Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 25

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Pitta

Miguel Pitta (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Avilich (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 09:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not enough news coverage. fails
  WP:GNG.Samanthany (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Demion Williams

Demion Williams (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Avilich (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 09:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not enough news coverage. fails
  WP:GNG.Samanthany (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jorronie McLean

Jorronie McLean (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Avilich (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 09:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - played in one international match then disappeared. Can't find anything in
  WP:RS discussing McLean in detail Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Whittaker

Gary Whittaker (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Avilich (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per nom Andre🚐 06:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 09:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Johnson (footballer, born 1990)

Michael Johnson (footballer, born 1990) (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Avilich (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 09:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Andre🚐 05:05, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Skarlet (Mortal Kombat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

Fails GNG. Reception is literally all listicles and trivial coverage. Would be much better off as a section in the list of characters than split off to a separate, non-notable article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to character list and/or delete if nothing mergeable. Andre🚐 21:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Coverage is all trivial passing mentions largely of the most fringe level websites (TheGamer, CBR, Complex, etc.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The Game Informer and Venture Beat sources cited in the article give some important details on the character, as does Syfy, the former two being completely dedicated to her. The character's voice actress has also won two awards. There's quite a few listicles cited, and while they might not be enough on their own to build the article (per
  WP:WHYN), I would argue they are when supplementing the aforementioned sources. MoonJet (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The VentureBeat sources isn't usable. It reads This post has not been edited by the GamesBeat staff. Opinions by GamesBeat community writers do not necessarily reflect those of the staff. "Community writer" = it fails

  WP:USERG. Sergecross73 msg me 11:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I took the liberty of removing the VentureBeat community writer-cited material from the article, as well as a couple of other definitively unreliable sources, lest they contribute to the false appearance of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair, I wasn't too sure about VentureBeat. Though some of the "community writers" used to work for Bitmob. As for Gamenguide, which I noticed you also removed, I've kind of been under the assumption its reliable, due to its privacy policy, and the fact its used in a number of GAs on here. A discussion of it at

  WP:VG/RS

  might be warranted.

  Even if we're not counting these sources, I still stand by my keep vote. After searching for some more sources, I just found a review of her as DLC from an archived Fearnet. That's the thing about DLC characters, they tend be reviewed by a site or two.

  I'm currently looking for even more sources. If I find anything good, I'll bring them in here. MoonJet (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The Fearnet source barely squeaks by SIGCOV, I guess, but the site itself says nothing about an editorial staff. As a very likely to be unreliable source, I am dubious that it can be used. Even if it were reliable I still don't think it's reaching the bar for GNG but there is no evidence that it is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Fearnet was a US-based media network and video on demand service owned by Comcast. My impression is that it was a professionally run outfit with editorial staff throughout its existence, as opposed to being an enthusiast site run by a group of fans. Whether the review article itself, taken together with the other cited sources, constitutes significant coverage is debatable. Haleth (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That is grasping at straws without proof that the site was run with an editorial staff. I'd like to see actual proof of that rather than just vague assertions. In terms of the actual content of the review, it's pretty basic and doesn't go into much depth. All it mentions about her backstory is bookended by a nod to jokes about her blood powers and menstruation... need I say more, it reads like it was written by a teenager. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Read what I wrote again, carefully. I said whether it counts as adequate significant coverage is debatable, because I personally found the review a little short for my liking. What I also said, that "Fearnet was a US-based media network and video on demand service owned by Comcast", as opposed to a long-running webzine that is clearly operated by enthusiasts like say this site, is also fact. I'd be more surprised if a submitted article published by a subsidiary of a major multinational corporation was never reviewed by an editor, but then again, blunders like US Today's retraction of a story about EA being acquired by Amazon do happen. Haleth (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect per above. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  List of Mortal Kombat characters. This is yet another example of how a character being mentioned in a video game website headline and in listicles does not necessarily mean that there is anything substantial to say about the character that couldn't be sufficiently covered within the parent article. Following summary style, we should only split to a separate article when there is an overabundance of coverage that warrants the split and would create undue weight in the parent list article. czar 16:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge and rd per nom and others. Does not meet reqs for independent notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Independent notability" is not a thing. The term "independent" as defined by

