Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< August 01 August 03 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Anand Jeeva

Anand Jeeva (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)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the
    list of Biographies-related deletion discussions. NYC Guru (talk) 11:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Unsourced cinematographer. Only 3 films.

Source analysis:

  1. Bad database
  2. Bad database
  3. Source about his dad and his uncle, not him
  4. Unreliable DareshMohan (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other option is to redirect to dad Jeeva (artist).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete page has only 3 sources and they collectively don't help with notability criteria. I don't think redirecting to Jeeva (artist) helps either.CourtseyDriver (talk) 23:23, 3 August 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 San Jose State University. Liz Read! Talk! 07:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

San José State Alma Mater

San José State Alma Mater (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)

Article fails

WP:MUSIC. A search on both general Google results and Google Books finds no significant secondary source material about this song. There is no inherent notability just because this is the school song for a notable university. Arbor to SJ (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

If this does get kept then it needs to be moved to
Hail! Spartans, Hail! since that's the actual name of the song. However, it certainly should not be kept with just the sources on page since those are clearly all primary and do not convey notability. No time to check for sources myself so I don't have an actual vote here, but if the nominator's search turning up nothing holds true for other editors then a merge/redirect like TheLonelyPather suggested would be the most appropriate action. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge. The song is not notable on its own two legs and is not a notable college alma mater. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:44, 3 August 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 redirect‎ to Nate Paul. ✗plicit 01:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World Class Capital Group

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

The company by itself does not meet the criteria for

WP:ORGIND. Yes, there's a good number of sourcing. However, the coverage is basically an aggrandizing Forbes profile about the founder and trade publication reporting about routine real estate transactions. Longhornsg (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to
    HighKing++ 14:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 07:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage the paid editors left out: [1][2]
Unfortunately all the details are in the Austin Business Journal article which is behind a paywall. If we keep this article, we'll need sources to update the article for the bankruptcies.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 07:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still more: [3][4][5][6]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 07:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Nate Paul. Although I suspect
WP:NCORP might be satisfied by profiles of Paul (the Forbes article isn't so aggrandizing if you read down to the section starting "when you are") the focus is on him. The article does a good job of laying out his history of oh-so-many real estate developments but that isn't getting the meaty news coverage, just the owner. Oblivy (talk) 03:50, 4 August 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Barbara Oldfield

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

Fails

WP:DAILYMAIL. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Luckily the Daily Mail has been removed from this article, as it rightly should be from every article where it does not play a significant role. Even then, how is Oldfield a notable athlete by our standards? InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:45, 3 August 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Odek

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

No indication of notability except as the birth place of a terrorist. Delete or redirect to

talk] 13:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I'm usually not a fan of
    WP:NEXIST, but in this case, I think it's fair to say that there are probably plenty of offline sources on this. It's true that sources on similarly-sized towns in Europe and the US are often more accessible, but we shouldn't delete based on that. If anything, it indicates that comparable sources exist for this village, just outside of our reach. Actualcpscm (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 2 August 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 keep‎.

(non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Xorcist

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

Not notable. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 16:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Granted, the article is in sad shape and is one that I've got on my list to improve, but the artist meets
    WP:BAND #5 having multiple releases on 21st Circuitry (a notable indie that was acquired by Metropolis, another notable indie); most of his work under this moniker (and hence coverage) was in the 1990s though he has some releases post-2017, therefore most coverage is not found easily on the web. There may also be opportunity for expansion as Peter Stone to cover his work in video games. -- t_kiehne (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the poor sourcing, I think we should get more opinions on this article. The nominator is requested to provide a more complete deletion rationale in future nominations...more than 2 words would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, agree with above on
    WP:VERIFIABLE info, as we have a staff-written AllMusic bio [11] which can be relied on for music-related details. —siroχo
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peoria Babylon

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

Appears to fail

WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the Weak Keeps are balanced out by the nomination statement. Any more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I would support a redirect as detailed above. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:22, 2 August 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 no consensus‎. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saiyar Mori Re

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

Appears to fail

WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 23:22, 2 August 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 keep‎. This is a procedural Keep based on the comments of the discussion participants who are advocating that this bundled nomination be split up into individual AFDs or, at least, smaller bundles of similar groups. Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

University of Queensland Debating Society

University of Queensland Debating Society (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 batch of university debate societies that all fail notability. Coverage tends to fall into one of the following categories:

  • Primary source to university newspaper
  • Passing mention as the venue for a talk
  • Coverage mentioning that a notable person attended said society. Notability is not
    WP:INHERITED
  • WP:NTEAM
    , GNG is the standard here.

There's a lot of high quality original research here, but alas I don't think any that can be saved without

WP:TNT
. As a result, I'm also nominating the following articles:

There's a lot more that don't make the cut, but I'll stick to 10 for now and see what reception is like. It sucks to delete so much hard work. There are some debating societies that are undoubtedly notable, but many that unfortunately are not.

BrigadierG (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Schools. BrigadierG (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if you want to float a trial balloon, I'd suggest doing it with one article, not ten. Another way to go might be to redirect the various articles to their associated school
    BOLDly, and then bringing any you get pushback on to AfD. This discussion seems pretty unworkable, and the lack of participation seems to bear that opinion out. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I floated the one at
    WP:MULTIAFD here, not sure what else I can do. In the spirit of AfD I'll leave open this vote, but if it looks like it will close with no consensus I will boldly play the executioner. BrigadierG (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The idea that the University Philosophical Society "fail[s] notability" is absolutely bizarre and utterly false. The University Philosophical Society is the oldest student society in the world, while also remaining the largest society (not just debating society) in all of Trinity, Ireland's top ranked university. It has a deep and complex history, which is well documented in the wikipedia article. The wikipedia article remains (for now) the main source of information about the Society on the internet. Deleting it would achieve absolutely nothing at all yet be a huge loss for anyone researching such a pivotal society in Irish history. I strongly recommend that such an informative article be kept online. 46.7.206.148 (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 2 August 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 no consensus‎. North America1000 09:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Moravsky

Joe Moravsky (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 obstacle course racer. Natg 19 (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. KatoKungLee stands correct. Even if we discount "American Ninja Warrior Nation" to the fullest extent, the subject would still pass the GNG per sources identified. The article does need improvements, for example in keeping personal and career apart. Yet AFDISNOTCLEANUP. gidonb (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm reluctant to keep an article based on a link to a Google search results page. Have you found any reliable sources you can link to to demonstrate notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 2 August 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Samantha Calvert

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

Fails

WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided and a career high ranking of 111. LibStar (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 2 August 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. Editors identified at most one example of significant coverage in a reliable source, falling short of

WP:GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 15:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Darren Roos

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

This article was already nominated for deletion once, the consensus was to delete. A year later somebody recreated it. I don't see anything that has changed since the original deletion to justify maintaining this biography page. Citations in trade publications do not make a person notable. Rhombus (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep found in depth article in the Financial Mail via the
    Wikipedia Library and ProQuest
    :
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Financial Mail is a trade publication with a circulation (according to its Wikipedia page!) of ~19,000. A profile in a trade publication does not make a person notable. Is it a publication of record? Like a major national newspaper or financial newspaper? The trouble with magazines like this one is that they very often take money for publication. Also, it's one article. Is that all it takes to be notable enough to end up with a Wikipedia bio?
Let's remember that Wikipedia is often misused by people as an enhanced LinkedIn. There are providers who sell article generation and maintenance for self-promotion as a service. I think that's what is going on here, and we have a responsibility to fight that kind of misuse. Rhombus (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rhombus, is there a prohibition against reliable trade publications? Is there a requirement that a reliable source be a "publication of record"? Does this publication publish articles for money? If so, why do annual subscriptions cost 1440 Rand ($80 USD). They claim to be a national news site - is this false?
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Business Live is the website of
Park3r (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Park3r Do you have ties to Business Day or the Financial Mail? Rhombus (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
No I do not have any ties to either publication. I am familiar with both sources as a reader though.
Park3r (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
There is no requirement that a source be a "publication of record" - but it's a useful rule of thumb, and I mention it to encourage some thought about what it means for a source to be high-quality.
Paid-subscription publications take money for editorial content all the time, and if anything, this problem is getting worse, not better. This is especially true of trade publications. I don't yet see any evidence that this is a reliable source. The onus should be on the person citing to establish that a source is reliable. Rhombus (talk) 09:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 13:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Thoroughly unremarkable businessman with run of the mill coverage. I would assume good faith on the part of the article creator however: usually the perps for paid-for vanity articles either have previous form or have done the few edits becessary before creating the lump of fluff.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    TheLongTone, the article's creator, Cossde, has made 25,000+ edits over the last 15 years. The article they started looks well-referenced and neutral. (diff) They are not a paid editor.
    @Rhombus, don't forget to notify the article's creator of this AfD.
    -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have notified the author. This should normally be part of listing the AfD. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 14:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I used the automated tools to post to AfD. I assumed the author would automatically be notified. If that did not occur, I apologise. Rhombus (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable businessman, I don't see anything which clearly passes GNG here. SportingFlyer T·C 19:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: In what way is Roos "Sweden-related"? I don't find anything in the article linking him to Sweden. /FredrikT (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @FredrikT: Roos is the CEO of IFS AB, a very large software company in Linköping
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 14:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Even if the Financial Mail article is reliable, one article is not enough. Per
    WP:NBLP, multiple sources are needed. ARandomName123 (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 22:19, 2 August 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. ✗plicit 00:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Sharma (police officer)

