Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 20

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. After a thorough discussion of available sources, rough consensus is that this mythological figure is not verifiable through reliable sources. Sandstein 13:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lona (mythology)

Lona (mythology) (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 Hawaiian dictionaries do not mention a goddess under lona (cf. Pukui/Elbert: [3]; Andrews: [4], [5]; Parker: [6], [7]). The standard references for Hawaiian mythology refer to Hina and do not mention any Lona (cf. Beckwith and Westervelt). Jan Knappert, the Dutch author of the referenced Pacific mythology: an encyclopedia of myth and legend published about African and Asian mythology preferably and nothing in any Polynesian language. Therefore the references are not trustworthy enough. ThT (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm not buying the argument that we should delete an article on the basis that it is not mentioned by certain sources. To start off with, not being in dictionaries is fairly meaningless when we are talking about a minor diety rather than a word. The link to the Westervelt source is in a work titled Legends of Maui: and His Mother Hina. Since our article makes no claim that Lona was Maui's mother (or even mention him at all) there is no obvious reason why we should expect to see her in there. That just leaves Lona's omission from Martha Beckwith's rather old (1940) work as the evidence that "Lona" is an error. Against that there is the Knappert source in the article. Belittling Jan Knappert because he mostly published about Africa doesn't wash. He is obviously a skilled linguist with Hawiian included in his multiple degrees and his relevant work here is reliably published by Harper-Collins. If that was the only place Lona was mentioned there would be a good argument here, but it isn't. I'm seeing Lona in multiple sources. This book for instance mentions her – published by Springer who in other cicumstances their reliability would not be questioned. If a source is unearthed that positively asserts this is an error then I might reconsider, but not on the curent evidence. SpinningSpark 17:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for referring to the dubious citation Beckwith, pp. 214-25 which seems to verify the statement It is likely that Lona is another name for the Moon goddess Hina. The chapter Hina Myths in Beckwith's Hawaiian mythology (pp. 214-225) doesn't mention the name Lona at all, however this would be one of the important sources to check and the page numbers as well as Hina point to the work of Martha Beckwith:

  Beckwith, Martha W.: Hawaiian Mythology. Reprinted in Honolulu (Univ. of Hawaii Press), 1996.

  In the introduction Katharine Luomala, professor of Anthropology, wrote in 1969: it was the first, and is still the only, scholarly work which charts a pathway through the hundreds of books and articles, many of them obscure and scarce, and through the little-known manuscripts that record the orally transmitted myths, legends, traditions, folktales, and romances of the Hawaiian people. (p. VII) The Univ. of Hawaii Press reprinted the book again in 1996.

  The citation in Myths, Symbols and Legends of Solar System Bodies (by Rachel Alexander, ISBN 9781461470670) cannot be verified, because only the fragment of the simple statement Lona in Hawaiian mythology was a is visible. However this book is an amateur astronomer’s guide to the mythology and symbolism associated with the celestial bodies in the Solar System, and even includes some of the legendary tales of people who had or have a connection with these objects. Therefore it is not a reliable source for Hawaiian mythology.

  Meanwhile I checked an important primary source as well: David Kalakaua. The Legends and Myths of Hawaii: The Fables and Folk-Lore of a Strange People. Honolulu: Mutual Publishing, 1999. Again, there's no mention of any Lona

  WP:WHYCITE

  requires that the information given is supported by reliable source. Because Lona is not mentioned in any of the scholarly sources about Hawaiian mythology reliable sources are still needed.

  Moreover

  WP:SIGCOV

  requires significant coverage, which is more than a trivial mention. Therefore trivial mentions in books or other sources are not sufficient for notability.

  Best, --ThT (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The claim that a citation cannot be verified because you personally cannot read it is patently untrue. The book exists. The book exists in libraries. The book exists in libraries that anyone can go in to read it. So in theory anyone can verify it, and in practice one person at least (me) has read the entire entry. I accessed it online fine, your lack of computer skills is entirely your own problem, not Wikipedia's. Also, I never claimed the coverage in that book was significant (although it is certainly more than a passing mention), and Knappert's coverage is certainly significant.SpinningSpark 20:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, the relevant passage in Myths, Symbols and Legends of Solar System Bodies reads:

  "Other Moon deities are female personifications of the Moon. Lona in Hawaiian mythology was a Moon goddess who, perhaps unwisely, fell passionately in love with a man by the name of Aikanaka. They lived happily ever after, at least for many years. They were finally separated by the death of the mortal. This is quite unusual for a goddess."

  I wouldn't consider this a reliable source for our purposes. There are no sources cited, and the author is an English teacher, not an expert in Hawaiian folklore. She very probably got this information from Wikipedia in the first place. You might be surprised how often that happens, even in books from normally-trustworthy publishers. Dan from A.P. (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Dan from A.P. (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clarify my vote: I agree that the Knappert source is reliable, but the GNG calls for sources, plural. I discount the Rachel Alexander book discussed above, and I'm not prepared to AGF on the Ramesh Chopra source cited in the article, given the previous issues with failed verification. So I'm still only seeing one useable source. Dan from A.P. (talk) 14:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ON balance, there seems to be some issues with the sources. I would note, its not necessarily up to us to decide with a source is an RS or not - that should really be decided by the RS noticeboard. If the noticeboard validates that source, then it may well stay in and substantiate the content. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I could verify the Knappert source and add the page number. And it is a reliable source from a reliable author, as Spinningspark already mentioned, and I can't see any evidence to the contrary. Just because something is not mentioned in a particular source can hardly be considered deletion criteria, as the nom suggests. Ciridae (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: let's see if we can get less sniping about computer skills and more consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that the problem here is that Beckwith et al. are talking about the Ai-kanaka and Hina from Hawaiian mythology, which is a very different story to what Knappert relates. Moreover, Knappert specificially says "north Polynesian" not "Hawaiian" as xe does in other entries. These are two different myths, with the one related by Beckwith having nothing to do with a man being carried off to a "White Kingdom". Knappert has the Beckwith one in xyr entry for "Mahina" on page 174, and labels that one "Hawaiian". And Knappert's entry for "Ai-kanaka" just points to both of those.

