Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 6

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< February 05 February 07 >

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 keep. There is a clear consensus to Keep this article, at least at this stage of the disappearance. There has been no challenge to the claim of SIGCOV of this event, most of those advocating Delete basically argue that this story is not deserving of an article in an encyclopedia due to the large number of people who go missing every year. But the coverage of this event verifies its present notability. However, I'll add that even some of those editors stating that they wanted the article to be Kept have said that as this story evolves, it might not have a lasting impact so depending on news developments, the article might make a reappearance at AFD in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Nicola Bulley

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 clear example of an event involving one person. Regardless of how many news items are cited, the event (the disappearance of one person) does not rise to notability. See

WP:1E. David notMD (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

the authorities said it dude, I just looked at what they said. Oaktree b (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Also my sincere condolences to anyone related reading this however this is how Wikipedia works - normal everyday accidents = non notable = deletion, Unexplained disappearances is obviously not seen as an every day thing and given the fact this has been in the news for the past week or so it would mean there's some notability here). –Davey2010Talk 14:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The intense reporting has not just been in tabloids. The reputable news media (BBC, broadsheet newspapers etc) have also covered the story repeatedly and in depth.
As others have noted, a significant number of people go missing every year, and most disappearances get little or no media coverage. This is one of the cases which does get a lot of coverage, and while it's easy to be cynical about the type of case which fills headlines (a media frenzy is much more likely if, as in this case, the missing person is blonde, female, white, middle class), it is not for Wiki editors to
WP:WEIGHT, not as Wikipedia editors might like to see it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:26, 11 February 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! 23:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Silversmith Capital Partners

Silversmith Capital Partners (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:DEL14. No indication of being notable. Refs are routine coverage. scope_creepTalk 23:15, 6 February 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. Salvio giuliano 22:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of reservoirs in England and Wales by volume

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
|
The reason is that the Environment Agency are no longer curators of this data - the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology are. I believe that this is the third time in various discussions that I have made this point. Please don't ask me to make it again.  Velella  Velella Talk   06:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep - this is a long established article which was subject to a deal of constructive discussion between several experienced editors in its gestation. The latest data set lists all the current content, and each table line is also wikilinked to its own article wherein are further references. There are some significant omissions such as Bala Lake , but omissions can easily be rectified. I can't believe any editor with any experience would assert that the list lacks notability. Thus the request for deletion fails.  Velella  Velella Talk   06:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bala Lake is a natural lake not a reservoir (man-made) Bs0u10e01 (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets LISTN Bruxton (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable. --Bduke (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully agree that the article is notable but don't agree that the citation is sufficient. Titus Gold (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bala lake is classed as a large raised reservoir by Natural resources Wales. This confusion shows that this article is not properly cited. Titus Gold (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? How do you work that out. Llyn Tegid is on the NRW list, and it is on the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology's list, so where is the debate? It is simply an omission from this article (and there may be others). When this debate is done we need to agree a clear definition of what constitutes a reservoir in the context of this article and, having done that, ensure that the article is as complete as we can make it.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
    WP:BEFORE would have turned up a number of reliable independent sources to establish notability to justify keeping this list. This arguably qualifies for speedy keep. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corin Robertson

Corin Robertson (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep (talk) 21:40, 6 February 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. Salvio giuliano 22:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret J. Schneider

Margaret J. Schneider (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)

Per

WP:USCJN, we generally do not count magistrate judges as notable, nor do we count Assistant U.S. Attorneys as notable. I see nothing here that lifts this subject above the status of a run-of-the-mill magistrate judge. BD2412 T 21:34, 6 February 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! 22:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of reservoirs in Wales