  content fork that more or less duplicates the material contained in another article that is better established in terms of notability, because that would justify the AfD approach. Haleth (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  You are incorrect to seem to suggest there is wrong doing here. It's a completely valid editorial decision to say that, if something receives virtually all of its coverage in the context of a parent subject, that it doesn't need to be split out into its own article Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You're missing my point here. I am not disagreeing with the suggestion that this article should be merged and redirected. Without opening a can of worms that has little bearing on the current discussion, all I am saying is, the notion of "independent notability" has no basis on guidelines or policies and makes no sense especially when any given number of related topics are never truly independent from each other in terms of discussion and scope. The primary issue to determine in most AfD cases is the alleged lack of significant coverage from independent RS, which is not a question of editorial decision, and I am not at all incorrect on that point. Haleth (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Your comments would make complete sense towards someone arguing for a delete !vote. But not to someone arguing for a merge. Sergecross73 msg me 17:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that they meant "standalone" notability, i.e. being its own page. It's the height of Wikilawyering to seize on a typo as evidence of bad faith of some kind, I think most of us know what they mean and it doesn't need multiple paragraphs refuting a nonexistent issue. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sergecross73: When did I say I am arguing against a merge? I said I am ok with a merge and redirect for this article, if that isn't clear already. I simply decided to speak up over what came after, which in my opinion is a misinterpretation and misapplication of Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

  @

  WP:THREE, merely an editor's personal observation, in discussions as if it is a guideline or policy that everyone is obliged follow. Pointing out a misleading statement that is not endorsed by existing guideline or policy isn't Wikilawyering because it is no different then telling an AfD nominator that they have not provided a deletion rationale or perhaps that they are using AfD as an inappropriate cleanup drive for clearly notable topics. And if you are butting into conversations that aren't actually addressed at you and insinuating that there is bad faith editing involved, then perhaps it says a lot more about you then it does me. Haleth (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I can't imagine I'm alone in being surprised that you agree with Axem with your comments. I was reading this as an argument against his stance. If you agree with merging then I won't comment further. Sergecross73 msg me 23:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with the position, I simply don't agree with the why. Haleth (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow, uhhh, I guess this happened while I was enjoying my weekend. FWIW, I think "independent" and "standalone" basically mean the same thing semantically. If it helps, you can replace independent with standalone in your head. It's what I meant when I said it. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "Standalone notability" is still...not an actual guideline or policy. We have concepts like standalone "sequels/prequels", or standalone pages I suppose. But WP:N is pretty clear. Either something is notable for inclusion and mention on Wikipedia, or not at all. Most of the time, the fundamental question is still whether a topic is entitled to its own page, or covered in various proportions as part of a page about a broader topic. Haleth (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Then the guidelines do not reflect the de facto reality of how notability is applied and should be updated. The fact that you keep running into experienced editors employing the concept of "standalone notability" in AFDs so often is evidence that the concept is supported and should be enshrined in PAG somewhere. "Either something is notable for inclusion and mention on Wikipedia, or not at all." I don't think this is true. Notability is applied to articles, not individual sentences in articles. There are plenty of sourced sentences/facts in articles that are mentioned in Wikipedia that do not and should not get their own articles, despite their inclusion being perfectly reasonable within articles. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've took it upon myself to expand the article with some new sourcing, including the Fearnet source I posted above and the IGN source, as well as expanding upon the Game Informer source. Right now, we have at least
  three non-listicles in the reception and a couple more elsewhere. Not to mention, her voice actress winning two awards. MoonJet (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Her voice actress won a minor industry award, an accolade for the voice performance, but it is not among the major annual gaming awards we take note of. It does suggest that Beata Poźniak is probably a notable or distinguished individual, but does little with establishing the presumption of a standalone Wikipedia article for the character she played. It certainly isn't Outstanding Achievement in Character, where the character itself is the subject of the accolade. Haleth (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, on their own, yeah, they don't mean much. I was just adding that for a little something extra. Either way, my main point was the sources I brought up, not her voice winning awards. I still think it would pass without the awards. MoonJet (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  List of Mortal Kombat characters - A dozen or so pieces of trivial entries in routine coverage of the MK games or listicles does not constitute significant coverage nor denote any kind of stand alone notability. The closest we have out of all of these sources of actually valid coverage is that the voice actress won a minor industry award, which as mentioned above, is not sufficient for establishing notability for the fictional character she portrayed. Rorshacma (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I thought the DLC reviews and impressions came the closest to in depth coverage of the topic, but overall, there isn't enough significant coverage. Haleth (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  WP:GNG or is just an article reliably sourced to the subject indirectly or in passing mention. It's hard to decide, but merging (and/or redirecting) might be the better option here. Sparkl^talk 14:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  What do you think of the Fearnet and Syfy sources? Both cover her too, neither of which being listicles, and are both media networks, suggesting their reliability, like Haleth talked about above. MoonJet (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm curious, but where did you get that Syfy is RS, or is it just your opinion? It might be possible that Fearnet, with a WP page, could be reliable, but could you find any editorial policies (apologies if I can't find any) that indicates the reliability of these sites, instead of an assumption? VickKiang (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry to say, but I don't think both sources are decently reliable, at least from what I've seen. I couldn't find any credentials for both Fearnet and Syfy, and they are both nowhere to be found at

