we are not a dictionary, and were we a dictionary, we'd still need to know about "flannel panel" and not just "flannel", in the same way that "post office" cannot be explained merely by "post"). The second sentence is an inadequately-attributed quote that's obviously one guy's bit of amusing word-fluff, not a serious description of the term. So overall, there's nothing worth merging anywhere, and this article can be deleted either on WP:TNT grounds, or as a WP:DICDEF Elemimele (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: DICDEF, sourcing is basically that. I can't find use of this term otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Elemimele, It gives a definition of "Flannel" and then gives an opinion. Then it gives a quote it claims was from a "short-lived magazine".Shadow311 (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (probably only the first of the three sentences) to Masthead (American publishing) per DICDEF. Given the state of that article, they both might ultimately be merged to Impressum or Nameplate (publishing), but that discussion is beyond AfD. Cnilep (talk) 04:49, 6 March 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M1NT[edit]

AfDs for this article:
M1NT (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 much in terms of refs on the page, nothing much other than run-of-the-mill opening/closing announcements found JMWt (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. "A-listers club together to make a mint". The Daily Telegraph. 2005-11-13. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

      The article notes: "Investors include Steve Coogan, the comedian, Mark Blundell, the Formula 1 driver, Ilaria Bulgari, scion of the fashion empire, Robin Saunders, the banker, Sebastian Sainsbury, a member of the supermarket dynasty, and nine of London's 44 resident billionaires. The net worth of individuals on the share register is a whopping £38bn. Non-shareholding members include Val Kilmer, Liz Hurley, the actors, Shane Warne and Kevin Pietersen, the cricketers, Bruce Buck, the chairman of Chelsea Football Club, Laura Parker Bowles, the step-daughter of Prince Charles, and David Reid, the chairman of Tesco. Most are keen to invest. Prince William has also reportedly expressed an interest in investing although his exact status is a well-kept secret. And Lachlan and James Murdoch, the sons of media tycoon Rupert, are known to have made several bookings at the club."

    2. He, Min 何敏 (2008-11-12). "异想天开的富豪俱乐部" [The whimsical rich club]. 名牌 [Mangazine] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24 – via Sina Corporation.

      This is an extensive profile of M1NT. The article notes: "这就是香港的M1NT俱乐部，推门进去便是高达九米的、由施华洛世奇水晶制成的枝形吊灯，如一束光的瀑布倾泄而下，昂贵的艺术品装饰了墙壁和玄关，恰到好处的Jazz，身价不菲的香槟和烈酒，还有精致美貌的女子婆娑其间……M1NT的夜晚是香港社交圈的缩影，李泽楷、霍启山、万宝宝等人都是M1NT香港的股东及会员，在M1NT开幕的时候曾经亲临现场，并且出手阔绰。显然，M1NT的“投资式富豪俱乐部”的理念更能吸引年轻的“富二代”，以李泽楷为代表的香港及大陆的名门巨贾都喜欢来这个外表低调、内里奢华，同时又能表达自己的主人身份的俱乐部。"

      From Google Translate: "This is the M1NT club in Hong Kong. When you push the door, you will see a nine-meter-high chandelier made of Swarovski crystals, pouring down like a waterfall of light. Expensive artworks decorate the walls and entrance, which is just right. Jazz, expensive champagne and spirits, as well as exquisite and beautiful women... M1NT's night is the epitome of Hong Kong's social circle. Richard Li, Eric Fok [zh], Wan Baobao [zh] and others are all shareholders and members of M1NT Hong Kong. I was there in person when M1NT opened and spent a lot of money. Obviously, M1NT's "investment-style rich club" concept is more attractive to the young "rich second generation". Rich and wealthy businessmen from Hong Kong and mainland China, represented by Richard Li, like to come to this club with a low-key appearance and luxurious interior, where they can express themselves at the same time. The owner of the club."

    3. Mccord, Mark (2006-05-17). "Exclusive club would have Bond shaken and stirred". Mail & Guardian. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

      The article notes: "As the drinks are served the back wall lifts slowly to reveal a huge aquarium dominated by a hammerhead shark. It’s no accident that the prospect of a night at M1NT, the exclusive members’ bar due to open in Hong Kong in September, sounds uncannily like a night in the high-tech lair of one of movie spy James Bond’s villains. ... With 25-million Hong Kong dollars (more than $3-million) earmarked for the project on the fringe of the downtown business district, M1NT Hong Kong promises to be the most technologically dazzling bar in Asia."