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

There is already a page,

Draft:List of reservoirs in England and Wales by volume), despite that ongoing discussion regarding a split, and despite having been warned not to [1]. This POVFORK should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Draft:List of reservoirs in England and Wales by volume
does not have proper citation at all as was concluded in later discussion, meaning article was justifiably moved to draft.
This page is new since then and verifiably cited. Titus Gold (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the existing article IS appropriately sourced. This is a wholly redundant fork created while a discussion was ongoing and is yet another repetition of data already present across a range of articles. The task now is to rationalise and simplify the existing articles with consensus and not to create yet one more version.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This page was moved to
    WP:R2 for the time being. TartarTorte 21:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @TartarTorte: I have restored the AfD tag--anyone, especially the author, removing the tag while the discussion is ongoing is Not Okay, and moving the article back to draft space should not allow the article to escape scrutiny. The proper course would be to move the article back to mainspace, but because you tagged the redirect in mainspace for deletion, this was considered to be enough of a substantial edit to prevent a non-admin like myself to move it back straight away. That said, the current status quo is not unacceptable, and a helpful admin might happen along and make the move themselves. --Finngall talk 21:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Go ahead and delete. The reason I moved to draft is because this was prematurely proposed a deletion of before I even had the chance to return it to draft following moving of List of reservoirs in Wales back to article. Titus Gold (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that. Moving forward, I'll just leave it alone without G6'ing. I always forget the page move rule allows for a revert if it was just a page move with no substantial edits to the redirect after move. TartarTorte 14:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of reservoirs in England and Wales by volume has been proposed by the author of the article under discussion here. DankJae 22:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, based on lack of verifiable citation. Titus Gold (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have returned the article to main space. You shouldn't move an article that is being discussed at an AFD to Draft space. If you are seeking this, then vote to "Draftify". Once an article is in main space, it can be nominated for an AFD regardless of its condition. This should not be news to experienced editors. Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. This is one of many content forks by the same editor, who prefers to delete and/or copypaste other articles into their prefered format/title, rather than work with other editors to improve Wikipedia. The existing articles do a better job of presenting useful, encyclopedic information. I think trying to replicate the entire contents of DataMapWales as a Wikipedia list article falls foul of WP:NOT. Sionk (talk) 11:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets our LISTN criteria. Bruxton (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Meeting the criteria was never in doubt. The nomination is because this is a
    List of reservoirs in England and Wales by volume, which page the creator of this POVFORK has now also nominated for deletion! I hope you could take a look at the history and discussion on that other article. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Thanks for the message - it was my mistake. Bruxton (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Jim Clark

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Jim Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Fernando Alonso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Mika Häkkinen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Niki Lauda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Nelson Piquet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am also nominating the following related page, which is more or less an inditical case and which I overlooked initially for inexplicable reasons:

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Jackie Stewart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:F1 Consensus is that these articles do not meet WP:LISTN. Moreover these are content forks of their own articles. Tvx1 21:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tvx1 21:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - per very recent consensus on a similar AfD here. No demonstration of meeting LISTN is presented in any of the above articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostOfDanGurney (talk • contribs) 22:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 02:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all – Same reasoning as with other recent nominations: "Needless fork of the results tables already provided in the main articles. Wikipedia is not a statistical database, and these are entirely redundant. They completely fail NLIST, which states that a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, and there is no evidence on any of these articles that such coverage exists. Even a cursory check for each of these will show that virtually the only time they are considered as a set is by statistics databases." 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to previously established consensus. Partofthemachine (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - per the consensus established on a previous AfD
    EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete all. Seems like solid consensus for this has been developed elsewhere. Shawn Teller (talk) 05:02, 13 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Metallica 2021–2022 Tour

Metallica 2021–2022 Tour (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 to meet the notability of

WP:NTOUR, with only primary sources from the band's website only being present instead of other secondary sources. However, it does contain material that can be merged into the article WorldWired Tour. I am open to if it wants to be kept, deleted or merged. HorrorLover555 (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Needs improvement, but notability is consistent with tours of other world-famous bands. Ppt91 (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if the article can be improved with some news/review sources instead of concert announcements, like [2] [3] [4]. LizardJr8 (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable tour for notable band. Bruxton (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GoFLUENT