  The problem here is that we have exactly one source, discounting the 21st century fantasy novel than almost quotes Knappert verbatim, for the "north Polynesian" mythical person; compounded by the fact that the one source devotes a mere three sentences to this subject. Worse, it's an Aquarian Press source. (You've all got the 1995 Diamond reprint, the original 1992 publisher was Aquarian.) Let's just say that Aquarian Press, publisher of Douglas Baker's 1977 Practical Techniques of Astral Projection and Rodney Davies' 1987 The ESP Workbook: How to Awaken and Use Your Psychic Powers, is not exactly academically rigorous. Aquarian got Knappert to do three "Aquarian guides" to "African", "Indian", and "Pacific" mythology over the space of as many years, and none of them are exactly scholarly in format. (Notice that when Knappert actually wrote in xyr field of expertise, about Swahili, xe went to

  BRILL.)

  For what it's worth, my educated guess is that Alexander almost certainly got this information from Knappert's book, but changed "Polynesian" to "Hawaiian", even though Knappert draws this distinction between the two Ai-kanaka myths. Aquarian Press was in Wellingborough, according to a quick Google Books search, and Alexander's book-jacket blurb says that xe grew up in Nottingham, so Aquarian Press books were probably around. Ironically, Alexander's publisher, Springer Science+Business Media, has a far better reputation than Knappert's publisher does.

  But that does mean that we really don't have a good source for either this or the major parts of Aikanaka (mythology) which are also based upon Knappert's Aquarian Press book.

  This is only sourceable to a minor mention in one exceedingly dodgy Aquarian Press book. Delete.

  Uncle G (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- With thanks to ThT and Uncle G for their exhaustive analysis of this, I agree that the sourcing, based on their research, is not sufficient to back up this article. Alyo (chat·edits) 16:57, 21 February 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.

Cameron Herrin

Cameron Herrin (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 list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Either this biography passes
  WP:GNG, or otherwise, we can rename the article to "Bayshore Boulevard streetrace collision" and reframe this content to focus on the event. Most or all of the coverage names and describes this person though, with much less coverage of the event itself or any of the several other people involved. News reports have been continuous from 2018 till present, like in this timeline from 2018-2021 which summarizes 20+ other news stories. We have Tampa Bay Times Jun. 1, 2018 giving a biography of the person. Before this event, the person was a tiktok celebrity with two million followers and was said to post streetracing videos to tiktok [8] [9], all since deleted, so his conviction for streetracing seems to be in a context where he was known for this activity. Following the trial a research team identified a fake botnet fanbase to advocate for him, but also this is among a real fanbase. The case is itself being used in journalism to discuss other issues including social privileges and technology. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It all stems from the one event. Without that event, none of it would happened, which is the very definition of

WP:BLP1E. The citations above have to remind their reader who the person; it is the description of transitory. scope_creep^Talk 14:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:BLP1E applies? There are three criteria there: single event, low profile, and not well documented. I am seeing 4 years of regular media coverage from multiple sources, a social media celebrity whose face and name are published continuously, and discussions about this person's lifestyle outside of the event. Why you find that BLP1E is a fit here? Bluerasberry (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - this is a clear case of
  WP:PERP. And since the event itself had no long-lasting effects, renaming the article is inappropriate as well. And as scope_creep as already pointed out, this is also a case of WP:BIOIE.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Onel5969: There have been multiple long lasting community changes at Bayshore Boulevard where the collision occurred, and now the event is a matter of local history. Sources [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] These are all about the community; I think that other changes include the social discussions about subject of the biography also. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a notable incident. His court case is widely popular worldwide and reported on international media. The plenty of coverage by mainstream news source found. I also support to rename to Bayshore Boulevard streetrace collision . VocalIndia (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a pretty notable incident with long lasting effects -- however, considering the page focuses more on him, and not the notable incident that he took major part in, i think it's better if we rename it and then change the content accordingly to discuss the recent happenings at Bayshore Boulevard. Synesthesium (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not notable. It is a completly common event. scope_creep^Talk 23:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As a crime, there is nothing here is fundamentally different from the many types of crime that happen across the world on a daily basis. The event is completly generic, so common that it is not commented on. It regular mundane thing. The long changes argument is utterly facile. That happens everywhere as well. As soon as there is a big road accident, the police are notified, the roads people are notified and roads stuture are changed to lessen the accident. That happens everywhere in the western world, to make the chance accident happening again. The Precautionary Principle kicks earlier to straighten and removing obstacles for years. An example would be the babies that are getting beating up and killed in the UK. The Tik Tok content is an so shallow, because it is typical social fare, no understanding of law. The subject didn't have article based on their social media. But even if they did, they would not still notable for this, because it is such a common event. Here is an example:
• Larger than life
• Crash

It is a common happening every day, all over the world. It varies, but the common elements are there. scope_creep^Talk 23:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your comment. This incident is world-wide interesting case. Also hit in India, Hindi language media also reported about this case. Here is some coverages in notable ways [15] and [16]. VocalIndia (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin Post is a US paper with affiliate content and the 1st reference doesn't seem to be about him. scope_creep^Talk 17:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the boy is notable. The person might not be notable but it has gained international attention. The incident is clearly notable, being the subject of worldwide coverage...So enough to meet WP:GNG. VocalIndia (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a online newespaper based in New York. Of course you can read it in India, you can read it anywhere on the planet. That doesn't make it international coverage. If a local paper picked it up, like for example, The Times of India, then it would be international coverage. There is a fundamental difference. The root of the argument is that is common occurance. It is common in India, more common, because India has a mountain of accidents, than mostly anywhere. It happens everywhere, everyday. And because papers have a duty to report, doesn't make it notable. scope_creep^Talk 18:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! Clearly