  WP:VG/Sources. I'm not sure if this is mentioned before or if I forgot, but the author of the Syfy article, Jenna Busch, could be this person, but again, that's just speculation. Sparkl^talk 15:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Merge per all. The coverage adds up to mostly
  WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, but there is a valid merge target. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. If merge is done, please ensure MERGE IS DONE, not just a redirect. The reception section is worth preserving in its entirety somewhere. I concur it suffers from mostly passing mentions, but that doesn't mean it should be discarded. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason James (footballer)

Jason James (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Avilich (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 09:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Grenada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Pažitná

Anna Pažitná (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 ski mountaineer.

• Delete Appears to fail
  wp:GNG, apparently hasn't won medals. Nythar^T.C 20:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Slovakia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article appears to fail
  WP:GNG. I tried searching the name with and without the diacritics and other than routine stats pages, nothing came up. In the article, the first two references are literally just stats with no context and are absolutely trivial. The third reference on the article wasn't loading but I was able to get it working via archive.org and it is absolutely a trivial mention: Medzi ženami bola najrýchlejšia na trati s prevýšením 1200 m Anna Pažitná. which in Slovakian says Among the women, Anna Pažitná was the fastest on the track with an elevation of 1200 m. That's as far as it goes into detail, other than listing a completion time of 3:33 for her amongst the stats of others. - Aoidh (talk) 21:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Erich Hartstein

Erich Hartstein (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Journalism. Nythar^T.C 19:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Doesn't pass GNG. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 19:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 06:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Wiggins

Bob Wiggins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail both

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Penale52 (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Penale52 (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Why wouldn't the Chicago Sun-Times obituary be independent? Because it's from Chicago? StAnselm (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a copy of it, it might help, but usually obituaries have information supplied from the family, so I'm not sure how it could be completely independent of the subject. Even if it supports his brief career, his tenure happened so far removed from major league quality competition, I'm not sure it would even matter. Penale52 (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if he passes GNG, then it doesn't matter what the level is. Anyway, the text of the obituary appears to be here. StAnselm (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to. generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd consider this independent, but minor coverage. He was associated with a charity, and they have a profile of him, [2]. And whatever else is given in the article, keep I guess. I'd prefer if we kept ALL baseball articles, but we have notability guidelines. Oaktree b (talk) 23:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've rescued the dead Chicago Sun-Times article, the article is here. It's a real article independent of the subject, entitled, "Outfielder, passed up by Sox, made his mark in the old Negro Leagues." Based on that and the other couple of non-trivial mentions, I think this passes. Andre🚐 06:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - if the obituary is independent, and it is from a reliable source, then this barely meets GNG. Rlendog (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Cooper Research Technology

Cooper Research Technology (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and United Kingdom. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article fails
  WP:ORGIND). While their "HYD 25 testing apparatus" and "Beam-Flex" are somewhat popular in multiple asphalt-related research papers cited in Google Scholar and compilation works in Google Books, they are discussing a specific product used in testing, not the company that makes it; any mention of the company itself in these instances is trivial. Newspapers.com returned exactly 1 result, which again is a trivial mention. - Aoidh (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Cyril Champange