Deepak Sharma (police officer) (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 police officer, sources are blogs, not meeting GNG. Okoslavia (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Having reviewed the sources when cleaning it up, it doesn't seem like there's much about him. Most of it seems to be passing mentions, still. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 21:37, 2 August 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 keep‎. The provided sources, which ostensibly show that the subject meets GNG, have not been rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Park Hyun-sun

Park Hyun-sun (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)

Her only achievement is that she competed in the 2012 Summer Olympics. I did a search online and she was ranked 12th in those games. Seems non-notable Charsaddian (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz Humbug! 20:44, 2 August 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 keep‎. signed, Rosguill talk 03:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Park Hyun-ha

Park Hyun-ha (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)

Her only achievement is that she competed in the 2012 Summer Olympics. I did a search online and she was ranked 12th in those games. Seems non-notable Charsaddian (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz Humbug! 20:31, 2 August 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 keep‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Volothamp Geddarm

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

Lack of significant coverage in third-party sources. What little we have is a passing mention and two references from a non-notable magazine that ran for 1.5 years in the mid-90s, and isn't even listed on the page of its publisher. Dates are screwed up because of some old edit wars over tags, but the article has had maintenance tags since 2008. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:33, 2 August 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Jane Taylor (musician)

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

Does not pass

WP:NMG, an the entirety of Career and Biography sections are written like a resume/promo piece. Qcne (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The entirety of Career and Biography also appear to be directly lifted from the singers' website, and a quick attempt to find sources only found a very short promotional article on NewarkAdvertiser about an upcoming concert. Delete.
MikuFan39 (talk) 04:58, 5 August 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 no consensus‎. North America1000 09:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holidays (Meghan Trainor featuring Earth, Wind & Fire song)

Holidays (Meghan Trainor featuring Earth, Wind & Fire song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:NSONGS. While the song seems to have made some component charts (not official national charts), there isn't any coverage from reliable, secondary sources. Today, while reliable, is an NBC show and doesn't count as a secondary source for coverage of a performance on another NBC show. NØ 13:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, never charted and no coverage outside of the one performance. I was looking into NBC, they don't own the record label she sings for, Sony does. It's not cross promotion having her on the show, so less of a primary source. Oaktree b (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A Very Trainor Christmas. Little to no coverage about the song outside of album reviews. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to meet
    WP:GNG
    , so NSONG is not necessary. Note that I saw this page creation in the new pages feed and reviewed it. When the nominating user changed the page to a redirect, I figured I'd put the investigation I did during the new page review to use to add sources and restore the page. I found:
    • There's approximately 100 words of SIGCOV dedicated to the song, published 2 years after the song, in a biography of the band Earth Wind & Fire, published by University Press of Mississippi, titled Do You Remember? Celebrating Fifty Years of Earth, Wind & Fire
  • There are probably a 100 of the band's songs covered in the biography, it does not impart individual notability to all of them as this does not constitute standalone coverage. The one line about how "the song embodies EWF's classic sound, with pulsating horns and a funky bassline" can be extremely comfortably accomodated on the album article.--NØ 04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because an independent, reliable source covers a 100 of a band's songs does not prevent it from imparting notability from a particular song if the coverage of that song is significant enough. Rlendog (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Hollywood Life article is about 150 words of SIGCOV of various aspects of a performance (with further coverage of the album, not counted in the word count)
  • The Hollywood Life is a pathetic and unreliable tabloid imo that should never be used as a source. Shocklingly, one user at RSN considered it reliable but even that discussion seems to have concluded it should not be used to gauge notability.--NØ 04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Today.com article is a few hundred words of SIGCOV addressing visual aspects of different performances of the song, including a music video, and does seem to be independent of the subject of the article (the song).
I did encounter other short coverage beyond trivial that I didn't reference in the article. —siroχo 18:31, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have already covered why the Today source does not count as a secondary source for the purposes of notability, for their coverage of a performance on another NBC show.--NØ 04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that Today does not count as a secondary source for this song. The song is not owned by NBC and so Today is a secondary source with respect to coverage of the song. Rlendog (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well Holidays was of course released as a single, a fact that's firstly been verified and corroborated via Meghan Trainor - Holidays, the song's music video. What's this has been further substantiated via
Page six https://pagesix.com/2020/12/03/earth-wind-fire-singer-says-band-doesnt-have-groupies-anymore/. Song is also notable having over 4.4 million views on YouTube whilst being critically acclaimed by GQ https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/culture/article/christmas-songs-2020-ranked, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution https://www.ajc.com/life/music-blog/music-notes-this-year-we-need-a-little-christmas-music-more-than-ever/C3ZPP5XPMVEI7DQREJKRRZGRBQ/, The Spokesman-Review https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2020/nov/26/its-dolly-parton-carrie-underwood-meghan-trainor-l/ and AllMusic https://www.allmusic.com/album/a-very-trainor-christmas-mw0003422402
.
Holidays is undoubtedly in accord with Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and what not. Certainly the song and article should be continually maintained in soing to offer an illustration of such notability. Scriber88 (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of the charts you have mentioned are "national or significant music or sales charts". They are component charts which could do with a mention on the album article. Also see
    WP:NOTINHERITED for arguments to avoid during a deletion discussion.--NØ 04:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
MaranoFan, I think it's predictable that an article creator would arguing for keeping an article they created in a deletion discussion. But they can participate in AFDs just like any editor. I don't see that their work on an article discounts the argument they are making in a discussion. I disagree when in some other AFDs an article creator's comments are tagged as if that means they are less important than other people's opinions. Liz Read! Talk! 22:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 13:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:17, 2 August 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 no consensus‎. North America1000 09:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maarten van der Duin

Maarten van der Duin (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 since May with notability, primary sources and lack of citations, this problematic biographical article's subject fails WP:GNG, confirmed by a WP:BEFORE. No evident notability as screenwriter, stage director or creative consultant, the three roles ascribed to him in the article. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Netherlands. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Meets
    WP:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times"... he has been nominated for several awards that are notable awards based on the awards also having Wikipedia pages.Naomijeans (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Were these really awards he received or awards media units he contributed to received? gidonb (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To your opinion, does he also pass the
WP:GNG? gidonb (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't know but he seems to be notable as screenwriter. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 05:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. After reviewing the subject's contributions to notable works, focusing on
    WP:CREATIVE.C3. The subjects contributions are major and the works are significant. —siroχo 23:35, 2 August 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 Keep, retitle, and reframe‎ as an article about the place. The argument that there is an inhabited place with a related name that would meet GEOLAND has not been rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonbarsa Raj

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

This article has only two sources and that too donot cover it in depth. They fail

WP:GNG. ~ Admantine123 (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment: to make things confusing, there's a town by this name, too.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B. Good point. I'm thinking along the lines of whether this article could be kept as part of the history of the village/town, if it can be reliably established the two are linked. Rupples (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/recommendation. This article was significantly refocussed in January 2022, when the infobox for the 'block' was removed. Official sources (2011 census and govt websites) indicate "Raj" has been dropped from the place name. Sources don't seem quite sufficient to satisfy GNG for the historical raj itself but the material does form part of the place/area's history. Suggest renaming the article "Sonbarsa, Saharsa"; reinstating infobox settlement; removing the raj infobox and keeping the existing text in a History section. Basically this amounts to a keep and move recommendation with presumed notability for the place under WP:GEOLAND. Rupples (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:55, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and move - I concur with Rupples's assessment that this is something of a hijacked article. N.b. there's a Sonbarsa in Nepal that would be in need of hatnote disambiguation. signed, Rosguill talk 15:10, 10 August 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 redirect‎ to