    4. McCahill, Timothy (2008-04-25). "Making a M1NT in Shanghai". W. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

      The article notes: "Three years ago, the members-only club M1NT was London’s talk of the town. Billed as the world’s first club in which members could own shares, M1NT quickly became known as the place where nouveau riche and old money rubbed shoulders, with members reportedly including Val Kilmer and Laura Parker Bowles. ... But the club persevered, relocating to Mayfair and more recently opening locations in Hong Kong and Cannes."

    5. Crawford, Barclay (2009-12-19). "Conflicting versions of the reason for departure of M1NT entrepreneur". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

      The article notes: "Nightclub entrepreneur Alistair Paton, who once battled celebrity chef Gordon Ramsey over his London establishment, has left Hong Kong for good. Paton (pictured, far right) arrived in the city and launched members club M1NT on Hollywood Road, Sheung Wan, with Andrew Lewis (also pictured) in November 2006. But those close to the club say relations between Paton and others involved in M1NT, including many members and shareholders, have soured over the months. 'It was a business decision,' one of them said."

    6. Tacon, Dave (2014-06-22). "Nothing exceeds like excess". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2014-06-27. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

      The article notes: "The Shanghai Club's modern incarnation is M1NT, launched in 2009 on the 24th floor of a building just back from the Bund. Founded by Australian former merchant banker Alistair Paton (who also opened and closed M1NT venues in London and Hong Kong under controversial circumstances), M1NT proclaimed itself "the world's first shareholder's club". ... With about 15,000 customers per week and partnerships with numerous luxury brands – the club had a formula one racing car delivered by crane to hang from its ceiling for one event – M1NT had navigated the treacherous waters of China's hospitality industry with little trouble. That was until Paton made it known that the club was for sale earlier this year."

    7. Ryan, Colleen (2008-12-30). "Let's get this party started". Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

      The article notes: "Paton has brought his formula for a private member-shareholder club, M1NT, across the South China Sea from Hong Kong and spent more than $8 million turning the top floor of a new office building near the Bund into a club the size of four soccer fields. Within a few weeks of opening, M1NT had launched the new Ferrari and showcased the Porsche 911. Both times, cars were taken by crane 24 storeys up to be displayed in the middle of the club. The Mayor of Shanghai turned up for the opening night, a rare distinction for a Western nightclub in this city. ... Paton failed with his first club in London but has been enormously successful in Hong Kong, where M1NT is Krug champagne's biggest customer in Asia."

    8. Cavaliere, Patrizio (2020-08-07). "Opulent Shanghai Hotspot M1NT Mysteriously Shuts Down. Pandemic related economic challenges are a likely cause, but does this signify the end or a new beginning?". Mixmag. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

      The article notes: "The club was originally opened by Alistair Paton in 2004, who opened the first M1NT in London's mega-affluent Knightsbridge. It was acquired by the Hong Kong-based Sino Group in 2014, who operate an array of venues across China, so there is a distinct possibility that M1NT will return in one incarnation or another."

    9. Crawford, Barclay (2008-04-20). "M1NT's HK investors fret after London axe". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

      The article notes: "M1NT London opened in a blaze of publicity in 2005, claiming a long list of celebrities as members. The original venue closed after a dispute between Mr Paton, the young Australian founder, and celebrity chef Gordon Ramsey. Hong Kong's M1NT opened in November 2006, with rumours of a prominent celebrity shareholding and membership. Mr Paton has claimed the closure of the London club was due to his landlord going into liquidation and the firm's decision to focus on Asia."

    10. "Alistair Paton, making a Mint in Shanghai". Shanghai Daily. 2009-01-04. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

      The article notes: "Paton, 30, is the driving force behind the entity's restaurant and club facilities on the 24th floor of its own branded high-rise building on Fuzhou Road. It is the newest business in a global group with operations also in Hong Kong, Cannes and Beijing. Mint Shanghai has been trading for six weeks from a standing start on May 16, which is why Paton is exhausted."

