Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 13

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< December 12 December 14 >

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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Hummel

Elizabeth Hummel (edit | talk | history | 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 notability. Fails NARTIST, GNG. Promotional, have to assume there is a COI. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 21:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider researching if you want to continually follow the ARS rescue list. Our mission is not to look at the article as it is... the mission is to improve the article. Lightburst (talk) 22:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this discussion as Delete but I was asked to relist it to allow an editor to participate in it so I have reverted my closure and relisted it. Please be aware that another admin can close this when they choose to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I requested the reopen of this deletion discussion because I had just started to research and had just posted it on the article rescue list. So far I have added 3 references. I will continue to research the person. Thanks Beccaynr for getting the research started. Lightburst (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to get the participants here to take another look to see if the subject meets
WP:BASIC after the rewrite. I have added at least three non-trivial news references. I wanted to present the best version of the article since it had zero references and just looked like bullet points of promotion previously. @TheLongTone, Beccaynr, and ThegaBolt:. Thanks for considering! Lightburst (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks Beccaynr at least it looks like a proper Wikipedia article now. Easier to assess the notability. Lightburst (talk) 15:12, 16 December 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 List of Tanzania Twenty20 International cricketers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yalinde Nkanya

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

Player fails both

WP:CRIN). Does not appear likely to have sufficient detailed coverage in reputable sources for GNG. Bs1jac (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I would add that the solution could be a redirect to List of Tanzania Twenty20 International cricketers. Bs1jac (talk) 23:48, 13 December 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. If editors would like to turn this article into a redirect, please discuss it on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

J.G. Morgan

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

fails

WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 23:26, 13 December 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! 23:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Urbane Magazine

Urbane Magazine (edit | talk | history | 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 initially

WP:PRODed
this with the following rationale: "Non-notable, short lived student publication. None of the current references appear to be valid significant coverage in reliable sources, and searches turned up no coverage elsewhere. Note that there appears to be a current magazine also named "Urbane", but it is unrelated to this defunct student publication." However, it seems that it had already been deleted via PROD in the past and recreated, thus making ineligible for that method of deletion again, so I am bringing it to AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Magazines aren't inherently notable, or automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles — the notability test hinges on demonstrating some significance, not just on verifying that the topic exists. But of the just four footnotes here, I get one directory entry that isn't support for notability at all, and three dead links of which two came from the student media of the same university this magazine also served (thus not fully independent of the topic for the purposes of being able to add GNG points) and one Waybacks as "page not found" even the first time Wayback ever scraped it at all. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes. (Also there was a probable conflict of interest here, as there's a significant correspondence between the username of the editor who created the article and the name of the magazine's publisher in the directory entry that constitutes footnote #1.) Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only secondary coverage I have been able to find is this mention in 2011 in the Globe & Mail (in an article written by the former fashion editor of Urbane Magazine) and a mention of the Urbane Magazine launch party in January 2010 in an Ontario newspaper article about a band called The Folk. Does not meet GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:50, 19 December 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! 22:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Randy O'Rear

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

Subject is non-notable, does not fulfill GNG or PROF. References are either entirely about his taking office, or are not independent of the institution, or both. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree-not remotely a major university with the significant presence in scholarship and research that is required. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Huh???? Curbon7 (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article is the President of the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor in Texas. I assumed that was "the institution" Xxanthippe was inquiring about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:43, 16 December 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! 22:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Donna Eastwood

Murder of Donna Eastwood (edit | talk | history | 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 that this case is any different than the myriad homicide cases that, unfortunately, occur regularly.

not particularly notable. Ponyobons mots 22:53, 13 December 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 House Foundation. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Falklen

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

Looks like it fails

(talk) 21:55, 13 December 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Phillips (politician)

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

Members of national or sub national legislatures are notable but Phillips is member of a city council which fails Wikipedia:Notability (politics)#Politician. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phillips represents more people then some mayors or state representatives. We don't usually have dicussions for deleting Major city councilmembers pages. If we delete phillips' page then we will have to delete hundreds of othersUser:Phillypaboy123Let's Talk ! 10:18, 6 December 2022 (EST)

  • Keep: Deficient rationale for deletion. Not all city council members are notable–this is self-evident. However, a city council member of a major U.S. city will almost certainly warrant an article. According, the actual standards we have for notability are fulfilled by the current stub. Additionally, sources that further evident his notability are easily accessible: The Philadelphia Inquirer 27 Oct, Philadelphia Tribune 8 Nov, and BillyPenn 25 Oct. All of these sources should be sufficient to ensure challenges to notability are addressed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per
    WP:POLOUTCOMES, I don't think Philipps satisfies the criteria of being from an "internationally famous metropolitan area" (for me, in a US context, this would be New York, LA, Chicago). He may or may not satisfy the GNG, but I don't believe presumed notability can apply here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
As an after-thought, I think the size of the city is important, but not determinative. Cities of considerably smaller size can be far more "internationally famous" than larger cities; eg by way of comparison, Miami or Nashville are clearly internationally well known, but notably smaller than Charlotte (NC) or Jacksonville (FL), which are far from being internationally well known. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again I will state, his predesscors and all the other councilmembers have pages. If we delete this page, the other pages of city council members from urban cities all over america will have to be deleted to fit what you're saying.User:Phillypaboy123Let's Talk ! 10:03, 7 December 2022 (EST)
I would encourage reading
WP:ALLORNOTHING. If a subject/person etc cannot demonstrate notability based of this encyclopaedia's various criteria, then it cannot have an article. That only has relevance for that particular subject, in and of itself it has no impact on any other subject. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
You get my point, this opens up the case of deleting many other urban city council member's pages. User:Phillypaboy123Let's Talk ! 19:28, 7 December 2022 (EST)
Not sure I get your point; I disagree with the points you've made that deleting this article would mean deleting a class of articles. FWIW, in my comment, I'm using subject as in the subject of an article, not subject as in a topic area. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning given to delete this article, gives leeway for many other articles to be deleted. Thanks, --Phillypaboy123 (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2022 (EST)
  • Delete I'm also going to say TOO SOON - it looks like this is a young, newly elected local politician with very little press other than short blurbs about him being elected. The 'BillyPenn' article is about him but the source is only local (local politicians need wide-ish source coverage to meet NPOL). Much more would be needed for this to meet GNG. Lamona (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he can be sourced better. While it's true that city councillors in global cities like New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago or Philadelphia are often accepted as notable enough, that isn't an automatic guarantee in all cases — it hinges less on verifying that he exists as a city councillor, and more on the amount of
    WP:TOOSOON". Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 18 December 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! 20:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strawfoot

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

Unsourced article that does not establish notability. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

  • Delete. Applied sources are a 2011 Independent Music Awards submission, a 404 error and the band's MySpace page. A reasonable BEFORE finds nothing significant directly detailing in RS. BusterD (talk) 08:35, 19 December 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 soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Kovid Mittal

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

Only appeared in non notable films which fails

WP:NACTOR. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 16:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 13 December 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. There is consensus that the sources don't support a policy-compliant article on this topic. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North Kyrgyz Confederation

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

Find me any authoritative scientific work by a Western or at least a Soviet author to confirm the existence of this alleged state. Half of the sources in the article are a forum where anyone can upload the article. The remaining half are scientific works that touch on the history of the Kirghiz, as tribes not united by a confederation. There is no such term as "North Kyrgyz Confederarion", the author of the article invented it himself. He was repeatedly blocked on the Russian Wikipedia for vandalism and harassment. This term is one big fiction. Kazman322 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ISBN 978-90-47-40121-6
    .
  2. ISBN 0-8108-4868-6
    . Despite heroic resistance of the Kyrgyz tribes, between 1762 and 1831 the Kokand Khans established control over most of the territory that is now Kyrgyzstan. They confiscated the land to build numerous fortresses and trading outposts, imposed stringent levies, and conscripted young Kyrgyzs to military service. The Kyrgyzs could not find allies in the east, as they were aware of the fate of the Oirats (Dzhungars) who were practically exterminated for their resistance by the Chinese troops in Eastern Turkistan in the late 18th century. The independentminded Kyrgyz tribes, which regularly rioted against the Kokand rule, began seeking allies in the north. During the late 18th and first half of the 19th centuries, leaders of northern Kyrgyz tribes several times contacted the Russian tsardom looking for possible support. (p.10)
  3. ISBN 9780511991523
    .
I'm more than usually accepting of non-English sourcing, but on a subject like this it strikes me as somewhat telling that no English sourcing appears available that unambiguosly supports the existence of this entity. Willing to be convinced otherwise, but reliable, high quality sourcing to date is lacking. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [19] German-Polish source, where the state of the northern Kyrgyz is mentioned. This is not the Kara-Kyrgyz Khanate of 1842, since the book was written in the 1850s (Before the collapse of the Khanate). Foggy kub (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not be misled, by the Kyrgyz we mean the Kazakhs, because until 1936 the Kazakhs and the Kyrgyz were called the same. Moreover, the source mentions that the Kirghiz live from the Volga to the Irtysh / Altai, it is obvious that the Kazakhs are meant. Kazman322 (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source mentions "Kara-Kyrgyz" or "Buruts", it is only said about the Kazakhs that they were called "Kaisak-Kyrgyz". Foggy kub (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This "German-Polish" source is an introduction to an 1842 poem by Gustaw Zieliński dating from around the 1880s (it quotes an 1876 text). This is not a high quality, reliable source that can be used to support the existence of the entity we're discussing. Ideally, we need contemporary sources from academic specicialists; an almost 150 year old introduction to a literary text, full of florid language and hyperbole, does not support the argument. FWIW, a vague wave towards, I'm assuming the following sentence, does not reveal anything relevant to this discussion. "Sie theilen sich in die eigentlichen Kirgisen, die im Gebirge Thian-schan wohnen und Kara (schwarze) Kirgisen oder auch Berg-Kirgisen oder Buruten genannt werden." Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [20] Second German source 1768. Foggy kub (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A Google books search pointing to "Das Land der Kirgisen" is not evidence of the North Krygyz Confederation. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [21] Third German source 1830. Foggy kub (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again: useless sources that mention the habitat of the Kirghiz, but not modern scientific authoritative works that interpret these tribes as a separate country, every day your sources are getting more and more hopeless. Kazman322 (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear colleague, these sources mention the state of the Kyrgyz (Buruts), the third source is a German encyclopedia, so these are authoritative sources. Foggy kub (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [22] The fourth German source, which directly points to the state of the Kyrgyz. Foggy kub (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [23] p.477, "Kyrgyz struggle for independence in the 18th century". Foggy kub (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unfortunately, this is
    original research; there's simply no reliable sourcing showing the existence of a *state* entity called the "North Krygyz Confederation" as presented in the article. It's *possible* to accept from some of the sourcing presented here that there were groupings in this region; but there's no clear consensus on the geographic locations (they overlap: some in northern parts, some southern) and there's simply no evidence that these functioned in the form of a state. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 19:48, 20 December 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! 20:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elora Danan