Cyril Champange (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 seem like a notable Ski mountaineer. A

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 14:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and France. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. BilletsMauves^€500 15:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Paola Martinale

Paola Martinale (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 skier; no medal record, and a

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 14:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree with nom. Not able to find much in Google that is useful. Zeddedm (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Isfahan Railway Workers Housing

Isfahan Railway Workers Housing (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)

For the same reasons already discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agro-Industry Complex, which this is just another example of. FOARP (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. FOARP (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Appears to be worker housing on the edge of Isfahan proper. No evidence of either official recognition or significant coverage to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 16:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarfatti Building

Sarfatti Building (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 importance here is both social (being some sort of main student building, as I gather from university sources) and architectural (rationalist architecture). However, I can't find in-depth coverage from third-party sources; those given on this page and in the Italian analog of the page are either affiliated, passing, or both. Searches for 'edificio sarfatti' and 'edificio leoni bocconi' turn up no in-depth third-party coverage. It may be significant, but I can't find the requisite sources to back it up. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 21:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created the article. The building is actually featured, together with other Bocconi University buildings, in the Lombardia Beni Culturali website, which collects all the recognized and protected monuments in Lombardy region.--Plumbago Capensis (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can also find extensive coverage here [3]:).--Plumbago Capensis (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Plumbago Capensis: As for the first, I reviewed that when I nominated this for deletion, and don't consider that to be substantial coverage, but I can see an argument for notability when taken together with the whole university complex. However, this is one of many buildings in the complex. As for the second, that might be significant coverage, but that's one source, so not substantial enough. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 05:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Iseult:. I do believe that the combined sources point to a significant notability of the building. There are some which are same-party, but others include a catalog of Architectural monuments in Lombardy which itself features a very long list of references, a well-known and highly esteemed tourist guide (Touring Club) and an in-depth description article created by the Ordine degli Architetti di Milano (an official institution reuniting all architects in Milan). Plumbago Capensis (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NBUILDING. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 15:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. Being "a masterpiece" of that kind of architecture is a significant claim. It was built in 1937, and i would think it is the kind of building that, in the U.S., would be listed on the National Register of Historic Places for its architecture. In the English Wikipedia though, we don't seem to have coverage of any corresponding Italian registry (see
  Monument historiques, Wikipedia's page on the formal program in France. So this is a sad situation, I don't see how I can easily look up if this Sarfatti Building has been immediately registered, and it likely hasn't yet, although it seems to me that it almost certainly will be, based on what I can see about this building and what i know about many other countries' heritage registry systems. --Doncram (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Searches should try "Edificio Sarfatti", or it seems to be known also as "Edificio Sarfatti 25". The deletion-targeted page seems to be a close translation of an Italian Wikipedia article, not yet noted in this article or its (non-existent) Talk page. (However there is a small link over to the left to go to the Italian wikipedia version). But that articulolio was created earlier this month by Plumbago Capensis, and I think has only been edited by them. (Hey, Plumbago, when you translate an article from another language's Wikipedia, there are requirements for what the new page must have in its edit summaries and what it should say on its Talk page, in order to ensure proper attribution is given to the original authors in the other language. Here, IMO there is no issue, since it's just you who wrote the Italian page. I'm not up to speed on the details, but I suggest you look into this and create a Talk page for this article and put the right stuff there.). Plumbago, I am glad you are contributing, and I think/hope this AFD should not be allowed to discourage you. There are often/always AFDs opened when anything looking different comes up. If this AFD does result in the article's deletion, please let's chat; I would be very motivated to help you get set to be able to contribute along these lines. --Doncram (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, User:Plumbago Capensis, when you translate a page you must follow Help:Translation#License requirements, about the first edit summary and about a template for the Talk page. If you don't in the future, that will lead to trouble for you. (I will repeat this at the user's Talk page, where there are other warnings.) --Doncram (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if the "Lombardia Beni Culturali" is an official governmental registry listing or not. But the Lombardia Beni Culturali page mentioned, apparently this about Università Luigi Bocconi, has a LONG list of good-looking-to-me substantial sources. Plumbago, it is true that a Wikipedia article does not have to include and cite reliable sources that are independent of the topic. They merely need to exist, for an article to be justified and to survive an AFD. But using such sources upfront avoids AFD troubles. Do you have access to any of those / can you add any information or quotes sourced to any of them? --Doncram (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:CRYSTALBALL, and we can make the article if the registry ever gets created. But not before, not based on speculation. As for your second and third, if you'd reviewed my nominating statement, you'd find that I've already been there. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 05:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks User:Iseult. But if there's significant coverage, the article can be created, whether or not the topic is listed in any official registry. But if the topic is listed in a registry that we understand to be "good enough" in terms of ensuring there exists documentation, then we can cut short any AFD discussion and educate AFD editors to avoid similar nominations. Like for a Level I or a Level IIa Listed building in England, or for an individually listed NRHP-listed building in the US (but there are lower levels in those registers where having an article is usually not justified). Currently I/we don't know about Italian heritage registries; I'd like to help fix that. --Doncram (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NBUILDING, this registry has to be of the national level. If you don't know of any, then we're done here, and it's a delete. I personally don't know of any either. Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 08:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - I spent a while trying to find the "masterpiece" claim in this source and as far as I can tell it is the sentence L'edificio è una delle più raffinate opere del razionalismo italiano... which Google Translate calls "finest works" rather than "masterpiece" but I think it's fair to say that's close enough, considering that I do not speak Italian and am not about to argue the nuance of the language when I'm basing it off of machine translation; I will
  WP:NBUILDING. Unfortunately in the English language I wasn't able to find any third-party sources that discuss the building, so I have to rely on the Italian sources which again, I do not speak Italian. However, there does appear to be coverage and the building does appear to be historically significant, so I think there's enough notability there to keep the article. - Aoidh (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep agree with the above source analysis, seems good. Oaktree b (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment per Todesco, Fabio (December 12, 2016). "When Architecture Tells the Story of a University, an Era and a City". Via Sarfatti 25. Retrieved August 25, 2022. Seventy-five years ago, on December 21, 1941, the Bocconi building in via Sarfatti 25 was inaugurated. It had been designed by Giuseppe Pagano...The building has left an imprint not only in the history of the University, but also in Italian architecture and in the development of Milan. In the difficult years between the '30s and '40s, with Italy ready to go to war and the Fascist regime influencing intellectual life, the construction of the building was so tormented, that Pagano himself defined it "a drama in three acts".

