Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 December 30

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Gilmore

David L. Gilmore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Run-of-the-mill county-level judge. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability, judges of state trial courts of general jurisdiction are not inherently notable. I see nothing else in this subject's resume that would lift them into encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 15:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. BD2412 T 15:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree and vote to delete. Every local and municipal official doesn’t get their own Wikipedia page. There is nothing here to indicate WP:Notability. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  all of the above and my own standards. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom fails
  WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cloth mill Offermann

Cloth mill Offermann (edit | talk | history | 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 building: fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Uhai (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless it's a registered heritage building (like the NRHP in the US), it just appears to be an interesting old building. I don't find any sources talking about it. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I found nothing
  substantial in online searches. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom fails
  WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Quiet Council of Krakoa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

Just a lot of fancruft. Zero in-depth coverage to show any real-world notability. Everything is in-universe. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Krakoa per nom. No independent notability for this organization. No critical analysis and reception of the grouping. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Krakoa. Mccapra (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect back to
  lock editing to prevent further unredirection, this needs to stop. 2600:1700:9BF3:220:A578:6010:913C:51E3 (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep or Delete along with Krakoa page and other pages listed on Talk:Quiet Council of Krakoa if deemed for deletion. There are so many other pages related Marvel Comics in Wikipedia I can list including Nekivik replied in that talk page to Onel5969 that are based on only in-universe information and FANCRUFT; yet they happened to not have "notability" tag. Some of them even don't have appropriate wikipedia pages to merge with so they SHOULD be deleted but yet they don't "deletion" tag or been deleted. The PAGE all are asking to redirect itself has everything in-universe and lacks secondary sources.

This page have enough secondary sources and don't some references used on this page like below mentioned have real world notability been especially second reference or are these also in-universe?

• ^[1]
• ^[2]
• ^[3]

Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Refs 11, 12, and 29 are all non-trivial RS coverage of the entity, from three different organizations that publish on developments in the fictional world. I assumed everything was going to be primary sources and this was going to be a slam-dunk redirect, but the sourcing is far better than I expected. Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  11 (CBR) is a lengthy plot summary, but I see no analysis / reception. 12 (comicbook) is just a poorer (shorter) version of that. 29 doesn't even seem to meet SIGCOV. In the end, the big problem is that there seems to be nothing we can say about this entity outside writing a plot summary, and this means

  WP:NOTPLOT is a policy, and obviously failed too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  WP:NOTPLOT restricts how Wikipedia presents fictional topics; analysis/reception is in no way required for a source to be SIGCOV, nor is it required for us to write an article--the actual wording is development, design, reception, significance, and influence which is much broader than your paraphrase. You also appear to be confusing notability, which requires sufficient RS, with verifiability, which only requires RS when there is a dispute. Thus, even assuming we only have enough RS plot summaries to establish notability, and enough primary sources to provide interesting tidbits about significance, then we have a perfectly good Wikipedia article. Jclemens (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Sure. So, where's "development, design, reception, significance, and influence" here? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you asserting that these need to be present in the article for it to be kept? Or are you asserting that none of these could be constructed from the combination of sources currently present in the article? Or are you asserting that none of these could be constructed from all the sources (present in the article or not) which address this topic? Jclemens (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What about reference 16? Nekivik (talk) 09:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nekivik There is no such reference I can see. If you link it here I'll comment on it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the claims of @
  WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect or merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations per my argument above (this fails NOTPLOT and ALLPLOT). PS. Redirecting to Krakoa is less optiomal - that article doesn't show its own notability and should be discussed here (at AfD) too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the claims of @Jclemens:

Nekivik (talk) 08:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Krakoa or List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. Plot summaries aren't enough to establish notability. OliveYouBean (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you provide a policy-based rationale for your !vote? (Hint: I doubt you can, because I'm entirely certain no such thing exists). Jclemens (talk) 00:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see the policy,

  WP:NOTPLOT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Are there only plot summaries on page? Please check. Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Check the recent changes made on page, before continuing discussion here.