(non-admin closure) Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Osamu Abe (rower)

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

fails

WP:GNG. Notable for one Olympic event where he did not score, and I can't find any sources about him or his life. Jaguarnik (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Redirect to
    WP:SPORTBASIC which requires "at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." (The event page is the richer redirect as it refelcts details of Abe's performance at each stage.) Cbl62 (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different redirect targets proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:54, 2 August 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Dianelis Carbonell

Dianelis Carbonell (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 subject has made at least four appearances for the

WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:32, 2 August 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 redirect‎ to List of Cuban football players who have defected to the United States. Liz Read! Talk! 18:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Riquelme

Francis Riquelme (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 subject made at least two appearances for the

WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to List of Cuban football players who have defected to the United States.--MonFrontieres (talk) 16:38, 3 August 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 18:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Ollancy Arrebato

Ollancy Arrebato (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 subject has made at least three appearances for the

WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:23, 2 August 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 redirect‎ to Robinsons Malls#Philippines. Liz Read! Talk! 18:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robinsons Pangasinan

Robinsons Pangasinan (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)

Unsure if this mall is notable- it has had an advert tag since 2012 and does read like an advertisement. Sources are primary or non-notable. I do not think it passes GNG. Qcne (talk) 18:16, 2 August 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 18:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Yesmi Rodríguez

Yesmi Rodríguez (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 subject made at least three appearances for the

WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:13, 2 August 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 redirect‎ to List of Guatemala women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 18:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mariandre Rodas

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

Redirect to

WP:GNG. I found this, though it's from a non-independent source. JTtheOG (talk) 18:01, 2 August 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 redirect‎ to List of Chad international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 18:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anatole Djekruassem

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

Redirect to

WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:57, 2 August 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 redirect‎ to List of Chad international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 18:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appolinaire Djingabeye

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

Redirect to

WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:52, 2 August 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 18:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Zachary German

Zachary German (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 notability since 2010. Fails

WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete. Appears to only have the one novel out and I can find no coverage of this author in the last decade. There is a single review of his novel in Publishers Weekly (link) plus the Vice documentary, but by itself that's not enough to prove he meets notability guidelines. That said, he's still a young author so this article may simply be a case of Wikipedia:Too soon. If he publishes more works and receives corresponding coverage proving notability, we can always recreate the article. --SouthernNights (talk) 12:25, 3 August 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! 18:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GeoAccess

GeoAccess (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 notability since 2010. Doesn't seem to have enough

WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:23, 2 August 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. While meeting GEOLAND is generally sufficient for keeping an article, we do require evidence in the form of reliable sources that the topic is in fact a legally recognized settlement: that seems to be missing here. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:35, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enkhali

Enkhali (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)

PROD declined for this essentially fallacious article on a non-existent Dubai community. This is not a notable place, the article does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:GEOLAND, the place named is not mentioned in any secondary sources and most definitely not in the publication given in the bibliography. One of a number of essentially fallacious place articles created by this blocked user, even the image is a generic picture recaptioned to be of 'Enkhali'. For some reason this got missed in the cleanup effort following the creator's block. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You remember the great John Carter train crash? My run of >150 UAE AfDs? This user was on the way to creating another one, having got hold of a PDF from Dubai Municipality and then creating articles about 'places' he found in there. Whatever, wherever 'Enkhali' is supposed to be, it's not a village or populated place and its existence isn't supported by any RS. Between Awir and Lahbab there is literally nothing bar a palace - with the vast majority of the land to that side of the road between Awir and Lahbab cordoned off around that palace - and some civil infrastructure - there's a place name Nakhali (a concrete plant named for it) just as you get to Lahbab, arguably subsumed by the expansion of Lahbab. Anyway, that's me - as always with appreciation for your concerns re: GEOLAND (I have saved many a place at AfD having gleefully nicked your arguments! ;) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question. @Alexandermcnabb: Is there a list of political subdivisions published by the government that we can refer to? In some Canadian provinces, for example, an area too sparsely populated to have a municipal government is called a "local improvement district"? It would be nice to know how the Dubai government characterizes Enkhali. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator who knows this place. Or rather, knows this place's non-notability. Desolate, God-forsaken, lifeless places like this serve a vital role: they help hold the Earth together. In this part of the world, that's all some places are able to do. It's a noble and essential task; if just one of them let go, the Earth's crust might begin failing; Alexander would be among the first to go. So credit is due them. Just not articles without reliable sources.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over dozens of AFDs tonight, most of them irresolvably divided between Keepers/Deleters, I needed a laugh, thanks, A. B.. Liz Read! Talk! 04:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This thing smells of fraud. There is a reference to it in the census document, but it's striking that the reference is used only to justify the area of this place (whatever it is), with the population of two and the population density of zero conveniently tucked into the infobox. Meanwhile, the original source of the image of the camel does not mention this place or for that matter any other place other than "unnamed road", and there's no source given for the location of this place. Given that it was created by someone with a history of such frauds, I have to wonder why anyone is defending it. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Mangoe:
    SportingFlyer -- a very experienced editor, editing in good faith. I trust them 100%, ethics-wise. I suspect that if they ever did decide go to the dark side, it wouldn't be on behalf of a place like this.
    Jad Krimeed -- the article's creator was a problem and is now indefinitely blocked.
    The Camel -- the camel wandered away.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just interpreting our policy very literally - it's a legally recognised place, so it's technically eligible for an article. Whether this is a good or bad thing is left as an exercise to the reader. SportingFlyer T·C 22:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's more like you are interpreting the one official source literally, which our experience with GNS and GNIS and the Iranian census leads me to reject. That one word in a column heading is not good enough; even were it not a translation I would doubt it. Look, two people is a community only in the most mathematically reductive sense, and even then I have to assume they live in two separate houses. Also, it's only a guideline anyway, but in any case the history of these discussions is that we have required more evidence of a settlement than a tag or column heading in a government listing. Mangoe (talk) 22:48, 6 August 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! 17:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flutlicht

Flutlicht (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 DJ, fails both

WP:MUSICBIO. No in-depth coverage in secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:53, 2 August 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 keep‎.

(non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Punjab University Law College

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

This article isn't talking about the college but about listing of people purported to be from the college. A similar list is located in here: Category:Punjab University Law College alumni. At present, there is no notability claim about the college; a list of famous people from there does not show the college's notability. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What could I do to prevent it from deletion? It was created Specifically as an Alumni page but I can make it a descriptional page of that college if that would prevent it from deletion. Dawood Ch 471 (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it can. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've stubified the article and I'm confident that more sources can be developed beyond the few I've used. Jahaza (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:
    - The article now has some sources. Though needs improvement.
    - @
    WP:BEFORE
    and did search for potential sources and failed to find any.
    - Note as per
    WP:N
    : "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any."
    - I would find it very odd that there are not many adequate sources for the law school that seems to have produced the most prominant lawyers in a country. Jagmanst (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article certainly needs rewriting and trimming, but the topic is notable per
    WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Need some formating but Notable.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Keep this article. I don't understand Why nominate this article for deletion?--Fahads1982 (talk) 10:11, 9 August 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 17:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Ikot Mkpang

Ikot Mkpang (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)

WP:NPLACE: that this place is legally recognised and not just mentioned in online databases. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete: at first glance, this looks very non-notable on a satellite image (assuming Google went to the right place)
This brings back painful memories of a very long contentious AfD about a similar uninhabited place on the map in Nigeria:
It didn't help that there was some involvement with a troll group.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's our List of villages in Cross River State article. There is an "Ikot Mkpang Esighi" village listed in Bakassi, however that district is much further away from Calabar and now part of Cameroon. There's no other "Ikot Mkpang" on the list.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:17, 2 August 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! 17:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal Knowledge Core

Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal Knowledge Core (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)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. An impact factor is listed, but the journal is not indexed in any Clarivate database, so this is fake. Does not meet

WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator, removing the IF and adding some references that either are not independent or don't mention the journal at all. Therefore PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 2 August 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 17:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Stephanie Seich

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

Does not meet

WP:NSPORT as a former gymnast. Let'srun (talk) 15:50, 2 August 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! 17:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phillippa Williamson

Phillippa Williamson (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)

Local politician in UK - Meets neither

WP:GNG - where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? - Most of the sourcing is routine or passing mentions. Paul W (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Probably delete. Plenty of news about her in the various local Lancashire newspapers, but nothing nationally that I can find. Qcne (talk) 16:15, 2 August 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 redirect‎ to Companion (Doctor Who). Liz Read! Talk! 17:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Jones (Doctor Who)

AfDs for this article:
Sam Jones (Doctor Who) (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)

While a companion and a notable character in universe, Sam has very little sourcing, and a search for sources yields next to no results. While the article cites a pair of books, they aren't used for any citations, and as I don't own the books, it's up in the air on how much they actually discuss the article's subject in depth. She's listed at the Companion article, so a redirect there is probably the best AtD right now. That being said, if anyone can verify those books, there's an argument for the article being kept, but as it stands, I don't think the article really justifies its existence. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the list of Dr Who companions (characters). No reception, the article is just a plot summary with a list of media that character appeared in, thus failing
    WP:GNG
    as written.
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect per Piotrus. Not enough reliable reception to pass
    WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:33, 6 August 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 redirect‎ to

(non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Fey Truscott-Sade

AfDs for this article:
Fey Truscott-Sade (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)

While a rather notable character in universe and a Companion, the article cites no sources and my BEFORE didn't turn up any results. It's highly possible that some information on things such as development of the character may exist in physical sources, but I don't believe that it's enough to justify this character's article existing separately. She's listed at both the Companions and Supporting Doctor Who characters article, so a redirect would be a viable alternative to deletion. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Pokelego999: Can you explain why you withdrew your first AfD on this subject? Let'srun (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Long story short, I nominated too many AfDs at once when I first nominated this, alongside many other articles. I ended up withdrawing many that hadn't been replied to as a result. Pokelego999 (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Have Women in Doctor Who, p. 164, and Companions - Fifty Years of Doctor Who Assistants been considered as secondary sources? There's also a short mention in Encyclopedia of Weird War Stories, p. 59. Daranios (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can tell of source three, it seems to be a passing mention, and the Companions book doesn't seem to go beyond basic plot information. I'm unsure of Women in Doctor Who as I can't access Page 164 in question, but even still, I don't think these are enough to justify the article. Even if Women in Doctor Who gives a boatload of info and analysis, it's one source as the entirety of the character's reception. There'd need to be more there, and unless it exists in physical media, nothing else could be found. The other two sources would be handy for discussing background information in the article more than anything. I just don't think it's enough for the article to stand on. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pokelego999: So aside from the fact, that some plot summary is fine when balanced by real-world commentary, the question would be, where would the content from Women in Doctor Who go? I guess it's an academic question for now as no such content is yet present. I guess it could go to Companion (Doctor Who), but would break the current page structure. Daranios (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect as
    WP:SIGCOV, but there is a valid redirect target where this can be mentioned. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect, I guess to
    WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. Daranios (talk) 07:22, 7 August 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 keep‎.

(non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Bill Eppy

Bill Eppy (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 single cap with the

WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:11, 2 August 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! 17:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Dobert

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

No indication of notability except for dying in a plane crash, which would be

WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 15:07, 2 August 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 redirect‎ to Bernard Baars. ✗plicit 00:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Science and Consciousness Review

AfDs for this article:
Science and Consciousness Review (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 very old website appears to fail

WP:GNG. Despite the name and the association of several prominent scientists with it, it is not an academic journal. I could not find any secondary coverage of the website from a web search or Google Scholar. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 14:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sourcing found, defunct website. Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few mentions in Gscholar, confirming existence but nothing for GNG. [20] Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bernard Baars, which already mentions the Review on his article as the founding editor. Let'srun (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no in-depth coverage, not even brief coverage. Not notable
FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:31, 3 August 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 keep — nomination withdrawn‎.

(non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:10, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Julia Kotlarsky

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

Subject appears to fail

WP:NACADEMIC. The only mentions of them I could find online were for their own publications, and non-independent bios from, for example, the institutions they have worked at. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Full professors are not notable for holding that academic rank (see
WP:Prof), but this one is notable for other reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC).[reply
]
Keep Full professors in New Zealand are considered notable. Schwede66 11:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:08, 4 August 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. ✗plicit 14:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Holy Trinity Church, Benaulim incident

2023 Holy Trinity Church, Benaulim incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See

WP:BLP concerns involved, e.g. in naming individuals charged with minor criminal offences but not convicted, along with the broader issue of claiming 'controversy' over individuals without providing sufficient evidence of any long-term continuity in coverage to justify it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

How much incidents relating between parishioners and the parish priest which has led to a resignation have been reported, especially in this small state of Goa with significant amount of Christians? I find this subject pass the notability criteria mainly because it's not a an "average" dispute, which possibly you're talking about. The priest has lost his position in the church and possibly won't every be assigned in any church. Not to forget Fr Rodrigues has been mentioned several times in local news publications. Apart this, its not the first the parishioners of Benaulim church or particularly this church has been in news. There are reports as early as early 2000s, see [21] involving the priest in charge. The article is singularly uninformative as to what exactly this 'dispute' was actually about, see second paragraph of the lead. it is mentioned that Parishioners accused the priest of making administrative decisions without consulting them, and of ignoring their opinions and concerns about the practices and services in the church. The situation reached a breaking point when some parishioners, who were allegedly close to the priest, filed police complaints against certain individuals. Rejoy2003(talk) 19:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An unrelated incident involving another priest 22 years ago does absolutely nothing to increase the notability of this incident. As for the rest, I stand by what I wrote: the article doesn't tell us what it is the dispute was even about, in any real detail. And no, the lack of coverage for other events doesn't bestow notability on this one, either.
WP:N doesn't work like that. Not even remotely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
What do you mean by the article article doesn't tell us what it is the dispute was even about? Not to forget that I was still working on the article, like I said the above statement was from The Times of India in the English language. You can also see a better detailed information about the matter on two news publications, The Prudent Media [22] and Dainik Gomantak [23]. Do note that the above two news links are mostly in the Konkani language and a Non-Konkani editor will find it difficult to comprehend what's even going on. Rejoy2003(talk) 20:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be easier to comprehend what was going on if you had made some effort to tell us. What 'administrative decisions' were the parishioners upset about? Which 'opinions' of theirs do they claim were being ignored? What was it about the 'practices and services in the church' that they took issue with? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would had be pleased to comprehend the issue only if I had got more time then taking this to the AFD. Leaving that aside, I've made a breakdown about the Dainik Gomantak video source, I don't think this will answer all your questions but to summarise what the concerned person told in the video was; The letter was issued because the parishioners did not want Fr. Rodrigues since they did not understand him. The things he preached were not done properly, the Bible readings were not read properly, and the practices and services (mass liturgy, etc) of the church were not conducted properly. In addition, there were other issues that the parishioners wrote down to the Bishop. The concerned parishioner further claimed that his actions were tarnishing the Christian religion, which is why the parishioners of Benaulim do not visit their own parish church, but instead go to neighboring churches to attend their services. According to Prudent Media's livestream, it was difficult to interpret what the locals were saying due to the sheer number of people present. Towards the end of the video, all that could be understood was that they alleged the parish priest had
embezzled funds from the church, (mainly donations, etc.) and called him names. Also do note that most of the issues or answers to your questions are undisclosed by the government officials, locals or journalists involved. I can provide more details from Twitter but they aren't written down by experts rather individual persons, hence they're not reliable and won't provide proper weightage to this discussion. Rejoy2003(talk) 03:13, 4 August 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. ✗plicit 14:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paruchuri

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

No sources for this Sharkslayer87 (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:12, 2 August 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

(non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 14:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Nick Fury (Ultimate Marvel character)

Nick Fury (Ultimate Marvel character) (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 character Nick Fury is surely notable; but this particular alternative version of Nick Fury does not seem to be. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:05, 2 August 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 procedural close‎. The nominator is not allowed to participate in deletion discussions relating to Armenia or Azerbaijan as a non-EC editor per

WP:BEFORE and a basis for indefinite banning from AA. signed, Rosguill talk 14:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Battle of Halidzor

Battle of Halidzor (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)

Hello, I propose to delete this article and I give you my reasons, first I can't find any serious work on the "battle of halizdor" HERE, AND HERE, suddenly there are only Armenian sources, and especially the figure of 70,000 Ottomans, which is completely misused and without proving, the last source is not accessible and above all only sources from Armenian schools with domains ending with ".AM ", I propose to delete this article because it is Armenian propaganda. Movaigonel (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bozkuş, Yıldız Deveci. "Ermeni tarih ders kitaplarında Türk imgesi." Yeni Türkiye 60 (2014): 2014. (Accessible as PDF from Google Scholar)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎.