WP:IDONTLIKE whatever that is your opinion not me. Well, "Mohini Sigh killed in a toilet of Indian Parliament", that her death case will report on intermedia? definitely will not because it is a common event. VocalIndia (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It not a case

WP:IDONTLIKE. Do you not read papers? Your haven't dissproved the central tenet, which is the crime happen's everywhere. The same kind of events happen everywhere with slight variations. They are not standalone unique events. Knife crime in London is a classic example. It is often a stabbing, done by same type of person, for the same reason, intergang warfare or revenge, or turf war. scope_creep^Talk 18:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete as it fails
  WP:SIGCOV. More than 20 citations are from a single source. Moreover, the incident is too generic. --NeverTry4Me - TT page 19:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per VocalIndia's arguments. Jam ai qe ju shikoni (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, clear
  WP:BLP1E case. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Clear failure of BLP1E, and there's no long lasting non-news impact of the accident. Further social media traction isn't a good indication of notability. Star Mississippi 17:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 01:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think it might be better, to write an article on the crash and redirect this article to that, instead of having an article on the perpetrator, because he is
  only notable for one event. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep but rename. I Agree with GoldenBootWizard276. Rewrite the article on the crash. That guy is not likely notable but the incident is worldwide known case. Taung Tan (talk) 12:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The incident is notable and verifiable. The article should be renamed to reflect the incident.InfiNeuro (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article reads like a transcript of his court case, beyond that, I'm thinking it's just a routine crime. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Routine crime coverage is not enough for notability. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, A unique notable case with enough coverage. Alex-h (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, blatantly fails
  WP:BLP1E. The arguments that it is notable and significant are not supported by the sources, which are almost exclusively from two publications and are largely just brief, routine crime coverage. The argument that we could have an article about the crash seems obviously absurd. Herrin is clearly a low-profile individual; and there's no particular indication that the incident had any long-term significance or notability, just a rush of breathless articles (almost exclusively from Fox and the Tampa Bay Times) followed by the usual updates on a court case's progression. This is plainly not sufficient to support or justify its own article. --Aquillion (talk) 19:43, 1 March 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rei Prendi

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

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

This topic Not has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.Trivial mentions are not enough.WP:Notability Malikul Mout (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Malikul Mout (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Albania. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – the only sources I can find are labeled as "promoted content", "brand partner content", "syndicated press content", or similar terms making clear that the content is not independent. There's no indication whatsoever that Prendi has received significant coverage from genuinely independent sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with nom. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promotional article and not at all notable as per policies. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - promotional article which does not satisfy
  WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:38, 25 February 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.

Tim Atchison (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)

Insufficiently-sourced biography of a living person. —S Marshall T/C 15:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 15:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Texas. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, played in the National Football League, thus meets
  WP:NGRIDIRON, see [17]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Notable only for
    that one event?—S Marshall T/C 15:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

In addition, some subject-specific notability guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports), provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event. So BLP1E doesn't apply here. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course, I forgot that our normal notability rules don't apply to sportspeople.—S Marshall T/C 18:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this patronizing sarcasm really necessary?

civil. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!) (contribs)} 21:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Our notability rules don't apply to sportspeople. They've got special exemptions from the GNG and, as we learn above, also from BLP1E. How is it uncivil to say so?—S Marshall T/C 23:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (probably also draftify): Found this as a piece of SIGCOV but am thinking this may be a candidate for draftification. He was a single game PS elevation and I'm having trouble quickly finding proper sources outside of PFR. The nominator is right to want better sourcing in a BLP, so draftifying may be our best option. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could try to properly source the article if no one else is willing to. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan11, I'm inclined to !vote draftify, but I'd rather wait to see if you can find some SIGCOV first. Can you ping me when you have a chance to search? SPF121188 ^{(tell me!) (contribs)} 17:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spf121188: The article is now fully sourced. Cbl62 (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per BeanieFan11-- Yankees10 18:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. At the time of nomination, the article was a low-quality piece largely copied from Atchison's on-line Baylor biography. I've added a number of additional sources to the article which now passes
  WP:NGRIDIRON. Cbl62 (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@S Marshall: The nomination (as "insufficiently sourced" for a living person) was understandable give the article's poor quality and BLP concerns. The article has since been improved with reliable-source citations for each and every factual assertion. Accordingly, might you consider withdrawing so that all can move on to more productive matters? Cbl62 (talk) 19:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That's undoubtedly an improvement in terms of notability. I think that all the local newspaper coverage fails

  WP:G12.—S Marshall T/C 20:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

If you think it best to remove the old version from the history, I have no objection. I didn't verify whether it was a direct copy/paste from the Baylor bio, but it appears to have been based largely on that work. As for big12sports.com, I think it's not really debatable that a conference made up of prestigious universities is a "reliable" source -- I suspect you're really going after its "independence". Finally, your assertion that all local newspaper coverage (including feature articles) should be rejected as

WP:AUD in the context of companies, (iv) media outlets like The Dallas Morning News' are regional in nature; and (v) the fact that you are dredging up an entirely new deletion rationale after your original BLP grounds were resolved makes it appear that you just DONTLIKEIT and are straining to find any basis for deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not that I "think it best" to remove the old version; it's just that I'm vaguely aware of copyright as a consideration and I've read our pages about copyright a couple of times. I'd normally seek advice from one of our sysops, who are meant to enforce these things and therefore ought to know about them, or if I wasn't the AfD nominator I'd flag it with {{copyvio-revdel}}. I'm sorry you think I'm "dredging up" some new grounds here, but it was in fact you who identified the copyvio, and I do think copyright compliance is important.—S Marshall T/C 21:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took another look at the copyvio issue on the prior version. While not an outright, complete copypaste, there was usage of some of the precise language from the BU bio with minor paraphrasing. I've endeavored to remove such verbiage from the current text, but you raise a valid point about possible revision deletion on the prior version. I've left a note for our copyright specialists at

WP:ROUTINE as a basis for ignoring SIGCOV now found in the article. That comment had nothing to do with the possible COPYVIO (which I in fact raised). Copyright violation is a serious issue, and you are correct to point it out. Cbl62 (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Out of an abundance of caution, I did revdel the prior version. Cbl62 (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets
  WP:GNG, per Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep in its current state, the article and sources show a clear pass of
  WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Thank you,
  GNG. I know there are plenty of users who truly believe articles of NFL players who played in one game shouldn't be here, but I think this subject passes GNG with ease. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!) (contribs)} 21:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Per everyone's comments excluding the nominator. It does have have a couple pieces of minor cleanup it needs which I'll do after posting this.--Rockchalk717 23:52, 20 February 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 2017–18 Wigan Athletic F.C. season#Statistics. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mwiya Malumo

Mwiya Malumo (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)

Re-listing this individually as per previous discussion.