    11. Wozniak, Lara (2006-05-12). "Club M1NT invites Hong Kong's hippest to invest". FinanceAsia. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

      The article notes: "Consider the original M1NT London. Opened 18 months ago, it is billed as "the hottest and most successful private members club in London, which counts celebrities, billionaires and royalty among its members". Do a Google Search and you'll find pictures featured in OK! magazine of beautiful people. The Financial Times more sedately described it as ôAn indulgence that will make you money". The Hong Kong version is opening in September in a 4,500 square-foot venue on Hollywood Road. M1NT Hong Kong has secured a ten-year-lease on the property from Henderson Land Development who will announce the actual location in about one month. But expect 14-metre ceilings, a mezzanine and water-motifs that will feature oh-so-appropriately for Hong Kong, a shark tank. There's already a 1,200-person-long list of applicants. Most will be turned away."

    12. Walsh, Dominic (2006-07-12). "Gordon Ramsay shuts club over rent arrears". The Times. Archived from the original on 2022-10-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

      The article notes: "M1NT, the trendy Knightsbridge club that claims its membership includes “nine billionaires alongside Hollywood’s A-list”, has been abruptly shut down by Gordon Ramsay, its equally famous landlord."

    13. Armistead, Louise, ed. (2006-06-18). "Prufrock: A Mint that keeps suffering losses". The Times. Archived from the original on 2022-12-12. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

      The article notes: "Intrigued, I did some more digging and found that Paton has a reputation for exaggerating. Several people close to Mint said few of the celebs connected to the club are actually members, and the profits are smaller than reported. One insider said: “The list I saw has nobody of note. They may have been sent the marketing literature, but they didn’t join.” Separately, I’ve heard Gordon Ramsay, the feisty chef who owns the club’s leasehold, has fallen out with Paton over alleged rent arrears."

    14. A new high-class club opens in Shanghai (Video journalism). Associated Press. 2015-07-21. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24 – via YouTube.

      The video notes: "This is club M1NT which recently opened in Shanghai."

    15. "名家筆陣：夜場高風險" [Famous writers: high risk in nightclubs]. Oriental Daily (in Chinese). 2014-01-30. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

      The article notes: "那些年，一家名為M1NT的夜店在○四年於倫敦開幕。創業家Alistair Paton曾在澳洲悉尼當外匯交易員，幾經轉折變了夜總會班主，由倫敦轉戰亞洲，○六年在荷里活道街尾，一個優皮一族屋苑樓下，開了家為中環人而設的會籍制夜總會M1NT，賣點之一是內裏有個很大的鯊魚缸可供欣賞，也有貌美接待員。"

      From Google Translate: "In those years, a nightclub called M1NT opened in London in 2004. Entrepreneur Alistair Paton once worked as a foreign exchange trader in Sydney, Australia. After several twists and turns, he became a nightclub owner. He moved from London to Asia. In 2006, he opened a restaurant in Central at the end of Hollywood Road, downstairs of a Yuppie housing estate. One of the selling points of M1NT, a membership-based nightclub designed for people, is that there is a large shark tank for viewing and there is also a beautiful receptionist."

    16. Greene, Lucie (2006-05-14). "Private Clubs: Cocktail empire: The British are coming. From NYC to Cannes, who better to run a venue where exclusivity is mixed with snobbery and style? Lucie Greene on the clubs luring stars to the bars". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2008-05-07. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

      The article notes: "THE vibe: money. Indeed the whole Mint enterprise (or M1NT, as they say) is based on cash. The first 250 memberships bought shares in the club which made the buyers the owners. The same masterstroke is taking place in Hong Kong. It has been said that among the first Chelsea members there were nine billionaires. You can also expect to see lots of glam women. Well, maybe we'll join after all. They also achieved some publicity by turning down an application from the Beckhams."