GoFLUENT (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 previous draft was rejected at AfC and subsequently deleted. This instance, also by the

in-depth coverage needed to demonstrate notability here. AllyD (talk) 20:35, 6 February 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. There is some support for Keeping this article despite questions about the subject's notabiity. I encourage editors to follow the suggestions in the discussion to look for Arabic sources under both names proposed here. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gawdat al-Malt

Gawdat al-Malt (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 auditor. Only "claim to fame" was being mistakenly named in a Reuters story, which was quickly corrected. Never held an

WP:SIGCOV. Curbon7 (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Hi, I responded to the AfD call by cleaning up and expanding the article somewhat. I propose it is kept as Al-Malt is important to understand anti-corruption movement during 2011 uprising and that he preceded Hisham Genena. Ypedia1 (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unfortunately, I don't see much improvement in the content of the article in recent days and notability is still questionable. Moreover, article formatting still doesn't follow
    WP:STYLE
    .
Ppt91 (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being a government bureaucrat is not sufficient, but being head of an important national body is. Bondegezou (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hesitant keep. I don't see how this is an ordinary bureaucrat; the article suggests he held a post accountable only to the President, in a country of considerable size, something confirmed by other sources [5], [6]. Holding such a position, for over a decade, should be more than enough for notability. To be clear, I'm not offering the links above as examples of SIGCOV, and I'm unsure of their reliability, but presumably the fact that he held the position is no longer in doubt. There are clearly transliteration issues here; these sources, when translated, render his name as "Jawdat Al-Mallat". I suggest stubifying this and asking for assistance from editors able to search arabic sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:10, 13 February 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 is numerically even, but the arguments to delete are substantively stronger: if SIGCOV has not been demonstrated, evidence of meeting a different criterion, or an IAR argument, are needed to keep an article. The "keep" arguments as written essentially strengthen the case for deletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Blackburne

Alison Blackburne (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The deletion rationale should relate to the specific article. Leaning speedy keep due to lack of deletion rationale. CT55555(talk) 20:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Despite the guidance "if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided." at WP:TALK#REVISE, the nominator has retroactively changed their deletion rationale after my comment was written. CT55555(talk) 21:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ppt91 (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so far the article has 2 sources, 1 being primary. What are the additional sources? We need more to satisfy
WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Thomas (diplomat)

Sam Thomas (diplomat) (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The deletion rationale should relate to the specific article. Leaning speedy keep due to lack of deletion rationale. CT55555(talk) 21:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Despite the guidance "if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided." at WP:TALK#REVISE, the nominator has retroactively changed their deletion rationale after my comment was written. CT55555(talk) 21:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of UEFA European Championship goalscorers

List of UEFA European Championship goalscorers (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)

Similar to

WP:NOTSTATS, as simply a database / directory of goal scorers. Natg 19 (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Bundling in the following articles for the same reason:

List of UEFA Nations League Finals goalscorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of FIFA Club World Cup goalscorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per World Cup consensus. GiantSnowman 20:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per previous discussion, we do not need a directory of every single person to ever score a goal in an international tournament Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all for the same reasons as the WC list. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:34, 9 February 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. Salvio giuliano 22:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rampling

Chris Rampling (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The deletion rationale should relate to the specific article. Leaning speedy keep due to lack of deletion rationale. CT55555(talk) 21:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Despite the guidance "if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided." at WP:TALK#REVISE, the nominator has retroactively changed their deletion rationale after my comment was written. CT55555(talk) 21:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Routine coverage only, nothing indepth. Fails
    WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:04, 6 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 22:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Music Ltd

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

No evidence of meeting

WP:CORP; article created by an employee; tagged for notability since 2010. 2018 proposed deletion contested with rationale "has some rs" but that's not true: three of the cited sources are non-independent and the fourth is not significant. Jfire (talk) 19:12, 6 February 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. Salvio giuliano 22:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Shorter

Hugo Shorter (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The deletion rationale should relate to the specific article. Leaning speedy keep due to lack of deletion rationale. CT55555(talk) 21:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Despite the guidance "if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided." at WP:TALK#REVISE, the nominator has retroactively changed their deletion rationale after my comment was written. CT55555(talk) 21:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Routine coverage of him making announcements on behalf of the government. Nothing indepth. Fails
    WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 6 February 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. Salvio giuliano 22:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Stanton