(non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Moxila A. Upadhyaya

Moxila A. Upadhyaya (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)

While judges holding national office are presumed to be notable (

WP:BIO1E matter, reflecting her future (peripheral) involvement in the most recent indictment of Donald Trump. She is not the actual judge who will preside over his trial, and therefore future coverage of her and her decisions can be expected to as minimal as anything involving Trump can be. Sandstein 11:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Given that this is the first former president to face federal criminal charges, any judges involved in the process are ipso facto notable, administratively or otherwise. Furthermore, the future is unwritten. Today is August 2; the arraignment is tomorrow. Give it a day. kencf0618 (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. ANY Judge involved in the possible conviction of Trump will be considered noteworthy to future historians. DO NOT DELETE. Deadvoodoo (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The relevant notability criteria is here (for US judges). The individual is not de facto notable, but could still be notable. I'm pretty
WP:TOOSOON. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Just because Trump (or Beyonce or Zuckerberg) interacts with someone in an administrative capacity does not mean that they are notable. Think Clerk of the Court, bailiff who serves legal notices, policeman who escorts (and the command chains above them) Similarly tax auditors, notaries, etc, and in a health setting: nurses and non-lead doctors.
Apart from anything else, such people make no choice to be in the limelight and deserve not to be dragged into it, especially with the chance of fans of the famous person feeling aggrieved and seeking to harm them. Zsalya (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has thousands of biographies of people who make no choice to be in the lime light. That is how encyclopedias tend to be written. CT55555(talk) 02:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trump comes in contact with many people. That fact alone does not make them "notable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mizrahim (talk • contribs) 02:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed "that fact alone" does not make her notable. But the significant coverage in reliable sources does. CT55555(talk) 02:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have sympathy for the argument to delete and I assume it was accurate when written, but the lack of significant coverage is no longer true, based on searches I did today. See:
  1. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/magistrate-judge-moxila-upadhyaya-trumps-jan-6-case/story?id=101990791
  2. https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/indian-american-judge-moxila-upadhyaya-presides-over-trumps-appearance-in-federal-courthouse/article67156014.ece
  3. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/03/us/politics/moxila-upadhyaya-trump-judge.html
Given the coverage is all recent, some might wonder if her notability for one event should preclude her, so also noting lots of brief mentions of her lawyering and judging, examples include:
  1. Brief mention in 2019: https://georgetowner.com/articles/2019/02/04/whatever-happened-whole-foods/
  2. Brief mention in 2023: https://www.reuters.com/legal/lockerbie-bombing-suspect-be-arraigned-us-federal-court-2023-01-25/
  3. Historical society profile here: https://dcchs.org/sb_pdf/biographical-sketch-of-moxila-upadhyaya/
I think it is also important that she played a role in a historically significant event (today) so she is someone that encyclopedia readers may want to read about. Noting ~3,800 page views today, which appears to support that. Overall the presence of this article is a net positive to the encyclopedia. CT55555(talk) 02:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last source listed is not a historical society profile, it is the pdf in my first comment above - a biography produced by a former employer, so not independent. In my second comment above, I discussed the first and third sources listed - ABC News "Who is Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya in Trump's Jan. 6 case?" and the NYT "Who is the judge handling Trump’s initial court appearance?", and how they are not sigcov, due to a lack of independent and secondary content. The Hindu coverage repeats similar information and says "according to her resume" when discussing her work at Venable. The Reuters coverage of her delaying an arraignment and appointing a federal public defender is discussed in my first comment (
WP:NOTNEWS, lack of secondary analysis or evaluation). The mention in The Georgetowner ("a free bi-weekly tabloid-style newspaper") of something she wrote as an attorney on behalf of a client also seems to be routine coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 02:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think
WP:NOTNEWS precludes these sources because I don't think these profiles are "routine announcements", I think they are bona fide news articles and I think they have been written independently of the subject of the article. Yes, I see now that the historical society words are written by an ex employer, but it seems likely that the historical society made the decision that she was notable enough to publish it ("The Society is a tax exempt organization that operates independently from the courts"), so I think it counts for something (either way, it's not a core pillar of my keep !vote). CT55555(talk) 03:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I think the brief mentions of her work over the past year as a magistrate judge is routine/NOTNEWS coverage - her work includes high-profile cases, but her role is limited, so it is not unexpected that coverage is limited. The recent profiles (generated because of a very high-profile arraignment) repeat a similar biographical overview that appears on her US District Court biography and do not seem to be multiple sources for
WP:BASIC notability from other sources, including the Legal Times blog noted below, or awards from her employer or co-counsel. Beccaynr (talk) 04:02, 4 August 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. ✗plicit 12:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Noje

Mohammad Noje (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)

Wikipedia is not a memorial. Simply being a fighter pilot is not enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:46, 2 August 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 keep‎. ✗plicit 12:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Agent Club

The Secret Agent Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
To quote my removed PROD:

No apparent signs of notability. Rotten Tomatoes lists two reviews, but one (archived) is actually for

is considered generally unreliable", and one is Hulk Hogan's own book which does not give notability to a movie he starred in. I can't view the excerpts from that Orpheus Pub review to garner an opinion of it as a source, but even if it's reliable, it's the only one so far, and I didn't find anything else earlier as I said so I still don't see notability here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
But fair enough, one can also add this review, at least to make sure it meets the requirements for notability of films. And this, this, this, this, etc.
For what it's worth, the film was internationally distributed and various sources exist when looking up with Spanish/Portuguese/French titles...
(Note- The assertion that That PROD was removed without comment is not true. I removed the Prod and I did add a comment both in the Old prod template on the talk page "Added sources, expanded, apparently notable" and in my edit summary "++, removed Prod by User:QuietHere", which is short but seems very clear and informs the nominator of the DeproD. Please check and amend your comment if you don't mind.)
-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "removed the PROD" without saying why is removing it without comment. Fair, you did then add a reason to the template on the talk page which I didn't see, and also that part doesn't matter because your reasoning was clear without being stated.
As for the sources you've linked, let's see. The Movie Scene is written by one person and makes no mention of editorial oversight so that likely gets struck down as unreliable/non-expert unless Webb is secretly some acclaimed film critic who I've just never heard of. Wealth of Geeks is a listicle and I've seen enough of those rejected to have my doubts, especially when there's only a few sentences on the movie and they're written by someone who appears to only write listicles. Cinema.de has a rating but no prose attached and is otherwise just a database page, not hot on that. Stinker Madness is a blog for someone's podcast which appears to also lacks editorial oversight and would be struck. And Kino.de suggests at the bottom of the page that the review there is one of what could be more, implying that review is a user submission, thus failing USERG. See how the recent Haunted Mansion lists 13 reviews and an average rating of them.
In short, I don't think any of those pages are reliable, and my mind has not been changed. Since you say you found more in other languages, please link them here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Saying "removed the PROD" without saying why is removing it without comment. No, I don't think it is the same. And in good faith if you quote it, you should quote my edit summary completely: "++, removed ProD by XXX", which obviously means I expanded the page or added various things to it, which clearly explains why I removed the tag (not to mention the size of the edit and the TP template). I am therefore forced to repeat that your opening assertion is simply not true. If it does not matter and was clear without being stated, why mention it at all? Let's forget it, as you clearly do not wish to amend that erroneous statement.
=========
Other reviews:
http://www.the-unknown-movies.com/unknownmovies/reviews/rev126.html
https://theschlockpit.com/2021/03/12/the-secret-agent-club-1996/ (this is hosted by Wordpress and is technically a blog)
Various other lists include the film with a brief assessment (ScreenRant, Complex).
There was apparently a review in Time Out at the time of the release but I can't access it and will not try. If anyone has time...
----------
I mentioned sources in other languages above "fwiw" to attest international distribution and attest the titles when they differ a lot from the original, but fair enough here's one review in French, for example:
https://www.senscritique.com/film/agent_double/critique/264611271
I'll let other users judge the quality and number of sources presented here, above and on the page, and will make no further comment in this discussion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:16, 2 August 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. ✗plicit 12:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Heydari

Khaled Heydari (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)

Simply being a fighter pilot does not satisfy

WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:54, 2 August 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn until work on article is done; I intend to re-open this AFD (if appropriate) once it appears that the primary contributors have finished adding their stuff to the article, as there's still a lot being done here.