    17. "M1NT上海 顶级私人俱乐部 (1)" [M1NT Shanghai top private club (1)]. Vogue (in Chinese). 2010-08-18. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

      The article notes: "M1NT将这个模式在香港和戛纳成功推广，其中2006年在香港开幕的M1NT俱乐部获得了巨大成功，全年收入超过财政预期，股东分得了15％的分红，股价在第一年内上涨了80％.而2007年的M1NT戛纳俱乐部聪明地选择了在5月的戛纳电影节开幕，好莱坞明星和导演等1500多人参与了这场盛会。"

      From Google Translate: "M1NT successfully promoted this model in Hong Kong and Cannes. The M1NT club opened in Hong Kong in 2006 was a huge success. The full-year revenue exceeded financial expectations, shareholders received a 15% dividend, and the stock price rose by 80% in the first year. The 2007 M1NT Cannes Club wisely chose to open at the Cannes Film Festival in May. More than 1,500 people including Hollywood stars and directors participated in this event."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow M1NT to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, time to assess some new sources found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This AfD has been refbombed with 17 references where selected quotes are displayed but notably, omitting the parts which show that the article is either based on interview/quotations or merely commentary about the club or owner and not the company. Not a single reference meets NCORP, they are all based on regurgitating company announcements and PR. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 13:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The sources contain plenty of independent reporting about M1NT including critical analysis:
    1. Crawford, Barclay (2007-01-07). "M1NT conditions". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-02-29. Retrieved 2024-02-29.

      The article contains a lot of critical coverage of M1NT. The article notes: "While the club opened to a rush of publicity in November - including speculation about possible celebrity shareholders and members - the city's sparkle may have faded slightly for the 28-year-old Australian following accusations from several of his investors he has kept them in the dark, barred a billionaire for being too old and even mistreated nine black-tipped sharks.

      The article further notes: "M1NT in Hollywood Road may have been open for only two months but already senior staff have quit, including the membership manager, lounge manager and Mr Paton's executive assistant. ... There has been a lack of big-name celebrities or prominent businessmen signing up. Staff of PCCW chairman Richard Li Tzar-kai at one time frantically hit the phones to try to get the Chinese papers to retract the claim their boss was a member. There has also been criticism of the club's feature of a tank with nine black-tipped sharks, which are subjected nightly to booming music. ... Shareholders' concern about the flow of financial information stems from the fact many are far from the wealthy elite M1NT claims to attract."

    2. Armistead, Louise, ed. (2006-06-18). "Prufrock: A Mint that keeps suffering losses". The Times. Archived from the original on 2022-12-12. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

      The article contains critical coverage of M1NT. The columnist discusses the loss of three chairmen in under a year because each was said to be "uncomfortable with Paton's management style". The columnist said Paton "needs to get on with those he hires" to manage M1NT. The columnist includes critical commentary about the club, "Intrigued, I did some more digging and found that Paton has a reputation for exaggerating. Several people close to Mint said few of the celebs connected to the club are actually members, and the profits are smaller than reported."

    3. McCahill, Timothy (2008-04-25). "Making a M1NT in Shanghai". W. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.

      The article includes negative coverage of M1NT, "But not all went smoothly for M1NT and its brash young founder, former trader Alistair Paton. The club’s original location, on Sloane Street, closed in summer 2006 after the building’s landlord (a company owned by Gordon Ramsay) claimed M1NT had fallen behind on its rent. And some of the boldface names identified as M1NT members—Elizabeth Hurley among them—told the press they’d never set foot in the place."

    4. Mixmag, a British magazine, discussed how the Shanghai nightclub M1NT closed. The article discusses the club's history and characteristics and notes that the club closed. The article notes, "We reached out for an interview but so far haven't received a response".
    The Wikipedia article's topic is the M1NT nightclubs in London and Shanghai, not the company M1NT Global Holdings that once owned the nightclubs.