Technically passes NFOOTY due to an FLT appearance, but clearly fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2017–18 Wigan Athletic F.C. season#Statistics as we have done in other similar AFDs. GiantSnowman 16:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:06, 21 February 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 2017–18 Wigan Athletic F.C. season#Statistics. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will McGuffie

Will McGuffie (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)

Re-listing this individually as per previous discussion.

Technically passes NFOOTY due to an FLT appearance, but clearly fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2017–18 Wigan Athletic F.C. season#Statistics as we have done in other similar AFDs. GiantSnowman 16:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:07, 21 February 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 2017–18 Wigan Athletic F.C. season#Statistics. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Culshaw

Mitchell Culshaw (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)

Re-listing this individually as per previous discussion.

Technically passes NFOOTY due to an FLT appearance, but clearly fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2017–18 Wigan Athletic F.C. season#Statistics as we have done in other similar AFDs. GiantSnowman 16:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:07, 21 February 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 2017–18 Wigan Athletic F.C. season#Statistics. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Plant

Anthony Plant (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)

Re-listing this as per previous discussion.

Technically passes NFOOTY due to an FLT appearance, but clearly fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2017–18 Wigan Athletic F.C. season#Statistics as we have done in other similar AFDs. GiantSnowman 16:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:ATD. Note: the previous AFD was a procedural keep as it involved multiple players, so should have no bearing on this individual nomination. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect - fails GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 15:35, 22 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bang-Maithili

Bang-Maithili (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)

An article about a dialect of Maithili (or one intermediate with Bengali). I don't know if it exists, but so far it has been impossible to find sources about a dialect with this name (see also the talk page). – Uanfala (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and India. – Uanfala (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've been willing to give the benefit of the doubt, but there do not seem to be
  WP:RS that support the article, at least with this name. It's possible the dialect/language is known by a different name in academic literature or that there are reliable non-English-language sources available, but unfortunately nothing has been offered up. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. This article was created with bogus sources (entirely made up sources or real sources not supporting the existence of the subject). As long as we're not presented with reliable sources, the default assumptions are either that the subject itself is spurious, or that the page title is a made-up name for something that may exist under a different name (and maybe is already covered here in WP). –Austronesier (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It has a tag already as no any reference is attach to the article. I wonder how the article stays longer without deletion. Katobara (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because of not providing reliable sources.
  talk) 07:40, 23 February 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.

Edward Hammond (researcher)

Edward Hammond (researcher) (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)

Self-promotional, likely self-edited, and unsourced material. Independent, third-party sources are wholly insufficient to support Wikipedia biography. Don't call me shorely (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Politics, and Biology. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:18, 24 February 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 00:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Volodymyr Levykin

Volodymyr Levykin (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)

Because this has been moved previously to draft space (twice!) my desire to draftify would mean I would be move warring. Thus I am required to bring it to AfD because I am unable to edit it to address my concerns.

The article purports to be about the person, but is about the corporation. As a draft I would have declined it with that rationale, suggesting it be either or both split into two, assuming the person to be notable, for the person and the corporation, or repurposed to be about the corporation alone assuming the person not to be notable.

I am nominating it to be Returned to Draft and only to be moved to main space after a review. I note and agree with the banner that suggests it to be written like an advert. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is covered promotion and advertisement in this article. It needs fundamental rewrite up to meet encyclopedia. Katobara (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Volodymyr Levykin - This biography has
  tone
  problems.
  • Biography is mostly about company rather than person, and so largely misses
    biographical notability
    .
  • The author says, on the talk page, 'Concerning to "content that is written like an advertisement" - please specify what sentences are written like an advertisement' - Author is asking reviewers to rework article into neutral form.
  • Second sentence of
    lede
    reads: "He is a space and tech entrepreneur with a track record of launching and managing innovative businesses in the UK and Silicon Valley." That is resume language.
  • Environmental and Social Impact section begins: "Volodymyr intends Skyrora to be ecologically-sustainable." That is about the company, not about the subject, and is advertising language.
  • Article has been moved twice to draft space, by
    User:NenChemist and User:scope creep
    , and moved twice back to article space by author.
  • Article has been
    general notability
    .
  • Disagree respectfully with moving back to draft, because the article needs to be
    blown up and started over
    . If a neutral editor wants to start from the beginning, they don't need this.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon I understand your sentiments regarding re-draftification. Even so, I see no obstacle to the thing being reworked in Draft: space. Either or the other works well. The article as it stands today is not appropriate. Your analysis is spot on. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or Delete if not possible. I moved it to draft and expected it to be updated, but it more company references as opposed to BLP style references when it was done. If it can't redirect then delete. It is currently a diguised brochure article. I don't understand why. I think it is just a case the paid editing crowd attempting to get his article on, but don't have much to flesh it out. There is a article on the rocket company already, so it is a bit of lost cause. scope_creep^Talk 03:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. I just moved it to draft per consensus here and per nominator - Timtrent. Topic is probably notable. More citations should be added, the tone and style could be fixed too. --FossLimi (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FossLimi: I've reversed this move; unless you are closing the AfD (which I think would be inappropriate at this point) you should not move the article under discussion to draftspace. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:25, 24 February 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actor

Atlanta Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actor (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 article about a specific award given by an organization that itself lacks a Wikipedia article. A quick scan of newspaper archives indicates that there are no substantial independent, third-party sources that ever discuss this Award for Best Actor. Don't call me shorely (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 13:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Awards. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. According to the only source cited in this article, the awards for 2019 were the third awards, and the 2018 and 2017 awards are listed there too, which suggests that the 2016 award claimed here appears to be an error. Creating an article about this group's Best Actor award first when no article has been created about the group overall is not how topics should be handled on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No notability as per any policy. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 14:43, 23 February 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.