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

The article doesn't explain why the subject is notable at all. The cited informations are just small info about the filming. Neocorelight (Talk) 16:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am still (easily) finding and adding sources. BD2412 T 20:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned whether SIGCOV is met, it doesn't appear obvious but let me know if 2+ sources have a paragraph long, at least, analytical treatment and I'll reconsider. For now, I'd support merging the newly added content somewhere, it is certainly better than a pure fan plot summary that was here before. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep your non-policy-based additional criteria in mind for the future. Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: How do you like this one and this one? That's two; more to come. BD2412 T 21:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 Not as bad as I feared. Can you ping me if we get any sort of reception/analysis section going? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... and for the record,
WP:NEXIST is still policy, which makes your !vote non-policy-based. Jclemens (talk) 08:34, 20 December 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! 00:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Rees-Jones (bodyguard)

Trevor Rees-Jones (bodyguard) (edit | talk | history | 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 page is about a subject that is a classic example of notability for a

Wikipedia:SingleEvent. I think the ideal is for a couple of the more substantial points of this entry to be moved to Death of Diana, Princess of Wales and the rest deleted. Samuelshraga (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:NBOOK is about the notability of a book, not a person. It may be possible to argue that the book is notable (I'm dubious but would be interested in such a discussion) but I don't believe that would provide support for this person. Lamona (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
FWIW, also satisfies
WP:NAUTHOR c.3. It would not be an outcome that would make this a better encyclopeaedia that we could have an article about the subject's autobiography, but not an article about him. In this case, given the matters of concern, it's far more common sensical to have an article about the person rather than the book. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:20, 13 December 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! 03:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bluevine

Bluevine (edit | talk | history | 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:SIRS. UPE. scope_creepTalk 13:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

It is an interview stating "BlueVine CEO Eyal Lifshitz tells CNBC.com". Lifshitz who founded Bluevine. He stated the extra capital is coming from Citi Ventures, which is funded by Citigroup. So an interview from the company director is explicity covered
WP:CORPDEPTH as a routine funding annoucement. CORPDEPTH was explicity strengthend to stop routine funding news source to be used as references. And that is what is it. It is not a valid source. scope_creepTalk 16:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
What are you talking about? The article simply quoted Lifshitz. It's just 2 sentences. That's not an interview. Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CNBC does not explain why Citigroup invested in BlueVine - beyond the title, it provides a platform for people connected to the companies to promote a capital transaction, without a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, so there is insufficient
WP:ORGIND for this source to support notability. Beccaynr (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Did you try reading the article? “We found BlueVine doing factoring in a much more modern fashion,” said Purushotham, who works out of the Citi Ventures Palo Alto office. “They’re able to approve invoices to be factored very quickly, and because they’re online and plugged into account systems that small- and medium-sized business use, they’re able to pull data from a variety of sources.” Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a quote from someone connected to the company, i.e. Citi Ventures, which engaged in the capital transaction, and Purushotham is also quoted in the April 27, 2016 BlueVine press release - Purushotham does not offer significant or independent analysis - this is promotion of the capital transaction. Beccaynr (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Purushotham didn't write the article. He was simply quoted. Ari Levy of CNBC was the author. Therefore, independent. Why are you being so misleading? Sean Brunnock (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My analysis is based on a guideline designed to help protect the encyclopedia, per
WP:PROMO. When an otherwise reliable source substantially relies on promotional material produced by a company (including quotes from people connected to the company), it is not independent. The lack of independence is not the only issue with this source - it is also trivial coverage of Bluevine as a topic because it covers an announcement of a routine business transaction, and instead of discussing Bluevine in-depth, it discusses JPMorgan, WellsFargo, Goldman Sachs, American Express Ventures, and Capitol One Labs, how these transactions work generally, what happened with Citigroup and Prosper Marketplace, and a quote from Prosper President Ron Suber, before concluding with content and a quote from Bluevine CEO Lifshitz speculating on/promoting the advantages of the capital transaction with Citi Ventures. Beccaynr (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the source analysis from Beccaynr, not quite at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 13 December 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! 22:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Alano

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

Unreferenced. The external links section lists only the actress' social media accounts. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 13 December 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! 22:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Harrity

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

Member of national or sub national legislatures are notable but Harrity is member of a city legislature. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 10:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harrity represents 1.6 million people. In other context, big urban cities council members all have wikipedia pages. Harrity's page matches up with the status quo, if we delete his page then we have to delete many other pages User:Phillypaboy123Let's Talk ! 10:18, 6 December 2022 (EST)

Same as my comment at
WP:ALLORNOTHING, at a minimum need to demonstrate satisfying the GNG here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ Walsh, Sean Collins (26 September 2022). "A bar fight, a heart attack, and 12 years of sobriety: Jimmy Harrity's path to Philadelphia City Council". Philadelphia Inquirer.
  2. ^ Walsh, Sean Collins (7 December 2022). "New Councilmember Jimmy Harrity gets fresh with official bio". Philadelphia Inquirer.
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find nothing else about him except that he was elected to the city council. I unfortunately can't get to the one source (inquirer) that appears to be a significant source, but I am assuming it is. So there is one fairly good source. But remember that for the purposes of notability, a source, like Philadelphia Inquirer is viewed as one source even though it is repeated in the article; and that seems to be the main support for this article. Lamona (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Harrity also one of the leaders of the state party as a "Political Director", one of the most important positions.
Can you give a link for that? And also, sign your entries here. Lamona (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a state party level staff position, not seeing any inherent notability. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he can be sourced better. While it's true that city councillors in global cities like New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago or Philadelphia are often accepted as notable enough, that isn't an automatic guarantee in all cases — it hinges less on verifying that he exists as a city councillor, and more on the amount of
    WP:TOOSOON". Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 18 December 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! 20:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vogon

Vogon (edit | talk | history | 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've prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing

WP:SIGCOV. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. The Vogons are an essential satire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolf.turner (talk • contribs) 00:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to which reliable source? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Well, at least [1] says the Hitchhiker's Guide is a novel with an "extensive readership", "is an extended satire on the modern world" and among the subjects of the satire are "especially bureaucrats that are represented through Vogons". Daranios (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does that source elaborate on the idea more than that? I don't think a single mention of them as a satire of bureaucrats helps to establish notability, as it's not "significant" coverage. OliveYouBean (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios If all we have is a fragment of a signle sentence, I can't see how we are anywhere near meeting SIGCOV. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic". Daranios (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@Daranios Fair enough, rescuing > deletion, and the section looks quite good. As long as SIGCOV is met, and now that I look at the new section, this is likely, my concerns are addressed. I think this nomination can be withdrawn. Let's double check with others who experessed some concerns, with the note that the article has been improved since: @OliveYouBean @WngLdr34 @Zxcvbnm Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any other concerns. I wasn't sure how to vote before (which is why I asked the question) but I'm happy to vote keep now based on the recent edits. OliveYouBean (talk) 12:24, 20 December 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. Apparent

yet. RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Deanna Lynn Wulff

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

Inappropriate WP:Autobiography by User:Deanna wulff. Biographical notability not established; sources are about the proposal for a Range of Light National Monument rather than significant coverage about her specifically. The KQED source is a decent human interest article but the focus is still the proposal and Unite the Parks. Reywas92Talk 18:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unite the Parks didn't exist when the NPR story was written, so it's not possible for the article to be about the organization, which was founded in 2017. 2601:645:4300:4E20:209E:F844:A698:1D36 (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This Biography is notable because of the subject's accomplishments, which are documented in the cited references. Regarding notability, the stature of the references carry significant weight in this regard because they themselves are records of note. For example, Wulff is interviewed by National Geographic (Reference 7, titled "Inside the Political Battle ..."), and in the interview they include significant human-interest content, including childhood photos of Wulff. Likewise, in the National Public Radio KQED interview (Reference 1, titled "One Woman's Quest to Unite the Parks"), half of the piece (by word count) is about Wulff and her life experiences and perspective. Finally, the most obvious argument for Wulff's notability is the existence of the Range of Light National Monument campaign at all. While many visitors are moved and inspired by our National Wildlands, it is only an extremely small percentage of those visitors who respond by dedicating a decade of their lives to a grass-roots-effort that they then manage to carry all the way to the U.S. Halls of Congress, as is documented by the cited references. For this reason alone, Wulff is note worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeWerne (talk • contribs) 06:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC) — JoeWerne (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Reywas92Talk 14:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This account appears to have been created to vote on this AfD and to add to the article in question, which is suspicious. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I question whether this autobiography should be based on the person or the organization. It seems as though the organization she started is notable, and I think it would make sense to restructure the article based on the organization (and move it) and not based on the person. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is becoming clear from the comments - which mostly don't refer to the content of the page - that this an effort to take down this person rather an actual discussion of the news articles and the difficulty of the work performed, which is the basis of those articles. Further, several authors have adjusted the page AND the original comment about the NPR story is inaccurate. Unite the Parks didn't exist until 4 years after the article was written, so it cannot be about that.

If this targeting continues, this deletion page will be deleted as a violating wikipedia standards of conduct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:4300:4E20:BCE9:A049:B82:9059 (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to
WP:BLUDGEON users on the subject just because they are not on the same page as you. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The user has edited their reply to include the following: If this targeting continues, this deletion page will be deleted as a violating wikipedia standards of conduct. I'm not sure who you think you are to make this threat, but it's utterly baseless. AfD voting pages don't get deleted and no policy violations appear to be present on the page. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can't delete a deletion page, there is no process for doing this. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More resources added to the page. It seems nearly every statement has a link to a verifiable reference or respected news source, and the rationale for deletion is looking more and more odd. The page in improved though, so in that way, this discussion is serving the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.5 (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It could be that there has been some kind of misunderstanding - because the page didn't include as many references as it does now. And perhaps, there is an urge delete without looking closely at content, which may be automatic. In any case, this neglected page has been updated, and it appears some good edits have been made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.5 (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck duplicate vote by same IP, which is probably the same as IPv6 above, but AGF not striking that one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:58, 15 December 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. The arguments to keep are stronger on the substance and also numerically predominant. They rest on the fairly straightforward assertion that this individual meets GNG via coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of their subject. Evidence has been provided for this argument, which has largely not been directly challenged: those arguing to delete instead focus on the content of this coverage, arguing variously that it should not lead to notability per

WP:BLPCRIME, which discusses the BLP policy as it applies to people accused of crimes), or that nothing this individual has done is actually noteworthy. These arguments are acceptable in principle but weak when applied here. Coverage has been provided here of at least two episodes of this person's life, rendering the BLP1E argument weak. Also, some of this coverage predates any accusations of criminal activity; WP:CRIME applies to people only known for their connection to a crime or alleged crime. Finally, we're not in the business of second-guessing why entirely reliable sources decided to cover a topic; we should not be using Russian propaganda as a source, obviously, but we can't ignore coverage that happens to be convenient to said propaganda. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Vita Zaverukha

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

Procedural per this request and this thread as I protected the redirect. I am entirely neutral and uninvolved. (I will fix the redirect after this posts.) Star Mississippi 17:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC) ETA: to stave off more confusion on why AfD and not RfD, bringing up my comment from below on why this is here with a redirect. the reason this is an AfD on a redirect is two-fold. 1) this conversation needs more eyes than typically attend RfD and 2) there is an article that existed as recently as December 8 so this isn't the typical situation that makes sense at RfD. Probably a little IAR on my end but seemed to be what made sense to me to reach consensus, which is what I think we all want. The article version(s) are visible in the page history for anyone to assess. I remain neutral and uninvolved, this is just an admin nom through a protected page. Star Mississippi 15:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Putting it all together, I believe subject meets WP:GNG. As for merger or redirection, I do not see a suitable target. It is currently redirected to
WP:PAGEDECIDE, a stand-alone biography article is better than including her biography in another article. Levivich (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Not an RS, but here is a blog post about the Elle article that includes scans of it, posted by the famous French blog Les Crises by fr:Olivier Berruyer. Levivich (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The prior version of the article (before redirect) is in the page history. Levivich (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Process note @Oaktree b@Levivich: to clarify, which I should have probably put in opening, the reason this is an AfD on a redirect is two-fold. 1) this conversation needs more eyes than typically attend RfD and 2) there is an article that existed as recently as December 8 so this isn't the typical situation that makes sense at RfD. Probably a little IAR on my end but seemed to be what made sense to me to reach consensus, which is what I think we all want. Star Mississippi 21:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Star Mississippi: I can't remember any specific examples but I swear there is some precedent for blanking an article over BLP or similar concerns while it's discussed at AFD, like the way we sometimes undelete-and-blank articles while they're at DRV. In this case, given that BLP concerns have been raised, even though I don't personally share those concerns, I think blanking the article (via protecting it as a redirect) while it goes to AFD is a perfectly reasonable precaution to take. Levivich (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same. I can definitely think of some courtesy blankings although none specifically off the top of my head. I feel like we have more IAR leeway when it comes to BLPs Star Mississippi 22:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that makes sense. Confused, but it make sense now. Article is perhaps controversial, but I still think it's GNG with the sources. I don't think redirect is appropriate either, so we'd have to restore the version that's about 5 down in the article history. Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because Russian propaganda - the fact that she often features heavily in it - is pretty much the only reason she gets mentioned in other coverave. Volunteer Marek 22:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons listed by Levivich. Other sources that indicate a certain notoriety of the character are:
  • The New York Times:[69] "Vita Zaverukha, had previously posted images of herself on social media making the Nazi salute and wearing a swastika."
  • France 24:[70] "Vita Zaverukha, a 25-year-old Ukrainian female fighter and open neo-Nazi. Press articles mention the fact that ELLE magazine had interviewed Vita Zaverukha for its 14-20 November 2014 issue, presenting her as a Ukrainian volunteer fighter. However, Internet users reacted by publishing photos of her openly showing her sympathy for neo-Nazi groups on social networks. [...] ELLE magazine has apologised, saying its journalists were not aware of Vita Zaveroukha's views at all. Zaveroukha was arrested in May 2015 in Kiev after an attempted robbery at a petrol station and shooting at police officers, according to the Ukrainian media KP."
  • US Department - HUMAN RIGHTS REPORTS[71]: "Police detained four suspects, including Vita Zaverukha and three other activists from the violent radical group Unknown Patriot. As of July 6, only one indictment against one suspect for “hooliganism” had been sent to court."
  • Zaborona:[72]
  • LB[73]
  • Espreso TV[74]
  • Gazeta.ua[75]
  • Obozrevatel[76]--Mhorg (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ok so what is this person notable for? They're a neo-Nazi. Ok, unfortunately there are millions of people like that out there in the world. She posted dumb stuff on social media. Uhhh... yeah millions of people like that out there. She fought in one of the make shift militias in Ukraine in 2014 during the first Russian invasion. Tens of thousands of Ukrainians did. She committed an armed robbery. Like, not even murder or something but armed robbery. A crime millions of people have committed. And... that's it. That's the "notability" of this person. Can anyone really say with a straight face that this is a notable article that an encyclopedia should have? If you really think that I don't know how you expect to be taken seriously. Oh and let's add that she was a teenager during most of this stuff.
So. How did she get coverage in the media? Well, at one point Elle magazine ran an article on "women fighting in Ukraine" and stupidly they included her. Someone noted she was a neo nazi and some controversy ensued. This was immediately picked up by Russian propaganda who eats this kind of stuff up and amplified. As a result she got a few other mentions here and there. Aside from that, she gets mentions in some regional sources which basically report on local crimes and arguably she may be a local regional "social media celebrity" (or "notoriety") in Vinnitsia or whatever. There's still absolutely nothing here to make her notable. There's like two sentences in one (reliable) book, out of 100+ pages. There's a photocaption in Bellingcat. There's some coverage of the "Elle controversy" in a couple French outlets. Honestly, in almost any other article this would be WP:UNDUE so it sure as hey isn't notable. Best I can think of what could be done with this material is that it would get a brief mention (merge?) in
WP:BLP1E for a reason. Volunteer Marek 22:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete This is a
    WP:GNG
    this does not contribute to demonstrating their notability. What coverage of them is substantial is about two different things - appearing in Elle and the scandal from the discovery of her doing a number of neo-nazi things when she was 18, and coverage in relation to a crime.
She does not pass the criteria in
WP:BLPCRIME
- an article about a non public figure with substantial content dedicated their alleged involvment in a crime. A violation of " the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment" - making an article about a non-public figure (who is unlikely to have continued coverage of them) which may last as the top result on google for them for the rest of their life about neo-nazi and alleged criminal things they did when they were 18 is a violation of that (Yes, she does not look like a great person, but the purpose of wikipedia is not to act as a registry of people who did bad things). A violation of "it is not wikipedia's job to be sensationalist" - I can't see much other encyclopedic purpose to this article.
I don't think this article serves any genuinely encyclopedic purpose, and I think it goes against the principles of wikipedia, in particular
WP:NOTNEWS, this is mainly news type content. --Tristario (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
vn.20minut.ua does not look like a reliable source. You can see here users can submit stories, and I cannot find an editorial policy. It shouldn't be used to establish notability, and probably shouldn't be used for claims about living people at all Tristario (talk) 06:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:RS. Levivich (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
My mistake, I confused the French outlet and the Ukrainian one. The notice at the bottom of 20minut.ua's website says reader-submitted stories are published in a separate "From the Readers" section; the stories I linked to don't appear to be published in this section, and have bylines that are linked to author pages, so I don't think they're reader-submitted (obviously if they were, it wouldn't be an RS). The notice at the bottom also names an "Editor". So I still think it's an RS, but not as clearly as the French outlet. Levivich (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments:
WP:BLPCRIME
shouldn't apply.
The criteria under "perpetrators" in
WP:CRIME
applies to perpetrators. She hasn't been convicted of anything as far as I'm aware. She doesn't pass the criteria there
While it is true during the trial she received some coverage of her not directly related to the trial, her notability and the interest in her in that coverage still came from her being a suspect in the trial, and some of it related to allegations of crime, which is still a
WP:CRIME
issue
In terms of whether she is low profile or high profile
WP:CRIME shouldn't apply Tristario (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Sourcing given to support notability says she's now low profile: "This scandalous woman from Vinnytsia has already been forgotten, but she made herself known by posting several videos on the Internet. Now, judging by her videos, the girl is fighting in the Teroboron near Kyiv, where she was previously married and has been living for the past few years." OsFish (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]
But this is not relevant per
WP:NOTTEMPORARY. On the contrary, the sentence you quote confirms she is notable: "scandalous woman ... made herself known" Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Can you explain your theory that everybody who uploads a video to YouTube is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry? Because that is precisely what you are arguing here.OsFish (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a meaningless question posed to a straw man. I've never theorised that everybody who uploads a video to YouTube is notable. I won't reply to this but remind you of our
stay on topic. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I am clearly focussing on content, and staying on topic. You said "On the contrary, the sentence you quote confirms she is notable: 'scandalous woman ... made herself known'." The sentence you partially quoted is, in full, with emphasis added, "This scandalous woman from Vinnytsia has already been forgotten, but she made herself known by posting several videos on the Internet." What I am NOT doing is hacking phrases out of sources to make them say things they do not say. I am trying to look at the evidence in the round and how it matches up with policy. I find that a good approach.OsFish (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, as you are well aware, I've argued that she's notable mainly because of the trial and the public compaign for her release, plus the Elle's affair, and I've never argued that she's notable because of her social media activities, which add something to her public profile and fame, and are therefore DUE for inclusion in the article, but in themselves are not sufficient to establish the subject's notability. Secondly, since you say that you are not hacking phrases out of sources to make them say things they do not say, could you please tell me where did you get your reference to YouTube? I bet thet you were referring to other discussions I've recently had on YouTube videos, am I wrong? And that would also explain the indefinite pronouns you used, everybody. Anyway, since I've never said that everybody who uploads a video to YouTube is notable enough for a Wikipedia, you should either answer my questions and convince me that you were not casting aspersions by deliberately misrepresenting my views, or simply apologise and move on. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Firstly, I am only too happy to explain the reference to YouTube. It's in the source that you quoted here when you stated that the source "confirms she is notable" because she "made herself known", the full quote being "made herself known by posting several videos on the Internet" (emphasis addded). As the source states, "Why did we mention her now? Because we came across a video from a YouTube channel named after her. And in this video we recognize her herself." I fully admit my original assertion about your argument was based on the assumption you had read the source you were quoting, and I'm happy to apologise for assuming due diligence on your part. Secondly, I really appreciate that you now disagree directly with the assertion by Levivich that her current activities constitute any kind of notability. As the source says, and I invite you to read it, she "has already been forgotten". This matters in terms of whether she is a low profile person and thus how we approach BLP1E. It's good we're making progress.OsFish (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine, so you've inferred that I have a theory that everybody who uploads a video to YouTube is notable enough for a Wikipedia from the fact that I quoted a source that - you are right there - mentions a YouTube video by Zaverukha. But then, since you don't like people hacking phrases out of sources to make them say things they do not say, let me quote the entire sentence relating to the YouTube video, so that maybe you'll understand where the view that she's notable comes from; and maybe you'll also by able to explain how you could credit me with that nonsense about the YouTube video as the source of her notability:

At the beginning of the war, in 2014, and then in 2015, Vinnytsia publications wrote endlessly about Vita Zaverukha. First as a "bander girl", then as a "revenge girl", then as a "terrorist girl". She fought, was arrested for a crime, sat in the Kyiv pre-trial detention center, was released thanks to a benefactor who paid more than one and a half million bail for her... Activists met her from the pre-trial detention center with flowers. Let's remind you, she got married. She settled in Kyiv, so now she is an ex-Vinnytsian. Why did we mention her now? Because they came across a video from a YouTube channel named after her.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finally reading the source. That's a great quote you've posted. It shows that she is notable for her connection to a single event and that she then became a low profile person. It also shows that this local news media source, which you and others have heavily used, is not a reliable source in the wikipedia sense of the word: It omits in plain sight the key information that she was acquitted, not merely released on bail. Even this source, which spends time denigrating her, doesn't see the Elle thing as even worth mentioning as part of who she is. Surely it would be better to have an article on the event itself - the killing of the two Berkut officers - where the arrest and treatment of the group Zaverukha was part of can of course be mentioned as DUE, including any campaigns focused on Zaverukha. That's what various policies point to given the state of sourcing. To be clear, I don't think she's (been) a nice person at all. But let's be here to build an encyclopedia and follow policy.OsFish (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. In this now deleted comment, you point out that the claim in the article that she had been acquitted was badly sourced. It’s a significant mistake because there is a BIG difference between being acquitted and being released without trial. Being acquitted means that prosecutors felt they had enough evidence to proceed with a formal trial. Being released implies not even that threshold was passed. That’s a serious BLP breach. So I really wouldn’t boast about it. Also, when you insist you knew perfectly well the full contents of the source all along, it means that when you made your false accusations at me regarding the relevance of YouTube videos, implying I had been wiki stalking you and telling me to focus on content, you knew my comments were instead based directly on the source we were discussing and that the accusations you made were false. This is poor form, but other people reading this should be aware that it's not the first time there has been a problem with your behaviour.OsFish (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTTEMPORARY is about notability not being temporary. But it doesn't change that besides the criminal trial and associated events/coverage and since about 2017 she is low-profile and we should interpret various policies here through that lens Tristario (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Even if you think she is low profile, the third requirement of BLP1E isn't met, which is why it doesn't apply. Levivich (talk) 14:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think there is enough reference coverage for Ms. Zaverukha (most references mention Ms. Zaverukha in passing) to be notable in English-language Wikipedia and the version suggested has serious
    WP:BLP issues. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. The subject is clearly notable as per Levivich's and Mhorg's source analyses, to which nothing can be added. My own remark on notability are here [77]. From that remark, one point is maybe worth mentioning: when Zaverukha was in custody a public campaign for her liberation developed from nationalist right-wing circles, which focused on Zaverukha alone ([78] There are five participants in the case of the shooting of the "Eagles", but social networks are raging only about Vinnytsia's Vitynenko), included a member of parliament handcuffing himself to Zaverukha during a hearing [79], clashes between police and demonstrators near the courtroom [80], protesters blocking the building of the Court of Appeal from the outside [81], and an internet campaign "Je suis Vita Zaveruha" [82]. It's simply obvious that she's notable. Apart from this, what I'd like to stress is that the article was in dare conditions but now is acceptable - perhaps not perfect, some work still needs to be done, but it's not too bad, I think. You can read it here [83]. Given the nature of the subject, which is highly controversial, the article is likely to be the target of disruption and surreptitious attempts at deletion in the near future, so I would be grateful if you could add it to your watchlist. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that she isn't notable because Russian propagandists focus on her, it's that she's notable because Russian propagandists is the only place where the coverage of her originates. Please tell me - what exactly has she done that is "notable"? Volunteer Marek 06:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as weakly sourced
    WP:BUTITEXISTS
    .
The fundamental problem is what she's supposed to be notable for. Look at the lead:

Vita Zaverukha...is an Ukrainian nationalist militant and ex-serviceman of the volunteer battalion Aidar. Following Elle France's publication in 2014 of an article on pro-government female fighters in the war in Donbas, she became known for publishing neo-Nazi content on social media.[1][2] In 2015, she was arrested on charges of participating in a robbery in Kyiv that resulted in the death of two policemen of the Berkut special force.[3][4] A public campaign for her liberation developed from nationalist right-wing circles.[5] She was released on bail in 2017[6] and later acquitted.[7] She resumed her participation in the actions of the Ukrainian radical right[1] and, following the 2022 Russian invasion, she reportedly joined the territorial defense near Kyiv.[7]

The Elle reference is to a mention in an Elle article as one woman among many. A fuss arose was because Zaverukha was a Neo-Nazi and they shouldn't have included her. That doesn't make Zaverukha a notable person. That's material for the
WP:NBIO
, "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (emphasis added). Those articles are not primarily about her. It's poor pickings when we are supposed to be careful with BLP. Essentially, she is supposed to be notable because a journalist who didn't write much about her didn't know she was a neo Nazi that one time. But being a neo-Nazi in itself isn't a notable achievement.
Then, consider the final sentence: "She resumed her participation in the actions of the Ukrainian radical right[1] and, following the 2022 Russian invasion, she reportedly joined the territorial defense near Kyiv.[7]" Neither of these is grounds for notability, especially not the last bit when there's an all-out war going on.
So what we are left with is this:

In 2015, she was arrested on charges of participating in a robbery in Kyiv that resulted in the death of two policemen of the Berkut special force.[3][4] A public campaign for her liberation developed from nationalist right-wing circles.[5] She was released on bail in 2017[6] and later acquitted.[7]

In other words, for her connections as one among many to a single event which is a crime. What does
WP:BLP1E
say?

Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

  1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
  2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a
    low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect
    the person's name to the event article.
  3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.
    Reagan assassination attempt
    , was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.

The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the

low-profile individuals
.

And then there is
WP:CRIMINAL
, the guideline regarding notability of people involved in criminal acts. Such a guideline is of course needed because anyone arrested for a serious crime gets into the press. It says:

For perpetrators,

  1. The victim of the crime is a
    renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities;[1]
    or
  2. The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.[2]
    • Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.
Both those policies strongly suggest that Zaverukha should NOT be the subject of her own article, especially considering that she was NOT the only one arrested in this one event (three other members of the far right were also) and she was NOT found guilty. Much of the detailed coverage is actually local, including frequent sourcing to a local website that appears to solicit user content, vn.20minut.ua.
Regarding Russian propaganda: as others have already stated, we do need to be aware of the movement to make her into a much bigger figure in Ukraine than she actually is. There has been problematic behaviour on the page itself, with likely sock puppet activity and disruptive editing including from IPs. So I advise people look closely at what is actually there in sources, because it is a lot less than the cut and paste lists of RS supposedly establishing notability would lead you to believe.OsFish (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: Having reviewed most of the stronger-looking sources listed, this seems very much to be a
    WP:BLP1E; the ambiguity arises because two events are involved, giving a stronger initial impression of general notability. However, looking at each case, the answer is a clear no to each of the following BLP questions: Do any reliable sources cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage, or is the person mentioned only in connection with an event or organization? Was the person the main focus of relevant coverage? Is the person notable for any other events in their life? Because of this lack of notability beyond the incident, there are no biographical elements in the article: no reliable source has reported on her life before her brief notoriety relating to Elle, and the incidents after the 2017 trial are fragmented non-noteworthy incidents about which there are fairly vague allegations. It does not appear that she is a significant leader in the far right, just a footsoldier who had 15 minutes of fame. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Hello BobFromBrockley, actually there is at least one source reporting on her life before her brief notoriety relating to Elle: see this 2014 dedicated article (with interview and photos) on the local press of Vinnytsia [84]. During and after the trial we have various articles from Ukrainian national press entirely dedicated to her in connection with the trial and the public campaign for her liberation: I wouldn't say that she was mentioned only in connection with an event or organization there, since she was the main/exclusive focus of the event, be it the trial or the public campaign: [85][86][87][88][89] (very incomplete random selection). Following the trial and her liberation, her vicessitudes continued to be reported by the national press: attack on LGBT activists [90], attack on her and her partner [91][92], and occasionally also by international sources (attack on Women's Rights March, US Department [93]). Finally we also have a detailed article on her whole life by the local press [94] Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Gitz. I missed the vn.20minut piece. It's hard for me to assess the reliability of the local sources (or assess how event-focused rather than person-focused they are), but if it is clear that a complete biographical picture can be assembled from reliable sources then my concerns would be lightened. (I am not convinced that the more recent incidents are evidence of notability as too trivial, but worth mentioning if we conclude there is notability, although we need to attend to
    WP:BLPCRIME concerns.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I can't speak to all the sources posted here but none of the ones I posted are local coverage; they're all national or international. 20 Minutes is French for example. It's in the Ukrainian language but it's a French outlet. Levivich (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    According to its website, "The 20minut.ua website is part of the RIA Media publishing group, which is also part of the RIA © 20minut.ua Media Corporation", which appears to be a wholly Ukrainian endeavour. It has some EU connections and may well be RS, but it doesn't seem to be French. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note also that it has a big button encouraging reader submissions for stories, and the source is a local instance of it: vn.20minut.ua. On the talk page prior to this AFD, concerns about vn.20minut.ua were flatly ignored, unfortunately.OsFish (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bob's right, I did confuse the Ukrainian 20minute.ua with the French 20 Minutes publication; they are not the same. (The reader-submitted stories are published in a special "from the reader" section, neither of the two I linked to appear to be in that section and both have bylines with a link to an author page; there is also a named editor.) Levivich (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note: she was 18 years old when she was interviewed by Elle so there isn't a lot of reason to expect coverage of her life before that, when she was a minor. She's been the subject of media coverage each year after that. She's lived literally her entire adult life being covered by national and international media. Also, in response to other votes (not Bob's), I want to point out she wasn't one of many women covered by Elle, she was one of like five, and she was the "cover girl" as it were, meaning the main focus of the coverage. Levivich (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is interesting, though perhaps not very relevant to this discussion, that Ukrainian sources almost always ignore the incident with Elle. For them, she is not significant for that minor and frankly uninteresting event, which is only significant for Western audiences, if at all. For the Ukrainian press, she's significant because, firstly, she was the youngest female fighter in the Aidar bataillion; second, because she had a very visible and controversial social media profile; third, because she was the protagonist of an important trial, which addressed a sensitive issue in post-Maidan Ukraine - the relation between far-right groups and the state [95]; finally, she is significant because of the campaign for her release, which explains why very minor events, such as the beating by the C14 group group, in 2017 got national (not local) coverage in Ukraine. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG per sourcing above and the redirect is inappropriate. Selfstudier (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -
    WP:BLP1E is often mis-cited by editors arguing that if a person is only notable for one event then they are not notable. That's arguing the shortcut instead of arguing the policy. BLP1E's 3rd requirement is If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. Considering the trial for murder of two police officers during a bank robbery is called by the press the "Zaverukha case" and received national media coverage for three years, it cannot be said that the event was not significant or her role was not substantial or well documented. BLP1E does not apply here and I hope the closer takes note. Levivich (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    But if it's the case that the event (the case) is what is notable, then the article should be about the case and not the person, no? BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because the criminal case is just one aspect of her notability. She was notable before being arrested in 2015 and still notable after being acquitted in 2017, as evidenced by sources ranging from 2014 to 2022, including one academic source that says in its own voice that she "stands out" among other women fighters in Ukraine and is "notorious" in Russia. That's not a one event situation, it's multiple events over a period of years. Levivich (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a major point of dispute whether her notability goes beyond her association with a criminal event. You should be careful not to confuse
    WP:NOTABILITY (whether the article should exist.) For example, you refer to events in 2022 - that she joined in the defence against the invasion by the Russian Federation. That is not a notable activity otherwise we'd have over a million articles on each Ukrainian citizen actively defending their country. The Elle palaver boils down to a journalist who wrote a bit about her in an article not dedicated primarily to her not knowing she was a neo-Nazi. That's not grounds for notability.OsFish (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The word "notable" means, in this context, that an article subject meets the
    WP:GNG is a part. This subject is notable because she is the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (the ones I linked to in my !vote above). It doesn't matter what the coverage is about: being a soldier, being a criminal, being a neonazi, being a YouTuber, having the hiccups for a long time, literally doesn't matter at all. Notability is determined by the sourcing, not by what the subject did. Levivich (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I'm afraid your claim that the notability rules do not address notability in various contexts - including notability via involvement in crime - is simply false. How else would various editors here - including YOURSELF where you quote
    WP:BLPCRIME - quote such rules if they didn't exist? You have been editing wikipedia far too long to mess around like this.OsFish (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I have not claimed that notability rules do not address notability in various contexts? Levivich (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then perhaps consider deleting this: "It doesn't matter what the coverage is about: being a soldier, being a criminal, being a neonazi, being a YouTuber, having the hiccups for a long time, literally doesn't matter at all." As you now concede, that's false. Certain activities result in RS mentions more than other activities. The notability rules governing different kinds of people have been written to address that. OsFish (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not concede that's false. "It doesn't matter what the coverage is about" does not mean the same thing as "notability rules do not address notability in various contexts". If we want to consider
    WP:BASIC (which is the same as GNG). Levivich (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I'm very glad you referred to
    WP:NOTABILITY (whether a topic is notable and should have their own article). OsFish (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    WP:BLP1E does not apply because the 2nd and 3rd requirements aren't met: she is a high profile individual, and even if she wasn't, she still had a substantial and well-documented role in a significant event. Levivich (talk) 05:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The event is the killing of two Berkut officers. She was acquitted of involvement in that event, and was not the only person arrested and charged. The thing is, that event is something you have compared on this very page to a "crime of the century". Someone who didn't do the crime of the century, but whose presence in substantive RS coverage comes from their connection to that crime, is obviously subordinate in notability to that crime itself. And since then, there hasn't been anything she has done that could possibly be described as notable as understood in Wikipedia policy (again, reminding you of the difference between DUE and NOTABLE).OsFish (talk) 05:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the thing, your own source that you cited for her continued notability says explicitly that she has been "forgotten" since that case. "This scandalous woman from Vinnytsia has already been forgotten, but she made herself known by posting several videos on the Internet. Now, judging by her videos, the girl is fighting in the Teroboron near Kyiv, where she was previously married and has been living for the past few years." Your own source, endorsed by you, says she is now low-profile. OsFish (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm neutral on whether this article should be kept or not, but it should certainly not have been redirected to an article that doesn't even mention her. Instead of vitriolic discussion on the talkpage and edit warring it should have been brought to AfD straightaway. Why is an article under discussion at AfD currently a redirect so nobody can easily see what they're commenting on? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it was an edit war that landed at ANI followed by an AfD request. With the BLP concerns raised by established editors it seemed prudent to not have the article on public view while this was being sorted out. Merited IAR is my belief. As you're the second edit to ask this, moving my note to the nom so folks aren't confused. Star Mississippi 15:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -
    WP:LPI sats A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. The subject actively sought media attention before she was arrested: the Elle interview was 2014, the arrest was 2015. She also actively sought out media attention during her trial, and after, as documented by the articles about her. As a separate issue, because the victims of the crime were police officers, and I'd argue any murder of a police officer is a murder of a public figure. BLPCRIME doesn't apply here because neither the accused nor the victims were low profile, and nobody arguing the policy seems to be addressing that part of it. Levivich (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    With regard to who was murdered, the correct policy here is
    WP:BLPCRIME. It states that "Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal ...should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure..., or the motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." (emphasis added). She was acquitted. I don't enjoy defending her on this issue because she's a neo-nazi, but at the same time, being a neo-nazi who didn't commit a murder isn't notable separate from the event she was arrested for.OsFish (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    WP:CRIME: The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. The 2022 article is an example of coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. The "Zaverukha case" is, indeed, a well-documented historical event in Ukraine, and the alleged motivation for the crime (domestic terrorism), and the execution of the crime (death of two police officers) were unusual and considered noteworthy (by the plethora of national media that covered it), as was the trial itself, which included her slashing her wrists in court, an elected lawmaker handcuffing himself to her, and her being beaten in custody allegedly by the authorities, as well as the ultimate acquittal. A bank robbery by alleged terrorists in which two police officers were killed is a huge crime in almost any country, and in some countries would be called the "Crime of the Century". That stuff doesn't happen every day, not to mention everything that happened during the trial. But even putting all of that aside, she's not only notable for the trial, because the GNG coverage of her preceded the trial and continued afterwards. She was notable for being a soldier before, and after, she was notable for being a defendant in a major criminal case. Levivich (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    If this was something like the crime of the century, would Levivich support a RENAME of the article to turn it into addressing the history crime itself? That would be the most policy-based approach, it would dissolve the BLP issues and we could all get on being here to build an encyclopedia.OsFish (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, first let me say: everyone in this discussion is here to build an encyclopedia, and this discussion is building an encyclopedia. AFD is part of building an encyclopedia. I'm going to
    WP:PAGEDECIDE. However, I'd need to see the sourcing for the article about the crime, and the text of the proposed merger, to make up my mind about whether it would be DUE or not. But even though I'm a "keep", I would consider a later merger proposal if someone went and wrote the target article. Levivich (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The aspect of
    WP:BLPCRIME that does apply here relates to the post-2017 coverage that focuses on minor crimes where there are vague allegations but no convictions, e.g. the attack on LGBT activists and a woman's march. They might seem noteworthy in an existing article, but BLPCRIME cautions us that A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures... editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If something can't be included for this reason, it seems like we couldn't hang notability on it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    But the article is not alledging "minor crimes". It is reporting that 1) she was involved in an attack on transgender activists. Whether that attack qualifies as a crime or not, we don't know. The source [96] says that she was identified by the victims, but doesn't say if they pressed charges or if the attack was punishable under the Criminal Code as assault. "involved in an attack" seems a fair summary. 2) The article says that a human rights report by the US State Department stated that Vita Zaverukha and other activists of the Unknown Patriot group were among the suspects in an attack on participants of the 8 March. Once again, we are not claiming that she committed a crime, or that the US State Department claimed she committed a crime. The very fact that the US State Department writes that she is among the suspects in a political action is in itself noteworthy and deserves inclusion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources listed by Levivich (and Mhorg) seem more than sufficient. It does not appear that these sources are just routine police-blotter reporting; this was an incident with a significant amount of national attention, and so there was sustained and in-depth coverage on the incident and on Zaverukha's role in it; point #3 in BLP1E would not be met here ("the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented"). I mean, more subjectively, I think that's evidenced by the fact that (and I'm trusting the translations from Levivich here) the case was given names like the 'Zaveruha case' in RFE/RL. Whether the article should be principally focussed on Zaverukha or the criminal case is a reasonable matter for editorial discretion, but given there’s other noteworthy biographical information about Zaverukha here, I do think it makes the most sense kept as a biography. Endwise (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, she is briefly mentioned in a number of news sources, but what she is notable for? She is not notable as a soldier. Yes, she is a former servicewomen of Aidar. That does not make her notable. She is not notable as a criminal (if she is a criminal; she did not kill anyone). She is not notable as a neo-Nazi (if she is a neo-Nazi or a person with "far-right" views, there are many of them). She is not a blogger or an internet personality. Yes, she posted something, but who did not? This all apparently started from Elle France mentioning her as an example of something, apparently an erroneous example, as follows from their apology/retraction. My very best wishes (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source checking shows that she was covered mostly as a suspect of a crime, but she has been acquitted of all charges. I think she is just an ordinary (not a notable) person unfairly accused of the crime, which indeed does not warrant a separate page about her per WP:BLP concerns, as has been arguded by others. My very best wishes (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's not an awfully highest bar for a biography to be notable. The fact that the against-notability arguments, above, are so numerous and intricate is itself a sign against their soundness. I have read a few of these arguments and I don't find them convincing. I don't think this article is a bunch of cookie-cutter indiscriminate info, and I think (per
    WP:CRIMINAL (A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.) doesn't apply least because there is no such existing article AFAIK and indeed some proponents above have argued this info shouldn't be added to an existing article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Comment:
    WP:CRIMINAL
    then lays down when there should be an article. "only if one of the following applies...For perpetrators,
# The victim of the crime is a
renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities;[3]
or
# The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.[4]
#* Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. (emphasis in original)
  • I've just discovered that even the claim in the article that Zaverukha was acquitted (ie prosecutors felt there was enough evidence against her to move to a formal trial) is false: the source used says she was released from the investigation, ie without trial.
    WP:BLP1E exist precisely because we need to avoid such BLP problems. An article on the event itself avoids these issues.OsFish (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Nothing in
    WP:CRIMINAL (as with all other sections of NBIO) are guidance which is most useful when applied to people whose notability clearly stems from one thing. Vita's (as argued by those supporting deletion above) does not derive from any singular thing, so no SNG is appropriate/relevant here, at least not as an exclusionary factor. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

References

  1. ^ Example: John Hinckley Jr.
  2. ^ Example: Seung-Hui Cho.
  3. ^ Example: John Hinckley Jr.
  4. ^ Example: Seung-Hui Cho.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 17:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Wioletta Wilk

Wioletta Wilk (edit | talk | history | 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:NBAD and WP:GNG. zoglophie 17:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: comment by Wjemather here can clear your query well. Thanks. zoglophie 12:34, 14 December 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.
Really? olympedia.org Florentyna (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 17:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tim McEneny

Tim McEneny (edit | talk | history | 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 reliable source coverage to establish notability. In fact, this is borderline BLPPROD material since none of the links in the References section are actual references. They're just external links to press releases or primary sources. I've checked all of the S&DCE links and they're just reader-submitted tidbits (i.e. the subject submitted a bit of text to said magazine). There is a Dallas restaurateur of the same name who is coming up on Google News results, but nothing for this person. Blue Edits (talk) 17:18, 13 December 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Prescott