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

I created this article, however Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event." I consequently no longer believe that there is anything noteworthy about the subject's diplomatic career to necessitate its own article. Uhooep (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Babu Shiv Bahadur Singh

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

I basically want to echo what

WP:BEFORE yields nothing useful. Nothing in Google Books or ProQuest. Coverage in Indian Rajputs is insufficient on its own. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:06, 6 February 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) WJ94 (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Can't You See (Tiffany song)

Can't You See (Tiffany 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)

Very minimal coverage in reliable sources. Multiple attempts to redirect have been reverted without

WP:BURDEN. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:50, 6 February 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) WJ94 (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

If Love Is Blind

If Love Is Blind (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)

Very minimal coverage in reliable sources. Multiple attempts to redirect have been reverted without

WP:BURDEN. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:50, 6 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fausto Klinger (footballer, born 1976)

Fausto Klinger (footballer, born 1976) (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 about non-notable journeyman former footballer. This humorous recap of his MetroStars career isn't in depth, nor is any other online coverage. This just drops his name as a goal-scorer in a Rough Riders semi-final match, while his career in Costa Rica only consists of match reports like this. Note that Klinger's father Fausto was notable (an Ecuador international), so be careful not to consider coverage of that Fausto Klinger. Overall, the article comprehensively fails

WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:28, 6 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Russi Assumpção

AfDs for this article:
Eduardo Russi Assumpção (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)

Consensus on the bar of notability has changed since the previous nomination. Just appearing in an ATP tour level match does not longer yield a presumption of notability. This player still hasn’t reached an ATP tour event on merit, still only the three poor Wild Card appearances. He just isn’t notable. Tvx1 17:40, 6 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Bohan

Ken Bohan (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 about a businessperson has been tagged with notability concerns since 2014. I have looked for additional coverage and not found any from reliable sources. There are some press releases and this interview, which I have not added as I am not clear that it is a reliable source. The coverage reads

run of the mill. Although he has received two awards, I do not think they are notable. Tacyarg (talk) 17:08, 6 February 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.

Leading broodmare sire in Japan

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Looks like we need a merge discussion for the lot of these instead. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Leading broodmare sire in Japan (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 very random list that strikes me as a rather

indiscriminate stats dump. If it can't be integrated into Horse racing in Japan or a similar location, which may be doubtful due to the "suspiciously specific" ambit, it should be deleted; certainly not a standalone subject. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Eh. I managed to overlook that there already was a bunch of these articles. Yes, I would think that none of these makes a suitable article on its own, and that one combination article would be preferable. That presumably should be a merge discussion though. Withdrawing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:48, 6 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 17:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actor Aamir Rafiq

Previous AfDs for this article:
Actor Aamir Rafiq (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 actor; moved to draft and quickly returned to main. Variations of the name both in draft and main seem to be protected from creation. Possibly a CSD candidate but no exact criterion and therefore discussion required to establish consensus. Eagleash (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this. Block evasion tells you it's not notable. Salt liberally. Same as last time, no sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 6 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Belfield