That's literally an affiliated source? It's from the university, and the address of the building is Via Sarfatti 25? Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 08:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that is not entirely an affiliated source, as it is from a university magazine.--Plumbago Capensis (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the university magazine is also called Via Sarfatti 25 (the address of the building): "THE BOCCONI BUILDING IN VIA SARFATTI TURNS 75 AND IS CELEBRATED BY A CONFERENCE AND A BOOK ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY OF THAT TIME, THE COMPLEX RELATIONSHIP WITH GIOVANNI GENTILE AND THE ARCHITECT GIUSEPPE PAGANO, FASCIST, ANTIFASCIST AND MARTYR, WHO DIED SHORTLY THEREAFTER IN MAUTHAUSEN." Djflem (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment per "Dagli anni Quaranta a oggi: la sede storica e il campus dell'università Bocconi". La Repubblica. 23 August 2019. Retrieved 27 August 2022. appears to also be known also as "La Bocconi". Djflem (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per source analysis and those in article. Djflem (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly a heritage-listed building, so meets
  WP:GEOFEAT. While Italy as a whole is not great at listing such things, Lombardy is much better, and as far as I know, Lombardia Beni Culturali is an official listing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 22:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parsa Sanat Khorasan Jonoubi

Parsa Sanat Khorasan Jonoubi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Iran. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't even think it's worth a redirect. GiantSnowman 09:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CONTROL (Professional Wrestling)

CONTROL (Professional Wrestling) (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 sources, no indication of notability. No verification that this "stable" name is actually used. It's not mentioned in the ELs for the three members. MB 19:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. MB 19:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and to be honest this could have been a
  PROD. — Czello 19:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  Mann Mann (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No
  WP:SIGCOV, no reason to keep. Jacona (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, nonnotable lacking coverage or even sources. Also invokes POV. It is commentary, not even an article. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 17:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NorthEast United FC. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NorthEast United FC B