Ringardiumleviossa (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Redirect to Immortal X-Men. Nekivik (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect No independent notability for this topic. There is currently no substantial reception and/or analysis, and the sources don't provide much outside of a plot recap. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:NOPAGE. While that article, itself, is not in the greatest shape as noted above, a quick search for sources gave me the impression that there is a far stronger argument for notability there than here, and it would likely survive an AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 31 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 Draftify given Bearian's intention of working on it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haplogroup O-K18

Haplogroup O-K18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for accuracy since December of 2012. Referencing is a disaster -- almost all footnotes are to undefined sources. Delete per Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. Mikeblas (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify? referencing is a mess, needs a rewrite, but I think it's been around too long to be draftified. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. I'd be willing to work on it with my A.P. Biology students. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Messy but can be fixed without being moved into draftspace. There are plenty of references, but they need to be reorganized. Please see Wikipedia policies about how articles that are somewhat messy but nevertheless notable with lots of useful information should not be deleted. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 03:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please make sure you're looking at the right article. This one has more than 350 "harvnb: no target" errors. These problems have existed since at least 2013, so it's obvious there no interest in fixing the issues or trying to verify the material the article presents. Add that to unaddressed tagging for jargon and the other problems, and I think it's clear nobody is interested in working on this and it won't be missed if deleted. Drafting it is a gift, but either way such a poor article doesn't belong in this corpus. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The creator of this article (Ebizur) has made hundreds of edits continually over the course of 16 years, in addition to several other editors over shorter time periods. I think there is quite clear interest in working on this page. It may be that this article can get the direction it needs through a cleanup discussion on its talk page. ― Synpath 03:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      That sounds like a great thing to do in draft-space. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/draftify, ghastly mess. If someone hasn't looked at it in over 9 years, that speaks for itself. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Leba Chand Tudu

Leba Chand Tudu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Another article created by the same sock chain on non-notable CPI(ML)L party functionaries. Fails

• Thanks to Soman for uncovering those sources, which as DaxServer states, collectively determine notability. This is not a withdrawal, as a participant has !voted delete, but I'm striking my nomination. Curbon7 (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and West Bengal. Curbon7 (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Also just for the record, a G4 was previously declined and the article is not eligible for G5 due to expansion by another user. Curbon7 (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article is sourced, expanded and edited after the initial creation. The references given affirm notability, as leader of tribal struggles in Jhargram district in 1970s. --Soman (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  AGF as many of the literary sources are offline, but this does not seem to be supported by the current prose, which gives the impression that these are passing mentions. The source that supports the statement that he is a tribal leader ([20]) is also only a very

  passing mention and comes directly from the CPIMLL website. Curbon7 (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