Ian Prescott (edit | talk | history | 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 that the subject does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Most of the article is unreferenced. The two secondary sources cited mention the subject but are about the subject's institution and the subject's successor, not the subject. The Wikipedia article about the subject's institution does not mention the subject. Bsherr (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Englishbloke27 (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should mention that you are the creator of the BLP. Do you have any connection with the subject? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]
My account didn't create this article. Englishbloke27 (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it did with this edit. Perhaps you forgot? --Bsherr (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, indeed I did. My mistake. Englishbloke27 (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Secondary school principals are generally not notable, except for those schools at the pinnacle of notability (Eton, say) or principals who have done something beyond their school to achieve
    WP:PROF#C6 definitely does not apply; that's for major universities, not secondary schools. Here we have no such sources in the article, and searching mostly finds local or occasional national news stories quoting him rather than in-depth coverage about him. A typical example: [97], which describes him as "former Bolton Wanderers professional footballer turned college principal" but does not go into any more depth than that before quoting him on some school issue or other. Searching for news of his football career found only a similar level of non-in-depth mentions. And in any case the article is written as an unsourced personal reflection and if kept would need to be stubbed far down to only material that can be verified from published sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Great feedback and explanation. Thank you! Englishbloke27 (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:COI? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC).[reply
]
Thanks for checking. I have no COI. Englishbloke27 (talk) 03:13, 20 December 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 soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 17:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Koray Holding

Koray Holding (edit | talk | history | 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 a notable company Chidgk1 (talk) 16:50, 13 December 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 soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 17:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Kosifler Group

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

Not a notable company Chidgk1 (talk) 16:42, 13 December 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 soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 17:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Dur-O-Lite Pencil Company

Dur-O-Lite Pencil Company (edit | talk | history | 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 have been a notable company Chidgk1 (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The company owned patents for a unique mechanical pencil with a spiral mechanism. Major institutional customers included The United States Government, Bell System, Western Electric, H&R Block, and Esso. Millions of mechanical pencils were sold. I call that notable.
https://web.archive.org/web/20161024235818/https://unllib.unl.edu/Bolin_resources/pencil_page/mystery/SPIRAL_GUIDE.HTML#institutional_customers
https://web.archive.org/web/20160529022811/http://unllib.unl.edu/Bolin_resources/pencil_page/mystery/mystery.html Lyra Faust (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Robert Bolin's articles, which are currently cited in the article, look really interesting! But as one of them says at the very top, it is a "working paper based partially on conjecture" and they don't qualify as a reliable sources per
    WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 00:19, 19 December 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 Jean Ritchie#Discography. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courting Songs

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

Unable to find reliable sources to prove this album's notability or verify any claims about it. Project Termina (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought about Ritchie's discography. Yes, I agree that hers would be the better redirect target because she is listed on the album first, so I have adjusted my vote. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:09, 15 December 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 soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 17:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

2019 IFBB African Championships

2019 IFBB African Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Moved to draft space as not ready but quickly moved back to main without much, if any, improvement. No results or other statistics or entry list. 'Naive' search revealed this page which may render it liable to speedy as a copy-vio. Eagleash (talk) 15:25, 13 December 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 03:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atera (software)

Atera (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)

Fails

WP:SIRS. scope_creepTalk 09:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

scope_creep, can you elaborate why the coverage cited in the article is not enough? E.g. the article in TechCrunch. Thanks Uziel302 (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Uziel302: Are you getting paid to write this artice? scope_creepTalk 09:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
scope_creep, no, I am just Israeli interested in tech. Uziel302 (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. scope_creepTalk 09:29, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That first references as a bit of PR and an interview fails
WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creepTalk 13:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I can't find the press release that this is based off of, but that phrasing is copy-pasted to other churnalism pieces as well. If Walla.co.il wrote that article (therefore owning the copyright) and didn't just copy-paste a press release you wouldn't find that wording on other websites, but with a press release they freely copy the wording because the company wants it spread around. Same with this one, copied here. These are not sources showing significant independent coverage, it's churnalism rewording press releases from the company itself. Neither one of those show notability for the article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are the routine reactions that one can expect after a keep opinion at WP these days. It's not about the company, it's about {insert any parts of the company operations here}. And there must be a press release because all independent journalists at independent news portals are con artists, I just happen not to be able to find any press release which should have been all over the internet, just not this time. And this can go on and on under someone's opinion. 50 such reactions? 100 such reactions? There within minutes! No space for dissenting views, however weak the responses will be. I invite everyone to take a fresh look at the sources and at the policies, as I have done, and to express their opinion, whatever it might be! The nominator had their say in the nomination, now it's up to the community to decide! gidonb (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you share links to churnalism as a reason to keep an article, it's not unreasonable for someone to point out the problem with those links. Comments about "WP these days" have nothing to do with this article's subject or why it should be kept. I also said nothing about "all independent journalists...are con artists" so that's a strawman argument; you're commenting against things no one has suggested. The problem isn't that all sources have issues, the problem is that these two sources in particular have issues, and while you're entitled to your opinion, your opinion is not immune from examination, nor is your opinion consistent with how Wikipedia treats churnalism sources. - Aoidh (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are great. This response and the next many responses were predicted above. gidonb (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So moving to trying to prove its notable to attacking editors working in good faith. You seem to always do this. I'm thinking of taking you to Ani. I will look at the your Afd history and see what I can find. If I find enough and there is no outcome at Ani, I'm going to take you to Arbcom. I've had my fill your antics. scope_creepTalk 14:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can try to shut anyone up. It does not make the problem go away that people are afraid to share their opinion without endless arguments. On the contrary, it only worsens it! gidonb (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following why you "predicting" that your comment would be responded to is relevant, especially since that doesn't address the problem with the sources, which despite the unsubstantiated claim, are far from "great" (whatever that means). They do not contribute to the notability of the subject, which has no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. That's all I'm interested in discussing. - Aoidh (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's all relevant for me. Other people will write other opinions after analyzing this AfD and draw different or similar conclusions! Wikipedia needs to move to a system where providing one's opinion is less stressful and time-intensive. Let the person closing the discussion decide who has the best arguments and, of course, the respondents when we are inspired by each other! gidonb (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's please stick to the discussion of sources, personal attacks do not move the discussion forward. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability, also nobody appears to be able to point to specific sections in sourcing that meet both
    HighKing++ 16:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I find are funding announcements and some product mentions, nothing about the history of the company or anything at length about them. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 13 December 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! 09:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loris Ceroni

Loris Ceroni (edit | talk | history | 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. Can't find any source about him in a google search. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 10:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 13 December 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! 09:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ivana Milojević

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

Recreation of page deleted in February for lack of notability. I don't think the notability situation has changed much since then, and the article certainly does not make the case for notability. As in the previous AfD, it is important not to confuse the subject with the Serbian pilot of the same name. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:39, 13 December 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 soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 09:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Patrick Murphy (musician)

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

primary sourced only since 2015 - only notable in the context of his band Wotanluzo (talk) 10:35, 13 December 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! 08:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feliciano, Venezuela

Feliciano, Venezuela (edit | talk | history | 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

subject of significant coverage by multiple independent RS. Looking at the coordinates in the infobox, I'm also not really seeing any substantial buildings or roads. There is a record of a "populated place" in GNS at about this location under the name of "San Feliciano" (UFI #-957223, has a listed alternative name of "Feliciano"), but it looks like this is more a database quirk than a real populated place being described. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 09:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete — I agree with Mangoe's analysis. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 20:24, 16 December 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 no consensus. Procedural close. No deletion rationale provided by the nominator. No problem with renominating this article. Liz Read! Talk! 08:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open....

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

Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 08:48, 13 December 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 soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Rankin, Arizona

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

Barnes's place name book describes this as a station (a flag stop, to be precise), and the maps testify to that: they show a siding with nothing around, a situation which never changes. In the 1950s the airbase apparently forced a huge rerouting of the rail line, with this piece being converted into a spur into the base, eventually abandoned. Searching is yet again impossible given the number of notable/notorious people named Rankin in the county, but the maps and Barnes really tell the story. Mangoe (talk) 06:44, 13 December 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 Highlander: The Series. Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seacouver

Seacouver (edit | talk | history | 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 fictional location definitely fails

WP:GNG; search results are a mixture of the non-RS typical of fictional elements, and unrelated things with the same name. Content is almost completely unsourced, including purported real-world background about the name. Can possibly be redirected to Highlander: The Series. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:25, 13 December 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 soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Passing By the Earth

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

Also including:

Set of non-notable poems that look to me like vanity spam. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete if for no other reason than that the poems themselves, when removed as the copyvios that they are, would reduce the articles to stubs lacking a claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 06:49, 13 December 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 merge to List of professional wrestling promotions. Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Professional wrestling promotion

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

I'm not speedying this, as it's one of Wikipedia's earliest pages so maybe there's a reason I'm missing as to why it's survived eighteen years. (It's technically survived an AfD, but the page discussed then had little relationship to the current article other than the title.) I can see absolutely no possible use this page could ever have, as it's a pure content fork from

Iridescent 05:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge I agree that this article serves a purpose and the subject is likely independently notable. A merge may be sensible, but I don't think AfD is the right forum for this either way.LM2000 (talk) 14:28, 15 December 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 23:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

India Exposition Mart Limited

India Exposition Mart Limited (edit | talk | history | 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 "non-official organisation" (according to the author), which is non-notable. A

general notability criteria
as well.