NorthEast United FC B (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)

Effectively a recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NorthEast United FC Reserves and Academy. User has repeatedly tried to recreate, and now has created a second page. Should be redirected to NorthEast United FC as before. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and India. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Assam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to NorthEast United FC unless someone can present independent sources that indicate that the subject warrants its own article. Fats40boy11 (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and protect as above. GiantSnowman 09:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per nom, then protect the redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and protect as above. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to NorthEast United FC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Cox (aviation expert)

John Cox (aviation expert) (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)

Can't find good enough coverage for

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Ovinus (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While the subject may be frequently consulted for aviation-related media, this doesn't make him notable. My own search didn't turn up anything that could be used to augment this article. A loose necktie (talk) 01:56, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To be honest, I'm surprised that the creation of this page was even controversial. How is John Cox any less notable than, say, Greg Feith? In fact, one can argue that Cox is even more notable and decorated than Feith. I think this should be assessed by people who are more in tune with the aviation industry than Wikipedians who are less familiar with Cox's omnipresence within aviation-related media. Electricmaster (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I took a look at Feith's article to compare, and I'll respond. In its current state, Feith's article is in sorry shape. I could go and slap a fair number of citation needed tags on there. But looking at the list of awards, and putting things in the best, most optimistic light, I would expect to find some coverage in Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine for his Laurel Award, even though it's not currently cited. Same goes for the Embry-Riddle Distinguished Alumni Award, even though it's not cited. Looking at Cox, none of the awards are cited either, but none of them seem to be especially likely to have been widely reported in anything other than press releases. (I think "distinguished alumni award" trumps "outstanding MBA graduate" in significance). Finding non-PR coverage of at least a couple of them might tip the arguments towards keep. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  When Ive got time I’ll try to tidy up the Feith article with sources. Ovinus (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Like it or not, we're not a phone catalogue for "experts". Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  i understand that what i wrote above might be slightly derogatory, and i apologise for that. However, i still think that this person is just not notable enough, and stand by my original vote. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails
  WP:GNG. Show me a couple of reliable sources with in-depth coverage about him, not just mentioning or quoting him, and I'll happily change my argument. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - no evidence of any significant notability. Fails
  WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Korbová

Alice Korbová (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 ski mountaineer.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Czech Republic. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at nonnotable. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 17:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

André Jonsson

André Jonsson (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 athlete.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion as whether this should have been listed at RFD or AFD is interesting and perhaps can continue elsewhere. However, as it is here and I see a consensus for deletion, delete it is. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confederation of Autia

Confederation of Autia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a micronation in one of the pockets of alleged terra nullis on the Croatia-Serbia border. Croatia–Serbia border dispute#Liberland mentions a notable and three non-notable micronations claiming one or more pockets of land. The mentioned micronations are, on a brief check, verifiable as claimed micronations in reliable sources but I cannot find a single mention in reliable sources of this micronation, let alone in-depth coverage. A day after creation in 2017, Pichpich redirected this to the border dispute article, but as it is not mentioned there I don't think the redirect is useful. As the content has never been discussed and is not speedy deletable, RfD would rightly conclude to revert and send it to AfD for discussion so I've just done that. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#Princedom of Ongal where redirects related to other micronations here have been nominated for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I find no significant coverage of the Confederation of Autia. Pichpich (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pichpich: Do you recall why you redirected it? I can't even find anything to sustain a mention at the target. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It was five years ago and I was probably doing some new page patrolling. I don't remember my motivation for redirecting. Pichpich (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Croatia, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrong forum. The status quo is a redirect, so this needs to be discussed as a redirect at RfD. When someone redirects article content and then immediately nominates the redirect at RfD, consensus is that the article should be restored and taken to AfD because the nominator is gaming the system by trying to delete an article as a redirect. This is no different. This was never established as an article and unreferenced garbage like this
  should never be restored. Furthermore, the nominator's claim that only "speedy deleteable" content should be deleted at RfD does not enjoy consensus. This was discussed at length here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I agree, I see little point in restoring an unsourced article created over 5 years ago which was an article for less than a day. If it seems controversial, someone actually thinks it needs to be discussed at AFD or specifically asks then yes but otherwise I don't see a problem with deleting articles that were short lived years ago where no one objected to redirecting in the sense of they thought it should remain a full article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe and (barring occasional exceptions) consensus strongly agrees, that articles that are not speedy deletable should be discussed at AfD before being deleted and that the correct response to a BLAR that results in a bad redirect is to revert the redirect and discuss the article at an appropriate forum. AfD is an appropriate forum to discuss the deletion of an article. So yes, someone (i.e. me) does think this needs to be discussed at AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The central question (and the whole reason you want the redirect deleted) is ...as it is not mentioned there I don't think the redirect is useful and that is a question for RfD, not AfD. Many RfD discussions hinge on the mentionworthiness of a topic and is something that RfD editors are experienced to handle. No rational editor will want to keep the rubbish you have restored, so trying to backdoor-delete the redirect through AfD would naturally have a higher likelihood of getting your desired result. This is