The recentism of sources being available on line creates a bias here. But looking at the material available, take for example Guerrillas: The Santals of West Bengal and the Naxalite Movement (Edward Duyker. Oxford University Press, 1987) which has Tudu covered over 6 pages (all snippet view for me, I can't make use of it for expanding article), or the inclusion in Who's who in 1982 Assembly Election, West Bengal, "SRI LEBA CHAND TUDU C. P. I. ( M. L. ) Leba Chand Tudu , ( 38 ) is the only School Final pass person among the Adibasis . He joined the Naxalbari movement in 1971 and was in prison upto 1977. He constantly struggled for the inclusion of..." (I feel there is more here, but snippet view limits me), Revolution Unleashed: A History of Naxalbari Movement in India, 1964-1972 (Amar Bhattacharya, Sampark, 2007, again snippet), Left Extremist Movement in West Bengal: An Experiment in Armed Agrarian Struggle (Amiya K. Samanta, Firma KLM, 1984) discusses the biography of Tudu across several pages (including the passage "He had promised Leba Chand Tudu a job and for that received two hundred rupees from Tudu . But he failed to procure a job , or to return the money . When Leba Tudu emerged as an activist in the party , he selected and killed Shaw as a class enemy."), quote "Duyker (1987) also mentions other influential tribal Naxalite leaders such as Gunadhar Murmu, Leba Chand Tudu, and Rabi Manjhi." in The Maoist Insurgency in Nepal: Revolution in the Twenty-first Century, "Santhal Maoists like Gunadhar Murmu, Jangal Santhal, Leba Chand Tudu and Rabi Manjhi were able to gain leadership status. Just as Mao wooed strategic minorities with promises of autonomy, as the Viet Cong wanted the tribal 'Front Unifie'..." in An Unfinished Revolution: A Hostage Crisis, Adivasi Resistance and the Naxal Movement, "The movement on West Bengal side gathered momentum after the GNLF accord came into operation in Aug. 1988 . The main JCC components are the CPI ( ML ) , N.E. Horo's Jharkhand Party , Leba Chand Tudu's Jharkhand Kranti Dal ..." ([21]), "Prominent Santhal leaders such as Lebachand Tudu and Gunadhar Murmu participated in this struggle. Violence began in the Gopiballavpur area in Midnapore from August 1969." in Marginalities in India: Themes and Perspectives, "Among the tribals Lebachand Tudu and Amulya Kalopahar from adjoining Nayagram were also included in the movement . The annihilation campaign through armed struggle in Debra took a brutal way from October , 1969 ..." in Sparks from Bidisa: Tribal unrest and tribal movement (Institute of Social Research and Applied Anthropology, 1994), "...we went to Kharikashole with the seized arms , ammunitions etc. I determined the policy of distribution of arms and placed the responsibility on Santosh to get them distributed to the guerrillas through Lebachand Tudu.." in Maoist "spring Thunder": The Naxalite Movement 1967-1972 (Arun Mukherjee. K.P. Bagchi & Company, 2007), "...forged an alliance with • PCC - CPI ( ML ) led by Santosh Rana , • Jharkhand Kranti Dal led by Leba Chand Tudu , and • IUML forming Jharkhand Sanjukta Sangharsha Morcha ( JSSM ) in June 1981." ([22]), etc. I'd say there is good indication of notability of Tudu. --Soman (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: All of his offices are very local. Fails
  WP:NPOL ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 17:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Extensive sourcing available to allow for creation of RS article; passes BASIC/GNG. Response to !vote above: it is not possible to "fail" NPOL, it is a positive test, not satisfying NPOL only indicates a lack of presumed notability, not grounds for deletion. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Based on the sources provided by Soman above, I think the [scholarly] sources collectively demonstrate
  WP:BASIC criteria for notability — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep As per Soman's source analysis article satisfying
  WP:NPOL. Tictictoc (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 TNT (character) (and potentially elsewhere if editors feel the content would be useful). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dan the Dyna-Mite

Dan the Dyna-Mite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

Over a year ago I prodded this with "the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  WP:SKCRIT criteria 1b. Jclemens (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I don't see such a criteria. 1.1 is about speedy redirects, that's different from the merge you are suggesting. I don't mind speedy redirect, but I dislike doing this as it is a form of stealth deletion. Why not discuss stuff here, occasionally I have been proved wrong and entries I thought are not rescuable have been saved. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge with
  WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge per all in the spirit of
  WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is a different case, there is a consensus to Merge but not agreement on the Merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with TNT (character). I agree that there isn't much point having a separate article about the sidekick. Toughpigs (talk) 22:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• How will his post-TNT history be mentioned there? Wouldn't it be a good idea to redirect it to List of DC Comics characters: D as a way to play it safe? Especially as he has appeared in the Stargirl: The Lost Children miniseries that is tied with The New Golden Age? I'm just asking here. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe merge what's relevant to TNT there and merge everything to the D-list? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be a good suggestion. Perhaps for the latter suggestion, it can also be done for Wing at the W-list as he has also appeared in the Stargirl: The Lost Children miniseries that I had mentioned here. Right? --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as compromise. The sources appear to cover these two characters together. Archrogue (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to TNT (character) per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 08:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Blaze

Carl Blaze (edit | talk | history | 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 New York City DJ who made the news for being murdered. Doesn't appear to be independently notable. Wikipedia is

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Crime, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - His murder got a lot of news coverage, even a full article in the New York Times ([23]). But that does not satisfy
  WP:NMUSICIAN either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 03:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails
  WP:NOTMEMORIAL .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SaaS Labs

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

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

Non notable company with PR drived sources and no independent coverage. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, India, and United States of America. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:39, 16 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!} 07:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. None of the sources provided offer any meaningful independent analysis of the business or its products; all the coverage simply repeats the company's own description of itself, its funding and acquisition announcements, numerical facts submitted by the company, and statements made by company representatives during interviews. Red flags in the article include citation of a contributor article in Forbes; in this particular case, the TechCrunch articles are also not much better. Fails
  WP:NCORP. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:20, 30 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!} 08:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The references provided fall into funding announcements, acquisition announcements, product feature summaries, and appearance in fastest-growing lists, all of which fall under trivial coverage at
  notability. AllyD (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Plenty of reliable sources. Curntag (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC) — Curntag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. While most of the "delete" !votes are solidly policy-based, the same cannot be said of the "keep" !votes. In addition, the crimes are, at this point in time, only alleged but not proven, which fact means that policy requires that these allegations are not mentioned, neither in a BLP, nor in another article. Randykitty (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis N. Ofori