Lelo Sejean

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

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

This is my 4th AFD nomination of this page going back 12 years. A vanity page. NOTHING at all notable that I can see. Only a low level amateur sportsman. Is the interview at http://www.elmensu.com/2022/01/20/sera-incluido-en-un-libro-inedito/ a reliable source? I don't read Spanish, but just seems like more ego boosting from a "novelty and peculiarity" than anything actually notable. The-Pope (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 12 years ago, not my problem or responsibility, no depend on me, when the subject is important to PGY Football from 2020 and on, before 2020 is not my responsibility and 12 years ago much less my responsibilibity. Actualize you self with current time, my friend. I'm incharge of growth of PGY Football and PGY Edits. Where is your contribution to PGY Topic? User:Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro 13:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Lelo, as I assume from the level of detail int he article that you are either Lelo or have him sitting next to you telling you what to write, you need to read
  WP:COI to realise that NO ONE is in charge of any topic here. BTW, I've removed the "athletics" section, as the performances listed are not even at junior girls level. We only write articles about people who are actually notable, not those who believe that they are notable themselves. The-Pope (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Page is Important to PGY Football on year 2020 and forward, before this is NO my responsibility, and The subject has record of long presence in CONMEBOL as Oceania Footballer and is important to Football in PGY I'm in charge of PGY Football Portal and PGY Articles, and your contribution? Eike nde revikuape nde tembo. User:Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro 14:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are TEMBO User:Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro 14:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The-Pope is PUTO. Stayaway from Paraguay Articles you never edited Paraguay before. Puto. Inutil. Infeliz.User:Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro 16:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Charming. Add
  WP:AIV will be the next destination if you don't immediately retract all of your insults. The-Pope (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I say again, the football player not soccer player, is longest of all non CONMEBOL football player in PGY out of all nationalities
  Marcos Caballero and both accepted, important and known footballers of the PGY Football League, even if lower. It is commemorated. User:Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro 15:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Fashion, Lebanon, France, Australia, and Paraguay. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per previous AFD where it was established that GNG had been met. GiantSnowman 16:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you checked how many are actually from reliable sources?
  WP:REFBOMB is a thing. Publicity hungry people feeding time-poor journalists willing to write about anything appears to be a valuable mix. Also, he's been through AFDs on the Italian and Spanish Wikipedias too. The-Pope (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: I've significantly cleaned up the article, removing puffery and unnecessary details. I don't have a stance whether the article should remain or not, though. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Can someone explain to me what this person's career is actually like? Apparently he's been in Paraguayan soccer for several years, except he has been frequently injured, only appeared in five games (none in the top division of the soccer leagues there) and never scored a goal, and has never even received a salary from any club in the country? In terms of involvement in the top level of sport, on a scale somewhere between Lionel Messi and an amateur who occasionally plays in a friendly game of soccer, where would this person appear? I don't literally need an answer to that question, but he seems to be closer to the latter, as attested by the statement, "While playing in Paraguay, Sejean never received a salary from any club, and was held to cover his economic necessities by sports sponsorships, confessing in 2020 that his sponsors provided food for him when he experienced hunger, and through streams of labour, as English teaching at schools in Asunción and Ciudad del Este, acting as an English Communicator for Asunción club Deportivo Recoleta by or during 2020, modelling, and working at a milk bar." An athlete who doesn't earn enough money (or have sufficient food provided by his team) to avoid hunger is probably very far from being a notable athlete. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree with the nominator, the article is about a person who does not meet the required notability. Most of the clubs he played for plays in the lower divisions and he has not played for any national team.--Sakiv (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The content is notable for 1 - longest presence as non CONMEBOL foreigner in PGY of all of the nationalities a part from CONMEBOL and 2 - is longest presence of his continent in all of CONMEBOL. The content is notable of 2020 and on, before this is not my responsibility cause DRAFT: page was prepared for this in 2020 I am a good editor and most of my time is in expanding PGY Topics and Football in PGY or you want do it for me? Avisame amigo User:Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro 00:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Neither points are covered by