  gaming the system and should not be tolerated. I also find it—interesting—that you have alluded to a consensus multiple times now without showing evidence of it. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:41, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I don't see evidence that consensus generally strongly agrees though I don't participate at RFD much, there was discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 31#Little Welnetham Priory and User talk:Thryduulf#Redirected pages at RFD. At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 December 27#Wikipedia:Cthulhu Mythos reference codes and bibliography Tavix suggested restoring but that probably had more history. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have time to find all the links right now to demonstrate the consensus (I'll add them when I do), but restoring and sending to AfD is very common following a BLAR nominated at RfD. My main concern here is not that it is completely unverifiable in reliable sources - indeed only in unreliable sources was I even able to verify its existence (to the extent that micronations can be said to actually exist). My justification for coming to AfD is, exactly as I've explained, to get the process right not so that I am more likely to get the result I want (the result I want is either consensus that this is a verifiable (and ideally verified) thing notable enough for either an article or to be merged somewhere or consensus that it should be deleted). Merge and redirect are both appropriate outcomes of an AfD, but deleting article content is not an appropriate outcome of an RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, restoring and sending to AfD is common following a BLAR nominated at RfD, but this is not a

  WP:BURDEN so proper process, even when setting aside the status quo, was not followed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Whether content is appropriate for the encyclopaedia or not requires consensus at a venue suitable for discussing article content, RfD is not such a venue so it would need to come to AfD anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  RfD is absolutely the correct venue for discussing any page whose status quo is a redirect, no matter its history. RfD editors are more than competent to make a determination on whether or not article content is appropriate and act accordingly. To that end, I have never seen appropriate article content deleted at RfD, it has always been junk like this. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, RfD is the appropriate venue only for discussing:

  • The correct target of any redirect
  • The existence of redirects without history as something other than a redirect
  • The existence of redirects with history as something other than a redirect when:
    • That content would be speedily deletable if restored, or
    • That content has previously been subject to a consensus discussion an appropriate venue.

  This has always been the case throughout the more than 18 years I've been on Wikipedia, baring a circa single digit number of exceptions article content that does not meet one or both the requirements is simply not deleted at RfD because it is not AfD (RfD and AfD are separate for a reason). This is despite how much you have argued for the contrary over the years. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. This is one of them. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. what we are discussing here is content that was submitted as an article and is currently an article. The article content was boldly redirected, I objected to that redirect and so reverted it and have started a discussion about it in an appropriate venue. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You are five years too late making that argument, the status quo is not an article. In the intervening time it had become established as a redirect. On the other hand, it was never established as an article. Because you also object to the article content (as evidenced by starting this discussion), restoring it was not appropriate. You are more than welcome to object to the blanking-and-redirecting of an article, but that objection needs to be because there is acceptable article content under the redirect. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete I like micronations, but unfortunately, only a handfull few of'em are notable. This one is not one of them, and the state of the article requires a speedy. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per
  WP:G3. This was a creation by a "vandalism-only account", but I would lean more towards the "blatant hoax" side. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  This is not a hoax. There is enough information in unreliable sources to be sure that this is an accurate reflection of a real but non-notable thing. A11 is closer than G3, but I'm not convinced it definitely meets the requirements of that criterion (specifically the close connection between article creator and article subject). I did carefully check whether this met any speedy deletion criterion but while it's close it doesn't quite match any of them and CSD explicitly only applies in the most obvious of cases, which means that where there is doubt it does not apply. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Posting that something exists on a wiki does not make it exist. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  When the subject of the article is a claim that something exists (which is what a micronation is), evidence that people have claimed that that thing exists is sufficient evidence to show that the article is not a hoax for the purpose of speedy deletion. Whether or not it shows anything else is irrelevant for the purposes of G3. Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find any mention of this outside wikies. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coit Cleaners