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

Curtis N. Ofori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per norm. Jamiebuba (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the Hook. Tangential mention of him here in the Washington Post, [24], appears he may have bought the Hook archives and taken them offline. Oaktree b (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Point of information: is there an article on the newspaper? The Hook is about an urban legend. Arlo James Barnes 14:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Arlo Barnes it's at The Hook (newspaper). Skynxnex (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed link in my nom. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, if he's notable for The Hook(newspaper), he should be in a subsection of that article. RedKaladin (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I added some additional material and references and would be grateful for further review. Nangaf (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: article subject meets WP criteria for notability, both for his professional achievements and for the allegations, with multiple independent citations. Plorpy (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  stand-alone page. Sdkb's nomination's mention of BLP1E gives good guidance on how to best deal with subjects like this article's. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete - Per
  WP:GNG; they are known only for those allegations, and per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons there should not be a Wikipedia article on a living person known only for unsubstantiated criminal allegations for which there is no conviction. - Aoidh (talk) 06:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The

  WP:BLPCRIME guidance applies and seems unambiguous. Nangaf (talk) 07:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Curtis N. Ofori

  Keep. Subject is notable on at least eight different grounds.

  1. He is a wealthy securities trader, who has done extensive government business;

  2. In 2017, the federal government debarred him from doing business with it, based on his misconduct in 2013 (“due to irregularities in a 2014 bid by their company Twin Assets LLC for HUD asset management services”);

  3. In 2018, the federal government debarred him from doing business with it, based on his misconduct in a separate matter in 2014 (“for knowingly submitting false statements to HUD's Mortgagee Review Board in 2013”);

  4. Subject “is also a defendant in an ongoing legal suit, filed in 2018, alleging fraudulent real estate valuation”;

  5. Subject was accused by a UVA classmate of committing forcible rape against her;

  6. A second woman also accused the subject of raping her;

  7. He has apparently bought the archives of a defunct alternative newspaper, The Hook, which published a long article about one of his UVA accusers’ accusations and lawsuit, and has sought to disappear all online traces of the charges; and

  8. He is apparently seeking to have the WP pages both on himself, and that of the newspaper he has apparently bought and whose archives he seeks to destroy, deleted. 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:E1B5:4CEE:714E:F285 (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep for reasons stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.14.11.243 (talk) 02:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of those is a rationale for notability according to any notability guideline, and 4-6 are specifically things that shouldn't be given that much attention per

WP:BLPCRIME. - Aoidh (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

What you said is completely untrue. 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:5C56:214A:6867:E9F0 (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's untrue then show it, don't just claim it. What notability guideline do any of those points meet then? The article certainly does't meet

WP:BLP1E if that, and 8 is speculation and even if true, there is no notability guideline that says a subject is notable just because they do not wish to have a Wikipedia article. If it's untrue, please show your work and explain how it's untrue. - Aoidh (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

[[25]] is irrelevant to 2, 3, and 4, since they do not relate to criminal matters. You can't just make up stuff as disqualifying. 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:5C56:214A:6867:E9F0 (talk) 08:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never said it applies to points 2 and 3, but neither of those points show notability either. Fraud is a crime, so while

WP:BLPCRIME applies, it ultimately doesn't matter because even if it didn't, that point doesn't show notability through any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines either. If the subject is notable, which notability guideline does he meet? None of the eight points you raised above show notability through any of Wikipedia's criteria. - Aoidh (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete
  WP:BLPCRIME, this guy would probally be a random without the crime. It is what the policy matters Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep and rename - this set of incidents has received significant coverage in papers of record - WaPo and The Times - so undeniably pass the