(non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 20:10, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Edward Joseph Schroeter

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

None of the sources provided in the article meet the standards of

WP:MEAT. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I continued this discussion on your talk page; I don‘t think it belongs at this AFD. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I made inappropriate, intemperate comments that did not directly address the topic at hand: deletion or retention of this article. For those who need to see them, they're in this diff and in the page history.
I apologize for acting this way.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the articles again and determine if there is still insufficient source material. Per
WP:BASIC, academics can be notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. The source link to his co-authored patent on acoustic plaster is a significant contribution to the field of architectural acoustics and these principles are still used today. Bcudequest (talk) 20:07, 2 August 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Dotsoul

Dotsoul (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

WP:BEFORE yields some trivial mentions as references in digital media studies publications as an example of a virtual world. The cited sources in the article either also feature trivial mentions of the game, or the purported mentions are non-existent or no longer accessible. Even then, the mentions are arcane scholastic references and the article seems to lack reliable mainstream coverage. The discontinued and temporal nature of the game makes it unlikely that newer sources would provide the missing coverage for this article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:06, 2 August 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 Erzincan#Liberation of Erzincan. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Erzincan

Capture of Erzincan (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 Minassian source, on which the whole "Seizure" section is cited, says the town was evacuated ahead of time without conflict. This article is built on a false premise; there was no battle of capture. I attempted to

WP:VERIFY by looking for other sources, but none spoke of a battle. - Kevo327 (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge and redirect to Erzincan#Liberation of Erzincan. It still sounds like the content could be transferred to another article. Aintabli (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Excellent suggestion Aintabli. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge or keep. The information the nominator mentions about evacuation is not in the main article, and the article makes no claim about a "battle". The good faith nomination may have misunderstood the subject matter of the article, as the nom's own research shows that deletion is a sub-optimal outcome. Based on the sources in the article it seems likely this meets
    WP:ATD-M to Erzincan § Liberation of Erzincan is acceptable as there may not be much more to add. —siroχo 08:18, 2 August 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 redirect‎ to Nazarbayev University. Liz Read! Talk! 07:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nazarbayev University Repository

Nazarbayev University Repository (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 library subdivision. Badly fails

WP:ORG. Can find zero independent sources. Central and Adams (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as suggested by Star Mississippi, per
    WP:ATD-R —siroχo 08:21, 2 August 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. This was a complex discussion, with a mix of deletes, redirects, merges, and keeps that were actually all specific as to why that choice was the only viable choice. Discussion appeared to successfully rebut the NPERIODICAL issues, but ultimately there was a rough consensus that the sourcing was inadequate to meet GNG. Normally, per

ATD I'd go with the redirects, but as various !votes (on several sides) gave firm reasonings as to why a redirect was not suitable, I've opted for delete. If someone would like the material to add some into another article (or bits into different articles), let me know. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Gracies Dinnertime Theatre

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

Appears to fail

WP:NPERIODICAL
. Weak sources in the article. The sources are either the publication itself or the RIT website. No reliable secondary sources.

Wouldn't be opposed if a portion of this article was merged into the

WP:STUDENTMEDIA. My Pants Metal (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