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

This page has been tagged for G4 speedy deletion as a repost of an article that was already deleted twice at AfD and nominated once before that. It has a few sources that weren't in the previous versions so it's too borderline to be summarily deleted, but I dunno if these new sources add enough to defeat the "repost" concern. Opinions? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have undone the previous NAC close as I think that the editors !voting "keep" should address Black Kite's argumenyt that this is a case of BLP1E. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It might be only one event, but he's a famous journalist in the UK and was harassing other public figures; it's not some guy stalking other nobodies, this is a person that was in the spotlight before getting charged/arrested/sentenced, there are also some right-wing ideologies at play, not far-removed from the Trump kerfuffle/media circus that happens in the US. This clearly documents how the right-wing camp has taken hold in the UK, even echoing some of the same lamentations in the trial you'd hear in the USA if it was a journalist there. There isn't much else happening as of this moment, but I'd be very surprised of this individual doesn't get themselves back in the news again for doing some other thing along these lines. The fact that they were chastised by the judge during the trial tells me they'll use that to fuel their narrative in the future. Oaktree b (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's also basically told people "I'll be back" after the jail sentence, so this isn't likely the end of story. There is nothing happening at the moment, I suppose because he's incarcerated. He is in the news as recently as four days ago, his appeal was refused, but he can try again. There is sustained coverage about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except he wasn't a famous journalist before he got arrested. Black Kite (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: (from AN) This is not
    WP:BLP1E because it doesn't meet criteria #3 of BLP1E. Meets GNG. The article probably should be moved to "Trial of...", but that should be discussed in an RM rather than at AFD. Levivich (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment. This is not a
    WP:BIO1E is instructive in that When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified (internal links omitted), and that's the relevant notability criterion here even if BLP1E is not relevant. A merge discussion might be warranted at some point, but I'm not sure which way that ought go. Most affirmatively here, I'm opposed to outright deletion, and I do think that either a merge or keep would be consistent with policy, but I'm not able to discern which way we should lean here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Seems to satisfy
    WP:PERP. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:38, 13 February 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Lima

AfDs for this article:
Marcelo Lima (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 about former footballer who played in various Brazilian state leagues, but which fails

WP:NSPORTS2022, but it's clear now that the GNG must be met. Jogurney (talk) 14:52, 6 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hidayat ur Rehman Baloch

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

Not a Elected politician, only having 2 references Misterrrrr (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Asia, and Pakistan. Misterrrrr (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Although he gets lot of media coverage in RS and have in news due to his protest and arrest but the refs (except few) doesn't have significant impact of the subject. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per
    WP:BIO1E. Involved and became famous during a public protest, the subject doesn't seem to have any long-lasting notability. Insight 3 (talk) 12:56, 8 February 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. The !votes are about equally divided between keep, delete, and merge, so I am closing this as "no consensus". A possible merge can be decided on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GXO (company)

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

No evidence this is a notable organization with significant, in depth sourcing. Has gone back and forth in main/draft space so moving it here for discussion. There's a minor walled garden situation going on, but creator has disclosed their COI, so that's mostly not an issue and they're editing in good faith. Star Mississippi 13:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The WP:CORPDEPTH-grade coverage in this sources is non-zero, it is still on the thin side and more focused on the predecessor company. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with XPO, Inc.. The split is very recent. GXO may well become independently notable in the future, but based on the sources provided that has not yet happened. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:47, 8 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Dhowre Elba

Sabrina Dhowre Elba (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)

Virtually all the coverage of her is about her being his wife, or the relationship between the two, which would not have been covered if it weren't for his stardom. Notability is

WP:GNG on her own. Onel5969 TT me 13:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Even with the refs given in the article, she's always mentioned in an article about Idris, nothing about her. Only article about her is when she confirms to CNN that Idris tested positive for Covid, hardly GNG worthy. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CT55555(talk) 17:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the argument that should not be used, as per the link, is the affirmative argument, "Notability is inherited". Reading down through the section it states, "The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." This clearly states that guideline that when someone is only famous for who they are married to (with the exception of certain classes of folks, e.g. "First Ladies"), then the person must pass GNG on their own. Onel5969 TT me 18:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point is: nobody has argued that she is notable for her husband. This is a straw man argument. I think we agree that WP:GNG is what matters here, not that essay. CT55555(talk) 18:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And my point was I wasn't refuting that argument, merely stating that the only sourcing is because of who she's married to. Not a straw man argument at all. Onel5969 TT me 20:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree B. 2001:569:74E3:4000:45BE:8C5F:EE1B:95E3 (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per users above. Her whole notability seems tied directly to her marriage. But she is already covered in her husband's page. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 06:16, 12 February 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward M. Flint

Edward M. Flint (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)