A couple of sources about a single event is a situation specifically covered in

that was in the news briefly for an otherwise non-notable subject. The article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines.- Aoidh (talk) 02:15, 25 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!} 07:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. The Hook includes relevant content. Hekerui (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep IMO the subject is notable given the multiple sources of press coverage. Nangaf (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this is an expanded article from the brief one that was originally nominated for deletion. I hope any editors participating after this relist evaluates the current state of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PAG seems very clear that if his only notability is from the rape allegations/burying attempt, he should not have an article. What I'd need to see in an expansion of the article is GNG-establishing references that pertain to his role as a businessman. None of the keep !voters have provided that here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 08:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment on the improvements to the article, it's still very much a

WP:BLPCRIME. Remove the crime allegations and the coverage for the single paper event and there's nothing of substance to the article and certainly nothing that shows notability. - Aoidh (talk) 10:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. Following the newspaper coverage, I would say he passes BLP1E#2, and also that BLPCRIME does not apply. The article now, if somewhat short, is not the stub it was at the time of nomination, as mentioned above. Given the news about The Hook, I think he's notable, if only just barely. He is the main personal subject of the WaPo article, as the rape allegation and burying are both related to him—he is the cause of both. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know what you mean by "passes" BLP1E's second point, but being a high-profile individual (if that's what you're alleging) is something that is demonstrated via reliable sources and is elaborated on in
  WP:BLP1E; there is no notability outside of that one thing. - Aoidh (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Aoidh: The subject is not the crime, but the response; so the interest-balancing motivating BLPCRIME is not present. The actual crime (or allegation thereof) is not the notable event of this subject's life. Similarly, BLP1E#2 is not met because of the coverage relating to the deletion of The Hook. I merely stated my opinion as to the policies mentioned above; you need not attack me for not fleshing out an argument before your response. You also misread BLPCRIME as a general matter—it deals with insinuations, not the material itself. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BLP1E very much applies there to the point that situations like this are precisely why 1E exists. If the only notability is, as you say, in relation to this one event, then the article's subject doesn't warrant an article on Wikipedia, per the BLP policy, which very much applies to this BLP article. - Aoidh (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  WP:CRIME is also pretty clear that someone shouldn't have an article in this situation Tristario (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Keep - this is just as notable as Ngozi Fulani and Sistah Space, and number of commenters were insistent those were each too notable to be combined into a single Royal Racism Incident page. @Silver seren and CT55555: 87.196.72.150 (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Tristario (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm surprised to get pinging at this AFD discussion and won't comment, as I cannot decide to what extent

WP:SPA apply here. CT55555(talk) 23:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Note that
  WP:GNG --Tristario (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  That was very naughty what you did, Tristario!

  Tristario removed all of the material in the article unrelated to the rape allegations and the suppression of The Hook, so that he can then say, "Look, beyond the rape allegations, and attempt to suppress them, there's nothing notable about Ofori." The material he deleted included the two federal actions against Ofori, and the pending lawsuit against him. 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:6D41:A61:65A:B2BB (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I removed that because

  WP:BLP explicitly says you're supposed to immediately remove any poorly sourced contentious content. So I was explicitly compelled by wikipedia policy to do that. I linked to the policy in my edit summary, which you could have read Tristario (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Duly noted. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this deletion discussion, it might be useful for other editors to be aware of this material, regardless of your judgement that it should be removed; and for that reason, I would like to draw attention to the previous versions of the article, which include Mr Ofori's other legal entanglements. Nangaf (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You're welcome to do that. I'll note, though, that per

  WP:GNG that doesn't count towards notabilty as those aren't reliable secondary sources Tristario (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Please note that I have restored some material. I rewrote the section to focus on Mr Ofori's career rather than legal issues, added some more references, and deleted two lawsuits for which only primary sources were available. Nangaf (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of that is still just sourced to public documents, the parts about being debarred from government contracts Tristario (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll also add that extra content is pretty irrelevant to this deletion discussion because none of it comprises significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, which is what notability requires Tristario (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, well let's see if we can reach consensus. I note that the catch-and-kill story is present on the current version of The Hook. Nangaf (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- but very marginal, given that there is scant secondary coverage other than the rape allegations and suspected catch-and-kill that are already covered at The Hook. Nangaf (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)^{Refactored to strike duplicate !vote. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)}[reply]