GDT started out on RIT, but was published and distributed on the University of Rochester, Monroe Community College, Rutgers University, and broadly in the city of Rochester, NY. It was never a RIT sanctioned organization, and really should not be merged with the RIT page. Kjoenth (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
re "No reliable secondary sources."
-Democrat & Chronicle is daily newspaper published in Rochester, NY (two citations)
-A blog entry by one of the founders is neither RIT nor the publication
-A brand new 2.5hr audio history/interview of two of the founding editors
-Independent Press Association
-USAToday/Uwire Kjoenth (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Keep: Does not appear to fail WE:NPERIODICAL. Specifically, GDT was printed and released on a regular schedule and distributed through a press syndicate.
-Confer with similar notable student publications Harvard Lampoon, UW's Onion, The Cornell Lunatic, etc.
-The Democrat and Chronicle is a reliable secondary source unencumbered by any conflict of interest. --U664003803 (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that D&C is a reliable source, but I'm wondering if it was just a passing mention or if it received significant coverage by the D&C. The newspaper is locked behind a paywall so I don't know. Additionally, a blog entry typically isn't reliable under
    WP:RS. --My Pants Metal (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Re the article in the D&C: the article is specifically about how GDT/Hell's Kitchen was trying to get more funding sources. Mentions their membership in Uwire and the Independent Associated Press. Has pull quotes from interviews with people at GDT, Hell's Kitchen, and the executive director of the Independent Press Association. Approximately 2/3 of newspaper page, 1st page of the business section. Kjoenth (talk) 05:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re "blog entry typically isn't reliable"-- I am a novice at this sort of thing, but as the blog entry is written by one of the founders of GDT on the topic of the evolution of the logo, doesn't that make the blog a primary source as in "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge"?
Contextually, it is difficult to see how a citation about the logo could from sources other than the publication itself or something written by one of the people involved with the publication.
I tend to agree with U664003803 that the pages that exist for other student-started satire publications offer good examples. Kjoenth (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it was written by a person associated with the publication is why it DOESN'T show notability. Sources that show notability are reliable, secondary and
independent. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr: Keep
@My Pants Metal lists two broad categories supporting deletion:
  1. Appears to fail WP:NPERIODICAL.
  2. Weak sources in the article, including the observation that sources are either the publication itself or the RIT website. No reliable secondary sources.
@My Pants Metal suggests merging a portion of this article into the Rochester Institute of Technology page per WP:STUDENTMEDIA.
I believe @My Pants Metal misunderstands what the relationship between GDT and RIT was. For this reason, I will begin with why the GDT article can not merge with the RIT entry
A.) GDT was never a RIT organization
GDT was founded by RIT undergraduates, but was never a RIT student organization. It remained an independent, student-run publication from its founding until its final issue in 2005. Since GDT was not a RIT student organization, the administration could not disband it. In the end, RIT President Al Simone resorted to prohibiting RIT organizations from assisting GDT. In the July-Dec 2004 issue of "Questions and Answers with Al Simone", President Simone outlined the steps the RIT administration would implement:
"I have decided that Institute property and resources will no longer be available for the production of Gracie’s Dinnertime Theatre. These resources include:
  1. Computers and servers owned or supported by RIT.
  2. The use of the HUB will no longer be available for the copying of the publication.
  3. Funds from Institute accounts cannot be used to purchase advertisements in the publication."
The administration's steps to deny GDT access to Institute resources were necessary because GDT was _not_ a RIT organization, and could not be disbanded by the Institute. For this reason, it has no place on the RIT wikipedia entry.
B.) Does not fail WP:NPERIODICAL
As noted by user @U664003803, GDT was published on a regular schedule--initially being weekly during RIT academic year, and then as it's circulation expanded to include the University of Rochester and Monroe Community College, weekly during their academic year's as well (taking into account differing timings of holidays when RIT was on the quarter system while the other universities were on the semester system).
GDT, as a member of Hell's Kitchen (a 501(c)(3) organization founded by GDT to act as an publishing umbrella organization for it and affiliated publications) would go on the have articles distributed to university publications nationwide through Uwire, and had at least one article reproduced in USAToday through the distribution of content through Uwire.
GDT/Hell's Kitchen would also be recognized by the Independent Press Association's(IPA) "Publication of the Month". One of the founders of GDT would be interviewed by the IPA for an article.
C.) Reliable secondary sources include the D&C and RIT itself
The nominator acknowledges that the Democrat & Chronicle is a reliable secondary source. While the article in question is behind a paywall, that does not invalidate that the article is about GDT/Hell's Kitchen with a focus on their circulation and finances. While it should not be necessary, I am happy to provide a copy of the content behind the paywall.
Since GDT was never a RIT organization--again, it was distributed on three campuses in Rochester, NY--citations on the RIT website, including those from the RIT library archives, and Reporter Magazine, and commentary about artwork on campus, are secondary sources in relation to GDT.
The distinction between GDT and RIT is critical in understanding the notability of the publication: it was a student-founded publication that published, weekly during the academic year, for 10 years (1995-2005). It was never affiliated with RIT, the University of Rochester, or Monroe Community College, but was staffed by students (and alumni) from all of these institutions, and distributed on these campuses for the entertainment of those students.
As far as I know, there had never been an inter-collegic publication founded and run by students in Rochester, NY prior to GDT, and certainly none that engaged in that activity for 10 years. All other publications I am aware of in Rochester were either aimed at the population of Rochester, or were official student publications restricted to the university they were affiliated with. Kjoenth (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the USA Today source is a bare url [36] which does not work. Kjoenth are you able to find that reference please? We are saying the sources under consideration are:
  • -Democrat & Chronicle is daily newspaper published in Rochester, NY (two citations)
So the people doing it get a couple of mentions in the local newspaper.
  • -A blog entry by one of the founders is neither RIT nor the publication
I think this one fails as a self published source.
  • -A brand new 2.5hr audio history/interview of two of the founding editors
This is referenced to Reddit and YouTube. This doesn't look like an in independent secondary source. Was the interview broadcast anywhere?
  • -Independent Press Association
This ref looks good[37]. It would, however, be better if we had it in the source publication. This snippet is hosted on hellskitchen.org, along with most of the material referenced here, but that is a private domain owned by a an individual who avails themself of the privacy services afforded to private registrants and hosted by NameCheap inc - a low cost virtially hosted hosting service. This is problematic for most of the references here. Although there is no indication the snippet is anything but genuine, this would be how a hoax would be set up too. Presumably that snippet came from somewhere and we should reference that properly.
  • -USAToday/Uwire
As above, this bare URL reference needs addressing.
So, in summary, I think we need to do a bit more work to establish notability here, although there are potentially a couple of good sources here. If we can see what USA Today said, I may be closer to forming an opinion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a physical copy of the Independent Press Association writeup ("Cooking with Confusion in 'Hell's Kitchen'". Ink Reader. 1 (5): 3. November 1998.) I have not found a digital copy of that edition of IPA's "Ink Reader" on the web. The snippet hosted on hellskitchen.org is from "Ink reader". The IPA ceased operation in January 2007.
Similar for the USAToday/Uwire link, I have a hard copy printout of the original page. The material was USAToday reprinting an article. Unfortunately Uwire was bought in 2008 and suspended all wire services in 2009. Likewise USAToday did away with all the web pages that displayed reproduced material.
I am happy to provide reproductions of this materials in the talk, but ultimately what we are dealing with is link rot/material in physical form only.
Is the interview in Reporter Magazine (Boden, Jess (11 May 2001). "Life According to Gracies". The Reporter: 11. Retrieved 19 July 2023.) not an acceptable source? The argument I made was that, since GDT was not affiliated with RIT, RIT media count as independent sources. Kjoenth (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just link rot, it is that the bare URL refs do not tell us where the information can be found. Ref 7, which you describe properly here, is inaccessible but properly described. You could put a link to your copy in the url parameter to allow review, and then ref 8 needs to be described in the same way. I gather from the date that it is October 1998, so us that issue 4? That would resolve the issue with ref 8. It is not essential that refs are available online, but there needs to be enough information that the original can be found. Likewise with the USA Today article, all we have is the URL. If this was published in the newspaper, we can search for it in various archives, but at this point we do not have any information as to the date of publication. I have carried out newspaper searches for this article and have not found it, but I have been searching "Gracies Dinnertime Theatre." Is the reproduced article credited to some other name?
The next question is to whether these sources amount to sufficient evidence of notability per
WP:N
, so we are looking at the general notability guidelines. To be presumed notable we are looking for multiple significant reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject. We have potentially two articles in the IPA and one article potentially published in USA Today. It is not nothing, but it is not multiple, as per GNG either (because multiple from a single author, the IPA in this case, would be treated together).
Additionally I have questions about how significant publication in the IPA newsletter actually is. The IPA is a small (and possibly now defunct?) grassroots member organisation. If they carry an article about one of their members in a newsletter, this fails on the independent criterion. I can see they were granted money to do their work [38] and I am not saying they were unimportant as an association, but the notabilty guidelines require independent coverage. The USA Today presumably published an article without significantly addressing the source.
I also question whether any of these mentions are under the name in the article title, or whether the article is perhaps mistitled, but that point may be moot at this stage.
Although I am leaning delete here, I am reluctant to post that as a !vote. Is there an
alternative to deletion here? You say it had no official status so it cannot be merged with the RIT page - yet if it were a recognised campus publication, I think it could be mentioned there. Or perhaps there are other places information could be merged? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@Sirfurboy I'll go through the archives and pull up information about the interview with the IPA and the USAtoday link.
As for merging, I was initially dubious, but I now see the appeal of somehow merging into pages for RIT, the University of Rochester, and Monroe Community College. Since Gracies Dinnertime Theatre was staffed by students from all three campuses and distributed on all three campuses, it would have to someone be triply merged into them.
I joke, of course; that's an unreasonable action. Given RIT president Al Simone's position that GDT should not have access to any RIT resources, there is a sort of deliciousness at the idea of being merged into the RIT wikipedia page, though.
IPA is definitely defunct now, but with members like "Mother Jones" and "Bitch", calling it a grassroots member organization makes it sound much smaller than it was. Kjoenth (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Redirect with
    WP:NPERIODICAL, but there is some information of interest here that could be retained - certainly enough for a section on the target page. It is worth a mention that such a periodical existed, and how it was received (or not, as the case may be). The merge will also involve a redirect from this page that preserves this page history, should the situation change - although it seems unlikely it will change as it has ceased publication. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Spartaz Humbug! 06:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment Pinging Kjoenth in case they have not seen the relist comments. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sources just aren't there, and the intervening discussion doesn't lead me to believe that there's more, viable sources out there. Currently, the sourcing is lacking enough that there isn't even anything we could merge. signed, Rosguill talk 15:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sadly I agree, and the fact the discussion went quiet leads me to the reluctant conclusion that merge is not really viable. I am striking my merge, but moving to Redirect as a
WP:ATD. This would, at least, preserve the page history that might be mineable for a paragraph that might be added to the RIT page. Do you oppose a redirect? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:36, 10 August 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The Belmont Sessions

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

This is a music-related article, but it isn't for a band, production team, recording engineer, or record label; it's for a web video promotion company. The article's footnotes appear entirely to be composed of 1.) the Sessions' own website and 2.) websites on which their work appears - i.e., client work, rather than independent coverage. I didn't find anything independent myself in source searching, and I don't see any branch of

WP:MUSIC on which we could hang their notability. Chubbles (talk) 05:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This article is unambiguous promotional article that clearly fails

WP:NORG. Given the nature of what they do, NORG is the proper criteria. Graywalls (talk) 10:30, 2 August 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Voices for Reform

Illinois Voices for Reform (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 are no independent reliable sources to be found about this group. Current sources are dead links or pages that quote one member in passing. I do not believe any independent reliable sigcov exists for this group How I could just edit a wiki article (talk) 05:17, 2 August 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! 05:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dong Myong-chol

Dong Myong-chol (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)

Deprod' again so taking to afd. Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 05:04, 2 August 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! 05:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doge Weather

Doge Weather (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 app?} that now has a giant Nazi flag displayed. Does this app really merit an article? Plantdrew (talk) 03:44, 2 August 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