This is clearly a work of either UPE, or COI. The article was created in one go by RajneeshPi, I moved it to draft with edit summary "clearly not notable for mainspace, kindly work on it in draftspace". I left a note on their talkpage recommending AFC (their talkpage has a few AFC notices). Three days later, another editor EditorPi moved it back to mainspace without any changes to the article. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 13 December 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wife acceptance factor

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

This article has one reliable source. Furthermore, the topic does not seem to be that notable. RPI2026F1 (talk) 04:39, 13 December 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 Viktor Bout–Brittney Griner prisoner exchange. Liz Read! Talk! 02:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest of Brittney Griner

Arrest of Brittney 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)

From what I can see, the content on

Arrest of Brittney Griner is redundant. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not really worth a merge. Most of it is/should be covered in her own section. Sharrdx (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete pretty much what BD2412 said, if there is anything in this article not covered in another article, then delete it, and if there is then add it to the other article.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fazhengnian

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

Literally a tiny stub about falun gong practices which in all reality should already be in the main page. It even got delete consensus once prior! Heyallkatehere (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 13 December 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! 05:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Rothschild (philosopher)

Daniel Rothschild (philosopher) (edit | talk | history | 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 could not find any in-depth coverage about this person.

ping me when replying) 03:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Nowhere. But there are some respectable (for philosophy) cites on GS so I am Neutral move to Keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Academic ranks in the United Kingdom Ali Pirhayati (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And so? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]
That says UK "professor" encompasses the equivalents of US "professor", "distinguished professor", and "chaired professor"; that doesn't mean that all UK professors hold each of those titles. JoelleJay (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 13 December 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 and salt. Per

WP:SNOW I don't see any reason to draw this out and waste more of the communities' time. Randykitty (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

B4Blaze

B4Blaze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has been draftified and returned by a mix of users following a G11 earlier this year so bringing it here for larger discussion. A BEFORE shows only passing coverage and nothing at the CORP-level depth. Star Mississippi 03:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sock disruption
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
would like to know why this is tagged for deletion. this is an media platform who contributed huge in covid era by providing free platform for journalist. before putting to AFD please read the links and news.. hope you understand... SreenivasKrishnan (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that is not a case for notability which requires significant, in depth coverage. Do you have any connection with other editors working on this article that you should disclose? You seem to have found this very suddenly. Star Mississippi 03:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
would like to know firstly.. before putting this article to AFD , have you read the content or notability.. as how you found the article same way i got out.. we are here to support ..am not having any connection with others.. i felt good by reading links.. so i supported.. SreenivasKrishnan (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
important striking factor for me is free platform.. this has to be brought up..to public. we writers has to support ... SreenivasKrishnan (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Companies are required to meet
WP:COI. Star Mississippi 03:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
again please donot change the discussion flow .. i would like to know why as of sudden you suggested this article for deletion. am seeing an social commitment in the article supporting this channel and new ideas put forward by this particular blaze.. so we have to bring it to other peoples , then only other can understand.. by this it will be useful to public.. secondly ..am not writing for corp.. and my intention is pure to bring new ideas to front and support as an writer... see the notability ... SreenivasKrishnan (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey..
article and citation seems socially comitted and new ideas notability media platform.. please read the citations .
one more thing.. would like to know why suddenly tagged for AFD.please explain Annthomasjoy (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i noted that same user is repeat trying to demotivate the writers and page named B4BLaze.. As writers we are not supposed to do that .. we have to support for good things and not aim for any other benefits... Annthomasjoy (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was tagged for AfD because rather than waiting for AfC, you moved it to mainspace when, as I said to your colleague, there is no indication it meets the requirements for a company. Socially committed and new ideas have no bearing on what makes a company notable. @SreenivasKrishnan I am not changing the discussion flow. You do not understand why it wasn't in mainspace. You're allowed to move it -- but that creates a community discussion especially when there have been so many versions of this article. and my intention is pure to bring new ideas to front and support as an writer is definitely not something you should be doing as Wikipedia is not for promotion. Would either of you care to disclose how you found this article? Star Mississippi 03:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
again .. have u read the citations.. link . please read it ..
second , how can u notify some other persons as my colleague .. did he told you.. he is my colleague and did i mentioned is somebody my colleague.. donot overwrite.. from your view point what makes notability .. ;please explain .. i will reconsider my thoughts after hearing this.. Annthomasjoy (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CORP is what defines notability. I read the citations, and I did my own search. I am unable to find anything that meets the criteria. It is not my POV, it is the community's. If you two are unrelated, the results will show that. You two just happened to stumble on this article unconnected? Star Mississippi 04:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
please read the malayalam news attached also and what am feeling that this article is meeting the notability and this has to be shared to public.. how you happened to stumble on this article , same. i seen the same from you that you are acting as you biased . Annthomasjoy (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
how can it be an promotion .. if you are simply pointing out it as pomotion .. then all notable activities doing my an organisation or an person will fall to promotion right .. please donot mix the things.. would like to suggest you please read or undertsand the article values and understand the importance of the things.. if you are writing something .. then if suddenly an user comment it as promotion .. will it be right ... SreenivasKrishnan (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Bring new ideas to front" is promotion as defined by Wikipedia. This discussion will go for at least seven days and all editors are able to weigh in and establish consensus on whether there should be an article. I have read the article. Please stop insinuating that I haven't before nominating it. This article has been on my radar for almost a month. You haven't disclosed how you just happened to find it today Star Mississippi 04:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
same thing as how you radar am also analyzing this . am expecting few others will understand this importance Annthomasjoy (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to explain. It was created in mainspace in November in a way it shouldn't have been (the creator missed a step) and showed on the AfC logs because it had extra templates while in mainspace. I'm an AfC reviewer and the article in the log and moved it to draft space. Star Mississippi 04:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes this now turned to an interesting communication. For me i got few set of articles for correction and out of this one was this .. so i read the citation link and worked on it .. from my understanding no other media platform has provided an free platform to develop for journalist .. after completing the course.. so quite interesting ... Annthomasjoy (talk) 04:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
same as you are radar the article same for me .. i was analyzing the fact behind and supporting.. you are manipulating the things in a such a way to delete this article , i mean trusted article to AFD. This is not for promotion.. i hope still you donot know about the importance of promotion and writing the fact.. please donot include all articles in promotion and insult the writers... SreenivasKrishnan (talk) 04:16, 13 December 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 Iamamiwhoami. Liz Read! Talk! 02:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claes Björklund

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

ELs on page appear to only be to databases (the last two are dead; the latter it appears the URL was taken by some dating site) that don't convey notability, and I couldn't find any coverage of Björklund that wasn't just mentioning his work as a part of iamamiwhoami. The most I got is these two interviews where his more famous bandmate Jonna Lee talks about working with him, but it's still limited to discussing the partnership and not much on him individually. Redirect to iamamiwhoami. QuietHere (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out there was an article for his pseudonym Barbelle (since changed to a redirect) which had this review in it, but nothing else of value. It's still not enough to change my mind but it's at least worth mentioning. QuietHere (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:59, 13 December 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 01:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nickels (game)

Nickels (game) (edit | talk | history | 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 (perhaps non-existent) game. Article cites no sources. The external link is dead but this archived version has nothing about 'Nickles.' Searching found nothing helpful. Fails general notability criteria. Previously nomination in 2006 resulted in no consensus. See previous nomination Gab4gab (talk) 02:18, 13 December 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. The consensus here seems to be that the Chinese sources allow this article to meet

WP:GNG. Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Jinlong station (Shenzhen Metro)

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

Have attempted tagging and redirecting this article, hoping that it would be improved. Currently, there is not a single in-depth source. Fails GNG. Onel5969 TT me 02:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jumpytoo Talk 06:55, 14 December 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 01:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cramble Cross

Cramble Cross (edit | talk | history | 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

(talk) 02:00, 13 December 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 01:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mija Kulić

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

No indication of passing

(talk) 01:48, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Only source is primary questionable (and don't click on it!). Not notable. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:11, 13 December 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 02:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laterna

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

The article is self-promotion. Independent coverage is difficult to find. Fails wp:gng Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Clearly a biased article, and it seems to have been started by the host of this program. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but Wikipedia is not a billboard.
    talk) 03:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:08, 13 December 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! 00:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shabarish

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

Only acted in two films, not multiple (three or more). This article was created with the intention that the third film would release. No independent notability. Only other source found was this, which doesn't say much.

Also, the creator of this page also created the page of Shabarish's unreleased film here. If Asurakulam released, this actor could be notable, but the film remains unreleased since 2017. DareshMohan (talk) 00:30, 13 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_December_13&oldid=1128592967"