@Nangaf, you have already !voted above. Please do not !vote twice; I have refactored your comment to strike the bolded text. (Also, if you and others !voting keep want the closer to give your !votes any weight whatsoever, you need to articulate what coverage unrelated to the allegations/catch-and-kill you are referring to.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It's all there on the article page: I assume that the closer will be able to read. Nangaf (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete largely per Tristario, sourcing for articles like this (which have inherent NPOV issues) need to be top-drawer, and in my opinion these aren't top-drawer. Too many primary sources and too much original research, this is exactly the sort of article the spirit of BLP is intended to prevent. Daniel (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For my education, and the benefit of those reading, can you point out what in the article is original research? Nangaf (talk) 05:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Where you use a primary source to attribute to a statement, that is original research, as you are trying to do the job of a secondary source in analysing a primary source. The following are primary sources: 10, 13, 14, 15, 16 and maybe also 1. Daniel (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Durham, North Carolina

List of tallest buildings in Durham, North Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is only one building over 100 meters. Also, the article does not seem to meet

• Comment Completing nomination on behalf of the tagger--above text is copied from the article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. @
  WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 06:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I am currently leaning Weak Keep because I believe that the list scrapes by
  WP:GNG, although some more coverage would be welcomed. More advice for nom (pinging nom @City Dweller 2:) in future; make it a bit clear where and how the article violates the policies you have broken, because it is not very clear in your submission. Also, the contents of the list (the height of the buildings or new city rules) are not considered in AfD unless they directly affect policy, which they don't. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 09:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete Yet another list copied from Emporis, where the fact that a church tower is #6 on the list is a bad sign. These buildings just aren't that tall. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Lists, and North Dakota. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep fulfills the guidelines of
  WP:LISTN Lightburst (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete for failing NLIST. I can find no comparable list outside of Wikipedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think it'd be better to just have a list of all buildings in this city that have their own Wikipedia articles. Category:Buildings and structures in Durham, North Carolina Dream Focus 14:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails NLIST. Only perfunctory mentions of buildings with zero in-depth coverage. BruceThomson (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Article passes
  WP:NLIST, but only barely. The ⬡ Bestagon^[t][c] 14:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, as Durham, NC is especially known for its tall buildings (clearly a notable subject). Curntag (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC) — Curntag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock[reply]
  • As a local to the Research Triangle, no it is not. I say baloney, provide sources if you wanna get far with that ridiculous assertion. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer, Curntag has been blocked as NOTHERE and likely sock evader. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails NLIST, I'm not seeing any coverage that groups Durham buildings in a way that discusses their respective heights. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This article's subject fails
  WP:NLIST, since indiscriminate database entries have no context and aren't significant coverage. I was unable to find any sources online that discuss "tallest buildings" as a group in Durham. - Aoidh (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Recent closures of similar lists affirms the consensus that GNG applies to these lists, and that sources must describe the heights of these buildings as a group in order to qualify (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Shreveport, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Montgomery, Alabama, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Charleston, South Carolina, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Little Rock, among others) Since GNG has not been met here, this article should be deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Kaese

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

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, it is currently being improved by Nfitz, and am starting to shift from deleting to keeping the article, though I am still continuing this AfD until more

(talk) 22:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - I've added 5 references. 2 or 3 are in-depth and extensive. Much is local, but one of the significant one Victoria's Times Colonist. Nfitz (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The notability test for an actor is not passed just by adding a bit of "local kid does stuff" human interest coverage from the actor's hometown media market — it requires a broad range of coverage and analysis from beyond just the subject's own hometown area. Further, he was not a main star of any of the films or TV shows listed in the filmography — three of the four roles were completely unnamed bit parts, and he had a name in the fourth but it was still a bit part, so these roles can't be considered "significant" for the purposes of NACTOR #1 (which is looking for the significance of his specific role, not the general prominence of the work itself). As always,
  WP:GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who's gotten past two" — it also takes into account factors like geographic range and the context of what the person is getting coverage for, so having a handful of local-interest coverage in his own local media, and nothing at all beyond it, is not sufficient coverage to secure the permanent notability of a kid who had four bit part roles 20 years ago and has never acted again since. Especially since even the local coverage is more than 50 per cent in the context of being diabetic, and consequently having his father participate in local diabetes fundraisers, rather than anything relevant to a Wikipedia notability criterion. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 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!} 04:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Bearcat's reasoning. I don't see in depth coverage, and I don't see a notable acting career. Maybe shift what's here into his father's article.OsFish (talk) 07:45, 16 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!} 04:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]