El Arroyo

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

It seems all the coverage is predominantly local from Austin as per

WP:SIGCOV. https://www.wsj.com/story/san-francisco-vs-austin-elon-musks-tesla-is-latest-to-go-to-lone-star-state-8b66cd2e LibStar (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Well...godspeed, I guess 🤷 Americanfreedom (talk) 01:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changing my !vote to keep after assessment. --Kinu t/c 20:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 03:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm not in Texas and I'm hardly au courant on popular culture topics. If even I've heard of this place and seen pictures of their sign, it's got to be notable somehow.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 06:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IKNOWIT LibStar (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Side note - this business seems like a regional chain, not that that changes anything regarding notability.
—siroχo 09:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 09:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep due to ...its enduring legacy, appearances in local and partially national media, and its unique elements. It appears to have a significant cultural influence in its local area, particularly through its innovative marketing strategy featuring a humorous marquee. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources identified. Please nominate wisely. Nominations based on "it seems", "maybe", "I believe" and the like often waste community resources. There is no lack of AfDs, to say the least! gidonb (talk) 20:32, 6 August 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 Good Vibes Festival. Liz Read! Talk! 05:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 The 1975 Malaysia performance

2023 The 1975 Malaysia performance (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)

Way

WP:SUSTAINED.--Launchballer 19:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: the information here relates to a minor incident which seems of no great importance when it comes to having a stand-alone article: while coverage on the event itself is fine, I feel like such coverage should belong on the page of the band or artist in question, I don't think it warrants having its own page. The reactions section over something so minuscule also seems excessive. --Dynamo128 (talk) 15:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Propose to merge and redirect into Good Vibes Festival? Understand the concerns raised above but think it would be good to keep the content. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, though I feel like the most recent subsection in the band's History section is the best target location personally. Sergecross73 msg me 15:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or what about At Their Very Best, the article for the concert tour? Arcahaeoindris (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure. I tend to think this should either be merged into the Good Vibes or the 1975 article, however this has received substantial media coverage and may be notable enough for its own article. --Bedivere (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also on the fence about this. While I agree that something like this wouldn't normally warrant a separate article, I think that including all of this content in the Good Vibes / 1975 articles would be overdue. And this incident does seem to have achieved substantial ness coverage - but
    WP:NOTNEWS still applies. – GnocchiFan (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect into the Good Vibes Festival, or The 1975 article. This botched performance is not nearly notable enough to warrant its own article. Not much else to say for myself because everyone above me already said it better. IncompA 03:09, 2 August 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 no consensus‎. Ultimately the disagreement came down to whether the "+" in the NYT+ sources were sufficient, and it wasn't settled. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Davis Burleson

Davis Burleson (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 radio personality. The one NYT article is fine, but that's about all there is for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just about. This person is more of a social media personality than a radio guy, and there seems to just about be enough sourcing to justify an article, including in the NYT. It's fluffy stuff, but pop culture generally is. Flip Format (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 13:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "Most known for hosting Fallen Media's TikTok interview series, "What’s Poppin? With Davis!" " and consensus has been consistently that's not notability, right there. NYT, fine - although I can't access it and suspect it's an interview - but even if we count it towards WP:GNG, that's one single RS piece. Other than that, we're at Footwear News (an interview) and I'm not buying. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:18, 2 August 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! 05:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regan Hartley

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

Does not meet the sustained coverage from secondary sources to meet

WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete As per the nomination, the article fails WP:GNG and seems to be a case of WP:BLP1E; no news mentions of her are found outside of the Miss New Hampshire contest, however of note, she does have a Instagram account with 27 thousand followers. Regardless if these followers remember her for the pageant or for her content is yet to be seen. IncompA 02:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per the rationale in the nomination statement. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:38, 5 August 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! 05:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndsay Kahler

Lyndsay Kahler (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)

Former beauty pageant contestant that does not pass

WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Strong Delete This is similar to the Regan Hartley AfD I just contributed to, however this article is even smaller. It clearly fails WP:GNG and is an obvious case of WP:BLP1E; the only mentions of her I can find on the internet are those copying the Wikipedia article. IncompA 02:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing else to add. It's open and shut. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons others have described above. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:21, 2 August 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. Of those who provided a policy-backed reason, there was a consensus for deletion on failure to show notability. Several individuals did suggest the same merge target, but with some comments against it, I was nervous about going that route especially given weight of opinions. There was an even clearer rebuttal against redirection. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St. Anthony's Senior Secondary School, Barabanki

St. Anthony's Senior Secondary School, Barabanki (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)

Prod was removed and only primary sources were added. Fails

WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Merge to Barabanki#Education. --Joyous! Noise! 16:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the school is one of the most prestigious and sought after amongst the ones listed in Barabanki district. --Fztcs 06:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "the school is one of the most prestigious and sought " is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you find sources to demonstrate notability. ThanksJagmanst (talk) Jagmanst (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you say more? I'm not sure that I follow the points you are trying to make here. Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the point to be noted is that this article was created in 2007 (~10years before February 2017 RFC), when "secondary schools were assumed notable unless sources could not be found to prove existence". So, the artice was not only created in good-faith but also was valid for 10years of it's existence as per then WP policies. Now i.e., after 2017-RFC, which although says, "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist", but also states, "References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AfD." & "Editors should not flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations.", there is a drive to delete this article. IMHO, the article although a stub, doesn't violates any policy (especially related to negative matters like spam,promotion, etc.) and covers a ~46years old important secondary educational institute of Barabanki district (a area with not much coverage by media in general and English media in particular). Considering these points, I still believe that article merits strong keep, worst case there may be a merge/redirect but definitely no delete.--Fztcs 05:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC also had this to say:
"The argument that sources for secondary schools are more difficult to find than they are for typical topics because they are likely to be concentrated in local and/or print media is very valid. Additionally, the argument that removing the presumption of notability from schools would increase
systematic bias
is very strong."


I also note this argument made in the RFC debate has proven correct:
"even if this RfC agrees on a consensus that schools must be shown to meet GNG, I have zero hope that this principle will be applied to secondary schools in the Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, or the United States. There will be arguments over whether or not the extensive local coverage counts, but it will likely be resolved in favour of the high school. The consensus of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES will likely still be the de facto consensus for schools in these countries. This RfC was largely started because of outcomes of no consensus or delete for schools in South Asia." Jagmanst (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, this particular school has significant coverage in media. It has been shown to be significant especially with regards to its district leading examination performance, which is neither routine or run of the mill. So despite not being a western school, it should be kept. Jagmanst (talk) 05:53, 10 August 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 redirect‎ to Survivor Greece. Sometimes it takes 3 1/2 weeks to come to an agreeable closure. Relisting works! Liz Read! Talk! 04:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor Greece (season 11)

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)

WP:CRYSTAL. The articles for other previous seasons were all created shortly before their start, while this one was created right after the previous season ended. The article doesn't source that it has been confirmed, and I haven't found any sources either. I think it should be deleted for now and recreated once there is actual info, in what might be a few months to a year. GoodCrossing (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The show is in pre production. The producers have already announced the next season. I haven't added any fake information. The page will be updated by me when I have valid information. Survivor Greece starts every year at December. Valid info will be available at fall. Kostargr (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, and I don't think that there is any fake information in the article. The fact is that there isn't any relevant information at the moment. Even if the contest takes place the same month each year, until there is nothing to say about the show, it might be best to redirect to the main Survivor Greece article (see the creation history of Eurovision Song Contest 2024 for an example). Once there is information about that season, it's perfectly OK to create the article again. GoodCrossing (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to see if the redirect suggestion has any support.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 2 August 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 soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Shelby Ringdahl

Shelby Ringdahl (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)

Lacks sustained coverage as a former beauty pageant contestant. Appears to be a case of

WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 2 August 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. ✗plicit 01:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elona Rusta

Elona Rusta (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 cyclist, who according to ProCyclingStats never even competed in a UCI race. Seacactus 13 (talk) 00:32, 2 August 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. ✗plicit 01:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Morgue (unreleased film)

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

Delete or draftify until release. Unreleased film. Unknown producer. Per Wikipedia:Notability (films), Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines DareshMohan (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per the nomination, the film is yet to release, and I have reason to believe it never will. Photography began in October of 2020? It's nearly been 3 years and no word of the film has come out since. COVID-19 hit the Malayalam film industry hard and this film was one that was hit. It also fails WP:GNG and the producers (maybe multiple if we look at the article itself?) are unknown. IncompA 02:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet
    WP:NFF as the production itself is not notable. —siroχo 04:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Delete I don't think this film project is notable, no further sources found. Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 2 August 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. ✗plicit 23:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Torah Institute

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

Lack of notability. I can only find two reliable secondary sources, both published by the same news organization. Bear of Tomato (talk) 00:11, 2 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_August_2&oldid=1169932047"