WP:GNG needs to be demonstrated (which maybe it is, maybe not?). Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep it's been only 2 months since the last AFD, which had a consensus to keep. He hasn't become less notable in that time, and the article is better than it was then (as some of the rubbish content has been removed). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (unfortunately). Seems to me that the subject easily fails NFOOTBALL or any NSPORT, and fails GNG on the basis of any sport. However, they do seem to get a lot of coverage, rightly or wrongly. The coverage has also been sustained and broad. And, when the subject appears in mainstream IRS like the SBS one has to think twice about the subject's notability.
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not grounds for deletion. The article still needs some clean up, and some of the statements are exaggerated, but not enough for TNT, and AfD is not CLEANUP. So in my view the subject does pass general notability hence keep. (But no, I do not like the article as it stands.) Aoziwe (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Aoziwe:, you should actually look at those sources, though. It's an impressive-looking list at first glance. None of the sources qualify as reliable. It's all smoke and mirrors. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Zepelin. You will see that I have got the broom to some of it too. As I stated above I do not like it. But unless someone can validly clean it all out, I feel I have to take what is left on face value. The SBS example is a case in point. If someone can with a high degree of confidence "prove" that this was lazy journalism by a normally reliable and independent source, then I think I could change my !vote relatively easily. Aoziwe (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and rereapply the salt. GNG is "not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article." even if there is a pass of GNG which I dispute. What sources are actually good for GNG? Let's have a look at what we have here. An unpaid football player without much of the playing bit. A less successful Carlos Kaiser? At least Kaiser was paid for not playing. Who did Sejean play for?
  Club Deportivo Sol del Este? The only one he had more than 1 game with? Look at the game photo. Top level there. Funny how he "began suffering from inflammation in the aquilian tendons due to excessive use" after managing to appear in one game. Brags about his athletics ability, competing as an "elite javelin thrower" [19], throwing a massive best of 36m. That's good enough to qualify for the Australian Championships. Well, for Under 14s that is. Source gets worse. "Sejean also hopes for a green and gold debut when Australia plays in the 2020 Copa America in June." I'm also not good enough to play professionally, perhaps I'll get to debut next time they play in Australia. An absolute junk source like so much of what is out there. Let's look at the SBS source mentioned above. "competes in elite athletics in Paraguay, with javelin and long jump." [20]. So another one with a total lack of any fact checking, so not a reliable source. Just a throwaway feel good piece based entirely on what he is saying. How about the ones Joseph linked in the last afd. The Geelong piece is a puff piece look what this local is doing from the same terrible Geelong Indy rag as above. The other two are promo pieces from a site showing no sign of being an independent reliable source. Who are they, who wrote these pieces? Are there any good sources? What sources are out there. Lots of barely watched videos of him training or of him failing to break world records. Lots of non-reliable sources based on things he has said. This is just a self-promoter with no significant achievements who occasionally gets lazy journos to reproduce his claims unchecked. How about the gallery of him standing alone in empty fields, posing outside closed stadiums? Makes him look even less noteworthy. Why so many SPAs on commons dedicated to posting pictures of him training alone. Salt again due to the long history of socks, ownership and attacks and the bad faithed gaming of the system by restarting the page at a different title to avoid salt. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

duffbeerforme As I said above, I do not like it either, but I do not think it can be discounted. I have done a bit of pruning of content (unreliable primary IMO) based on interviews, but there is still more than would leave me feeling comfortable changing at this point. Aoziwe (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS For us to simply dismiss what would normally be regarded as a very reliable and independent source such as the SBS as lazy journalism without some independent evidence to that effect, I fear would make us no better than the delete opinion needs to assert about the standing of this article. Aoziwe (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The comment about competing at an "elite level" of athletics in javelin and long jump, but his bests of 36m and 4.93m are not at all notable distances. 13 year old girls do better in my state, let alone the whole country. To me that's evidence that it's a puff piece. I reached out to the journalist on twitter to ask, but he didn't reply after I told him of my concerns. The-Pope (talk) 14:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am missing something but I cannot see the distances in the SBS article? I can find the distances in older sources, but the subject could have improved since then. I just think we cannot be sloppy even if believe the article is grossly sloppy with its facts. Aoziwe (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to Sejean, His 100m time would beat all Australian 9yo girls. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is only so much benefit of the doubt you can give someone. He hasn't updated his records on his YouTube page though. And, IMO, when you have documented evidence of the poor results (links to the official results were in the article), and a passing mention in a questionable article with no specific details or references for "elite" performance, that sort of goes precisely opposite to the intention of

WP:GNG. The-Pope (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per all of the arguments in the above delete votes. This is an impressive list of unreliable sources, and it took a lot of time to build, so I suspect someone is paying someone to make this subject look as notable as possible, but I agree with the editors above - just doesn't meet
  WP:GNG. Fred Zepelin (talk) 06:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

His acting and modelling career is even more farcical. Is there any reliable source connecting him with this 'Elijah Sejean' bloke? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None at all that I can find, so I have removed it. Aoziwe (talk) 12:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoziwe, @Spiderone: Seems like it is the same dude, per here. "Sí, no se los contamos de entrada para no impresionarlos (?), pero Lelo Sejean es, antes que nada, un artista. Y como tal, tiene un nombre artístico: Elijah Sejean." But I still don't think the article is notable enough to stay. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BrazilianDude70 Sorry but that article is useless. It is quoting from here in Wikipedia, "Para empezar a desarrollar su camino, tenemos que tener en cuenta su Wikipedia." Aoziwe (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that it isn't the only one that's sourced to Wikipedia either! Sejean and/or his agent have been working overtime on this one. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails GNG - looking through the sources, none of them meet the requirements. BilledMammal (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. With Calm, and as Creator of Page in 2020, and read the claim for Deletion, I sympathize in part, cause when I create New Pages of PGY Footballers or Footballers in PGY, the first information I search of a footballer is - Transfermarket - FBRef - Football Data Base - Soccerway - Cero a Cero, and how can you have Profile of Transfmarkt, FBRef, Football Data Base, if you play in the PGY Asenscion Leagues? But, is why, because of unsure, I created DRAFT Pages for
  Asociación Paraguaya de Fútbol entonces Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro (talk · contribs) 18:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Much like the article and its REFBOMB list itself, this is a lot of text that does nothing to establish notability. I'd encourage whoever reviews this discussion to notice that the references are all fluff. The Keep votes have ignored this -- the Delete votes have pointed it out. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat you that I sympathize and I understand you. Thank you Fred Zepelin (talk · contribs), for your seriousness on this theme and for no insulting my edits cause I am apenas using google translate and copying other english wording, now is in the hands of the reviewer.Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro (talk · contribs) 02:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with The-Pope that you are either Lelo or have him sitting next to you telling you what to write. Fred Zepelin (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would go for a weak delete, but I'm not so sure of it. Definitely
  WP:RS over the subject, and most of the article's content seem like a self-promotion for a rarely notable player in a more expansive context. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Rojodiablcerrocerrocerro (talk · contribs)'s insults towards The-Pope in this discussion page, along with his disruptive editing on the article in question warrant a block imo. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete and salt: I agree that this is refbombing to gull careless voters into thinking this meets the GNG, that the sources don't actually provide
  routine sports coverage, and that the mistakes and knee-jerk follow-the-leader votes in the prior AfDs don't bind our hands now. Ravenswing 20:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and salt This article is entirely a vanity piece. It's not so much a case of the references failing to demonstrate notability... they clearly demonstrate non-notability. This elite javelin thrower has a video on his youtube channel of him throwing near his personal best in 2015 at 28 m. World record is 98.48 m. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Good grief. My brother's best javelin throw (which was good enough for 3rd place in our state's high school championship in 1979) was over 50 meters. Ravenswing 07:22, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I was fooled in the previous discussion and voted keep hastily without consideration for COI and without fully considering whether the sources are reliable or not. It's quite clear that Sejean has been campaigning for many, many years to get a Wikipedia article and that most of the references are completely worthless. Wikipedia should remain firm against UPE/COI articles like this and I strongly agree with the deletion arguments raised here. Sejean has received significant coverage, correct, but GNG also requires the coverage to be independent of the subject which I strongly believe to be untrue here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Salt This page has been deleted three times before. Enough is enough! Fails
  WP:GNG because he's an Australian in a South American country. Nope.— rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Look at the player list for the club he played for:

  Club Deportivo Sol del Este. He’s the only player? And the club stopped because of financial difficulties? Some of the information presented stretches credulity. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:35, 28 February 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Park (Hong Kong)

Highland Park (Hong Kong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

As a result of 2 recent AfD's,

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Hong Kong. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Six tower blocks comprising 1,456 units, so a major development. Likely to have received coverage in the 1990s when it was constructed that is no longer or never was available online.
  talk) 11:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per nomination. There are over 50 public housing estates in Hong Kong with their standalone articles, most of which are converted from redirect. Aravindhan Ravikumar (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Something's not right here. "Keep per nomination"? – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 10:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am the editor who objected to the mass blanking/ redirecting of 21 articles by the nominator without discussion, using an AfD outcome for not systematically comparable estates as a precedent. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hong Kong#Mass housing estates articles blanking/ redirecting for details. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
  reliable sources
  .
  1. 林可為 (2008-07-05). "浩景臺 葵涌半山景開揚 夾屋重推 勝在夠廉" [Highland Park: Kwai Chung open mid-mountain view. The heavy push for sandwich-class housing developments. It wins at being sufficiently inexpensive.]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2008-07-08. Retrieved 2022-02-21.

     The article notes from Google Translate: "The Grand View Terrace, which consists of 6 buildings, is located on the mid-levels of Kwai Chung. Whether it is in Kwai Chung, West Kowloon, or in the area around Hong Kong Island, the majestic view of the Grand View Terrace can be seen. As a matter of fact, due to its location at a high altitude, the vast majority of units in Grand View Terrace have unobstructed views of Kwai Chung, West Kowloon, Victoria Harbour, and the area from Hong Kong Island Ring to Western Ring. The night scene after the lanterns are on should be quite charming. There are also green minibuses in the area connecting to Lai King MTR Station, so external traffic is not too far off. Among the 438 stub units sold by the Housing Society this time, Ho King Terrace accounts for the largest proportion."

  2. Ko, Kenneth (1997-10-01). "HKHS releases 2,168 sandwich-class units".
     ProQuest 265453378. Archived from the original
     on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.

     The article notes: "The Hong Kong Housing Society (HKHS) is releasing 2,168 flats in two sandwich-class housing developments for middle-income families at discounted prices of $3,600 to $3,800 per square foot. On offer are 712 units at Cascades in Ho Man Tin and 1,456 units at Highland Park in Kwai Chung. ... Highland Park's units spread in six blocks on a hill at Lai Kong Street. Units measure 593 to 820 sq ft and prices range between $1.74 million and $3.36 million - averaging $3,600 per sq ft. ... Some analysts said the selling prices of Cascades and Highland Park were too low from a taxpayer's point of view and they questioned whether the Government was over-subsidising. Tony Lui, manager of Ricacorp Properties' Mei Foo district, said the Highland Park site was on a hill with views of Tsuen Wan and Hong Kong Island. If the site was offered for sale for private development, the finished units easily could sell at more than $10,000 per sq ft, he said."

  3. Ko, Kenneth (1997-10-08). "Is the middle class being made too comfortable?".
     ProQuest 1801970043. Archived from the original
     on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.

     The article notes: "The question of taxpayers over-subsidising these families was raised again during the launch of two new sandwich-class housing projects - the 712-unit Cascades in Ho Man Tin and the 1,465-unit Highland Park in Kwai Chung. The HKHS said the selling price for Cascades averaged $3,800 per square foot while that for Highland Park was $3,600 per sq ft. The prices represent a 40 per cent discount on full-market prices, as estimated by HKHS. Based on this discount ratio, full-market prices estimated by the HKHS would be about $6,300 per sq ft for Cascades and $6,000 per sq ft for Highland Park. ...The units in Highland Park, located on a hill near the Lai King MTR station, command good and open views. Are their prices too low? ... The most expensive units available in the projects are those in Charming Garden phase two, at Mongkok, selling for an average of $3,325 per sq ft, which is only several hundred dollars cheaper than Cascades and Highland Park. ... This may not allay criticism as analysts reckoned that the discount pricing of Cascades and Highland Park would enable the buyers to take significant capital gains on re-sale of the units on the open market after the five-year restriction. ... Units in Cascades measure 539-962 sq ft. Those in Highland Park are 593-820 sq ft. ... The unit prices of Cascades range from $1.87 million to $3.65 million. Those of Highland Park vary between 1.74 million and $3.36 million. ... Families that could afford the $3.65 million and $3.36 million prices for the most expensive units in Cascades and Highland Park were even more financially capable of purchasing smaller units in the open market, analysts said."

  4. Ng, Kang-Chung (1999-09-25). "Excuse not watertight".
     ProQuest 265546055. Archived from the original
     on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.