    Cunard (talk) 09:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response The topic is the business, the company, and the topic is described about it being a nightclub business. You're familiar with GNG/NCORP requirements already. Looking at the references you've listed just now:
  • South China Morning Post article relies entirely on information provided by Alistair Paton and what he refers to as a "whispering campaign" by anonymous sources and town gossip and contains next to zero information about the company and certainly nothing that can be considered as in-depth. The "critical coverage" you're referring to in the article concerns, for the most part, the gossip/rumours about Mr. Paton and elements of the club. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
  • Times article is a total of 10 sentences and is also relying on unidentified "moles" and is nothing but gossip. This is not in-depth information or any type of analysis for the purposes of establishing notability, fails NCORP and ORGIND
  • W Magazine reference is also only 10 sentences and is also mostly gossip about members and reasons for relocation and relies on quotes from Paton. Not in-depth, not about the company, also fails NCORP.
  • Mixmag reference is yet another 10 sentence piece, mostly speculation about why the Shanghai club closed. There is no in-depth information on the company, no analysis/fact checking/whatever and is useless for the purposes of establishing notability. Fails CORPDEPTH.
"Coverage" is not a criteria for establishing notability, nor mentions in gossip columns, nor articles based on unidentified "moles" nor articles regurgitating Mr. Paton. HighKing++ 12:05, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see you love WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The sources above that found by Cunard are really sinificant sources contain plenty of independent reporting about the subject. How much do you need. 1.46.91.225 (talk) 08:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In order to meet the criteria for establishing notability, the *topic company* must be the subject of in-depth reporting. The *topic company* is not any of the nightclubs. None of the references pointed out by Cunard meets the requirements as set out in GNG/WP:NCORP for the simple reasons that they're either not about the topic company, or they are unsubstantiated rumours or they rely on information provided by the people connected with the company. This is very obvious to anyone who reads any of the references. Notability is not derived from a quantity of poor gossip-driven coverage over a sustained period of time. HighKing++ 18:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said!! Who care? 1.46.91.225 (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE – Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy business opens, then closes during the pandemic. Initial burst of coverage, then they closed. I don't see long-term notability, sourcing is mostly primary as above, or non-notable business things. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So far, leaning towards delete. Seems to be a flash in the pan, with only rumors and primary info serving as sources. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are publications from five countries. The sources were published in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2014, 2015, and 2020. This is over a period of 15 years. How is this "a flash in the plan"? How is this not "long-term notability"? Cunard (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As said by @HighKing, the sources you provided are either not about their company, but rather their clubs, or about rumors. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:18, 6 March 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.

If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know or go to WP:REFUND Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bluefish (software)[edit]

Bluefish (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)

I can't find any reliable sources that cover this software. Three of the sources on the article are primary, and the fourth is written by Mihai Marinof, whose credentials are unknown. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, it seems somewhat notable enough to warrant inclusion. Wouldn't be opposed to draftify/merge. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 01:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: What establishes notability here? "Somewhat notable enough" isn't persuasive. If the article doesn't meet notability guidelines, it shouldn't be kept. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • After re-reading WP:NSOFTWARE, I'll change my !vote to Weak Delete, as per Marquisate. Still would not be opposed to draftify. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 12:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per our software notability guidelines. The Marinof source is the only one that appears to satisfy any of the available criteria for inclusion. Not overly enthusiastic about recommending deletion, given the evident significance of the software from a quick Google search, but nothing seems to exist that satisfies our guidelines and moreover, nothing beyond the one article comes close to providing a substantive, reliable-source discussion of the topic. Marquisate (talk) 02:08, 5 March 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! 00:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RocketCake[edit]

RocketCake (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)

None of the sources in the article establish notability. I can't find any other sources that are reliable enough to establish notability either. HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Al-Ansari[edit]

Salman Al-Ansari (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:BIO. Advert. UPE. Refs are passing mentions. scope_creepTalk 00:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tehonk (talk) 01:45, 5 March 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! 00:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Utomo[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV scope_creepTalk 00:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tehonk (talk) 01:51, 5 March 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! 09:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shafique Mohamed Ali[edit]

Shafique Mohamed Ali (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 yet notable per WP:NFILMMAKER: I can find only passing mentions of him in film reviews and film credits, with no significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Wikishovel (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No significant coverage yet. As Wikishovel mentioned, there's just credits in films. Rydex64 (talk)
citations on his movie contributions from reputed news sources included. AbscondingAlibi (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:35, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, As per nom, no significant notability found. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 01:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: spam. Tehonk (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G11 Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Eren Balıkel[edit]

Ali Eren Balıkel (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, COI promo spam, it seems it was already deleted as G11 once, I see it was also deleted from trwiki as not notable, see AfD with all delete votes: tr:Vikipedi:Silinmeye_aday_sayfalar/Ali_Eren_Balıkel Tehonk (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Rachiteleva[edit]

Maria Rachiteleva (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 is content without encyclopedic value. Azerbaijan handball team has no success in history. There were only three teams in this competition. So he'll still get a medal. Redivy (talk) 00:08, 5 March 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_March_5&oldid=1213556391"