Sources are routine coverage. Appears to be pretty ordinary high-ranking soldier. Content has been this way since July 14, 2014; 9 years ago (2014-07-14). Initially proposed by User:EdwardMichaelFlint, the subject of the article, on the talk page. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found for this person. Other being on the museum committee, rest is routine soldierly stuff. Even the museum gig isn't terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 6 February 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kairali We

Kairali We (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)

TV station that fails

WP:GNG. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 12:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, notability not established. Silikonz💬 18:27, 6 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Niko Omilana

AfDs for this article:
Niko Omilana (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 was previously deleted and was then re-created in January 2023. Half of the article refers to a non-serious and unsuccessful political candidacy; fails

WP:YTN, most YouTubers with this number of subscriptions get deleted. Bondegezou (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Same as last time, other than the attempted run for the Mayor of London, which doesn't give this person much more coverage, it's the same low quality sources covering the "pranks". Being Youtube famous doesn't equate to notability here unless there are RS that back that up. Coverage in The Sun about running for mayor doesn't bring this past the point where it was deleted last time. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Silikonz💬 18:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a person who is famous. He was the most popular independent candidate in 2021 in the London mayoral election. I know it was for a joke, but he scored highly. The article refers to the political candidacy because it is the reason everyone knows him. Omilana is a person who is as important as Laurence Fox, if not more important. The reason this exists is because he was a candidate for the 2021 mayoral election of London. Anoymousgamer (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He did not score highly: he got 2% of the vote! We have an existing, agreed policy on this at
WP:NPOL that is clear that people are not notable just for being candidates. A one-off unsuccessful candidacy can be covered under the election article; it doesn't need an article for the candidate. (Laurence Fox was notable as an actor, long before he became politically active, so that's why he has an article.) Bondegezou (talk) 10:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
'Comment I've read the previous AfD and don't know for sure. The guy is funny and visible in news and media coverage including BBC, the Independent, BBC... here I found a new one https://www.thesun.ie/news/6829970/london-mayoral-candidate-niko-omilana/. I would keep the article but make it more humble and true encyclopaedic. Mozzcircuit (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Sun is not a reliable source. Bondegezou (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they didn't win — the test at
    WP:GNG-based exemption from NPOL either — every candidate in every election always receives some campaign coverage and could thus claim to earn such an exemption, meaning that NPOL itself would be meaningless since no candidate for any office anywhere in the world would ever have to be measured against it at all anymore. A non-winning candidate gets a Wikipedia article only if either (a) he can show a credible reason to treat his non-winning candidacy as a special case of more enduring significance than everybody else's non-winning candidacies, or (b) he can show a credible claim that he had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him a Wikipedia article on those grounds regardless of the candidacy. But this demonstrates neither of those things. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 12 February 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 delete.

(non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Undertale (disambiguation)

Undertale (disambiguation) (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)

Violates

WP:PTM by only including partial matches to the name or related entries. Disambiguation pages are not a search index and should not be created to link together related articles. That's what "See also" sections are for. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete ah, yes, I’m going to look up “Undertale” looking for Deltarune. Dronebogus (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: Tagging it for CSD G14 as an unnecessary disamb page. "Undertale 2" is not a common term. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:13, 6 February 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.

Rosebud Kurwijila

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Uhooep (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rosebud Kurwijila (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 under any criteria as far as I can see. Uhooep (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. African Union Commissioner. Uhooep (talk) 11:19, 6 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Mortimer

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

I created this article, however Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event." I consequently no longer believe that there is anything noteworthy about the subject's diplomatic career to necessitate its own article. Uhooep (talk) 10:25, 6 February 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. There is no reasonable possibility of further time for discussion leading to a consensus for deletion at this point. BD2412 T 04:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UFO-Memorial Ängelholm

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 about obscure statue depends on citations to mentions in unreliable