     The article notes: "A group of Kwai Chung flat-owners have been told the good location of their homes is part of the reason water seeps in during typhoons. Residents in Highland Park complained about serious water leakage through the walls during typhoons Sam and York. ... The sandwich class housing project is on a hillside, with unblocked views of the west of Victoria Harbour."

  5. "【地產追擊】夾屋叫價癲過私樓！八成按揭盤絕迹" [[Real Estate Pursuit] The asking prices of sandwich class flats exceed those of private buildings! 80% of the mortgage market disappeared]. Oriental Daily News (in Chinese). 2018-07-20. Archived from the original on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.

     The article notes: "Among the 10 sandwich houses in Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories, the most active one is Ho King Terrace. Because it is located in the mid-levels of Kwai Chung, the property price lags behind the market, attracting buyers to enter the market. ... Take Ho King Terrace, Kwai Chung, which was the most active in the first half of the year and recorded 15 sales and purchase registrations, as an example. Compared with the total number of 1,456 units in the housing estate, the circulation rate of the housing estate in the first half of the year was only 1%."

  6. "浩景臺開拍價780萬" [Highland Park opens auction price of 7.8 million]. Headline Daily (in Chinese). 2022-02-01. Archived from the original on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.

     The article notes from Google Translate: "Highland Park is a "sandwich class project" housing estate developed by the Hong Kong Housing Society. It is located at No. 11 Lai Kong Street, Kwai Chung, which is the top of Lai King Hill. There are 1,456 units in total, ranging from 593 to 820 square feet. Views of Victoria Harbour, Kowloon Peninsula and Tsing Yi Island, and some of the high-rise units on the northeast side of Blocks 3 and 4 can overlook Shatin, Tolo Harbour and Pat Sin Leng."

  7. Less significant coverage and passing mentions:
     1. Moy, Patsy (2000-08-07). "Flat-sale delays to cost Housing Society $26m".
        ProQuest 265583576. Archived from the original
        on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.

        The article provides two sentences of coverage about Highland Park. The article notes: "The delayed sales of a further 1,053 flats at Highland Park, Kwai Chung, and the Cascades, Ho Man Tin - both completed last year - will cost the society an estimated $18 million. Highland Park and Cascades sold 820 and 295 flats respectively before the freeze, but all flats at Serenity Place are empty."

     2. Wong, Billy Wai-Yuk (1998-08-08). "New mortgage plan for sandwich class".
        ProQuest 265430527. Archived from the original
        on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about Highland Park. The article notes: "The seven estates affected are Radiant Towers and The Pinnacle in Tseung Kwan O, Marina Habitat in Ap Lei Chau, Highland Park and Hibiscus Park in Kwai Chung, Sunshine Grove in Sha Tin and Cascades in Ho Man Tin."

     3. Wong, Billy Wai-Yuk (1998-03-21). "Interest breaks on offer for sandwich class".
        ProQuest 265465782. Archived from the original
        on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.

        The article p;rovides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "The eight estates involved are Ma On Shan's Park Belvedere, Tseung Kwan O's Radiant Towers and The Pinnacle, Marina Habitat in Ap Lei Chau, Kwai Chung's Highland Park and Hibiscus Park, Sunshine Grove in Sha Tin and Ho Man Tin's Cascades."

     4. Leo, Kym (2001-08-12). "Times have changed for exclusive location; Agents say the market has not been kind to the high end of Lai King".
        ProQuest 2420426323. Archived from the original
        on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.

        The article provides one sentence of coverage about the subject: "Another major project at Wah King Hill is Highland Park, developed by the Hong Kong Housing Society under the "sandwich-class" housing scheme. The merits of the scheme and whether the government should give heavy discounts to homebuyers were widely debated about five years ago. "Sandwich class" refers to buyers unable to afford a private flat but over-qualified for a Home Ownership Scheme flat."

     5. Moy, Patsy (2000-11-01). "Estate agents fear sale of sandwich-class flats".
        ProQuest 265625695. Archived from the original
        on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.

        The article notes: "The three projects - Cascades in Ho Man Tin, Highland Park in Kwai Chung and Marina Habitat in Ap Lei Chau - with flats ranging from 540 to 965 square feet - will sell for between $1.5 million and $2 million, about 20 per cent below market price. The apartments were left unsold in the last sale two years ago."

     6. Leung, Peggy (2010-04-08). "Sale of the last of Housing Society flats draws 30,000 home seekers".
        ProQuest 266732326. Archived from the original
        on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.

        The article notes: "The society is selling 181 flats at The Pinnacle in Tseung Kwan O, 161 at Highland Park in Kwai Chung and 32 at The Cascades in Ho Man Tin. .... The flats at Highland Park range in size from 727 sq ft to 816 sq ft and cost around HK$3,100 per sq ft."

     7. Wong, Billy Wai-Yuk (1999-03-10). "Blocked views to endanger flat sales".
        ProQuest 265579366. Archived from the original
        on 2022-02-21. Retrieved 2022-02-21.

        The article notes: "Families who bought into a subsidised housing scheme are threatening to default after they discovered their views will be blocked by government staff quarters. Highland Park in Kwai Chung offered 1,400 flats for sale in December 1997 through the Housing Society. Only 60 per cent have been bought. ... The quarters will be 50 metres from Highland Park at the closest and 200 metres at the most distant."

     8. Wong, Billy Wai-Yuk (1998-06-25). "Axe left hanging over sandwich flat scheme".
        ProQuest 265479652
        . Retrieved 2022-02-21.

        The article notes: "The society had so far launched nine projects, involving 8,100 flats, under the scheme. Its popularity dropped in two recent projects - Ho Man Tin's Cascades and Kwai Chung's Highland Park - when private market prices slumped to a comparable level."

  There is sufficient coverage in
  reliable sources to allow Highland Park (traditional Chinese: 浩景臺; simplified Chinese: 浩景台) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]