Coit Cleaners (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 far as I can tell there really is no notability here--the company exists, this is true, but seems to not be anything special, and any notability seems derived from a lawsuit filed in 1993 and settled in 2003. I don't think they meet NCORP.

Update: I just noticed this is the second nomination--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coit Cleaners (really a third--deep dive into Wikipedia history!). But our standards for discussing deletion have changed a bit, and we should now require evidence of notability rather than just claims of notability, which is what we find in those two discussions from 2005. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep OPs right, stuff DID change from 2005, specifically the notability guidelines regarding companies. Now all wikipedians need to do to make sure the article on their favorite establishment is kept is have at least ONE non-local reliable source. And would ya look at that! None other than Bob Vila's website ranked it in their top 3 couch cleaning services. There, all you need now is a couple of more reliable sources, local included (Like this one about their operations in Kentucky) and you're good to go! Now I'm wondering if OP did any sort of
  WP:BEFORE...Americanfreedom (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Ahem. Bob Vila is a TV host. His website is not a reliable secondary source. I've never been very impressed with Bizjournals.com, but OK, there's an article then. Anyway, the idea that one hit on a TV host's website and an article in a business journal is enough is kind of silly. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I have fond memories of watching Bob Vila, but his website is questionable in terms of establishing notability. For one thing, Mr. Vila certainly did not write that article, a freelance writer did. Second, the BobVila.com website earns a commission on the listed cleaners, so there is a conflict of interest there, as defined by
  WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete sources aren't really useful. Bob Vila is 75 or so, I really don't think he's active on his website and rating companies; likely people running it and paying to use his name. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per abouve. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree with all arguments for deletion. It comes down to not having enough citations. Samanthany (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ryan Doan-Nguyen

Ryan Doan-Nguyen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unable to locate

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Vietnam. DavidEfraim (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A heavily promotional BLP that fails the GNG going away, even after removing a fair bit of uncited puffery. The subject's only mentions in the sources provided are casual namedrops, or quotes from the subject (which explicitly cannot support the notability of the subject). The article creator is a SPA for whom creating this article, and promoting the subject in others, is the sole Wikipedia activity. Ravenswing 22:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails
  WP:BASIC. Aside from this which is a local piece, everything that mentions him is a trivial mention, and articles require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Notability's just not there. That local piece does say "Doan Nguyen made headlines around the state earlier this year..." which made me think there would be something out there in terms of reliable sources, but aside from an interview everything I could find was either related to the press release found in the article, or mentioned him in passing. - Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Galeanonym, the author of the page, has blanked it and put up a G7 template. Ravenswing 17:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Doesnt this mean this can be speedy-ed? Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jai Siddarth

Jai Siddarth (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 citations have no association with the subject at all. Fails notability DavidEfraim (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. DavidEfraim (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete they do but they’re only passing mentions and don’t demonstrate notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunately, not enough notability present as of now. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnar Klack

Gunnar Klack (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)

References are passing mentions. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Possibly TOOSOON? Some media coverage that could imply meeting criteria 7 of WP:Notability(academics) but he might be well producing those in his function as a journalist not as an academic. The article would need more evidence of notability - either general, or as an academic or author. JamesKH76 (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added two references as evidence of notability, this might meet criteria 7 of WP:Notability(academics): substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. Andreas Tuffé (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You added a youtube video which has 168views and is likly non-rs because of that and a 40 documentatry short where he presents is not evidence of an academic. The real problem there is no mainstream evidence. Its all patched together. It should be immediately visible by a 2 minute search. scope_creep^Talk 06:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]