WP:FRINGE sources: a selfpub Lulu book, two UFO websites, and a book by fringe author David Hatcher Childress. It may deserve a line or two at the Ängelholm article, based on a photo listing in a cultural heritage book:[13]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the Angleholm article, it's a thing, but not really notable alone. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. OK article, and nominator doesn't much explain why it wouldn't be. The entity exists and at the specified location, and nominator hasn't claimed that that that isn't so. We have lots of articles on individual sculptures and markers, I've written a couple-few myself. Yeah they're obscure, but the're just going to be more obscure if we delete the articles on them, and how does that help our remit of taking info out of the darkness of obscurity and organizing and presenting here in order to help make the internet not suck as much. Yes the sources are obscure, but they're reliable for our purposes here; if we were using them support us saying that the memorialized event actually occurred, they would not be reliable, but we're not saying that, we're just explaining why such an entity was made. For much the same reason, fringeness doesn't much matter. And obscure yes, but certainly giving significant coverage, I mean there's an entire book about the subject, for starters (obscure, granted; but very in-depth, and reliable for our purposes of demonstrating why the entity exists).
It's on OK article, four short paragraphs, nice photo, refs, fits in Category:UFO culture for people looking thru that. Why destroy it. Daily page views is 25, I don't know why its that high, but that's a lot for an article like this. Participants here should consider the statement "Those 25 readers a day will be better served when they search on the term if they get a 404, or at any rate a redirect to a couple sentences, rather than this article, because _______". What goes in the blank? Tell me. If its compelling I'll change my mind. Can you do that? I doubt the article quality is much below our average. Article is marginal to even be brought to AfD. Keep. Herostratus (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:ATD). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
There's nothing wrong with the article, it's just that you feel it's too obscure to bother writing about. But somebody has bothered. I get that you wouldn't and would consider it a waste of your time, but we can't control other people and what's done is done. So... " "Those 25 readers a day will be better served when they search on the term if they get a 404, or at any rate a redirect to a couple sentences, rather than this article, because _______". Fill in the blank with something compelling and I'll change my mind. Otherwise, I won't. Herostratus (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and replaced the outdated 2008 photo with two improved 2021 ones from the Swedish article. 5Q5|✉ 12:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a legitimate statue and local landmark with backing from the municipality as a tourist attraction. Yes it's obscure and in Sweden, but it is a genuinely interesting article and one I imagine potential visitors to the area would read. AtFirstLight (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review after article expansion. A reminder this AFD isn't about a UFO encounter but about a memorial sculpture and whether or not it is notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually it's about the article. And the article is not in a straitjacket. The article is about, or at least talks about, both event and memorial. Has to. So,the part on the actual (supposed) event could be expanded (or not). The article could be renamed to "UFO incident at Ängelholm" and the part about the memorial put in a separate section (or not). Or whatever. But, just to point out, none of these improvements can happen if the article is, I don't know, erased. Right? Herostratus (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I am not seeing any reliable sources that mention this topic (reference 1 and 5 are totally unreliable and should be removed). Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: I replaced the first source after seeing this comment. Reference 5 is being used a primary source; I didn't look for a replacement because it just covers a single sentence that I'm not sure belongs in the article. The best sources in the article appear to references 8 and 9, added by Julle. These are 2 newspaper articles from a major Swedish newspaper that specifically talk about the monument, its condition, its maintenance, and the area's attitude towards it. Sadly they are both paywalled and Swedish language. Expanding that last sentence into a paragraph or two would, I think, push this easily towards keep. The Roswell incident is now largely considered to have been mundane, but the alien autopsy museum out there is still notable.
    Rjjiii (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Psychologist Guy: I'd argue that Sydsvenskan and Helsingborgs Dagblad are reliable? Not from the UFO angle but as the dominating newspapers in southern Sweden, which is the relevant region here. And Dick Harrison is a respected historian, here writing in Svenska Dagbladet, one of the most respected newspapers in Sweden. /Julle (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The memorial is "listed as a heritage site by the Swedish National Heritage Board site number RAÄ Strövelstrop 47:1" Anders Högberg, Cornelius Holtorf, Cultural Heritage and the Future. (2020). United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis. CT55555(talk) 02:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When put up for deletion these were the sources:
  • Crone, Billy (23 March 2018). UFO's: The Great Last Days Deception. ISBN 9781948766012.
  • "Contactee Wayne Aho and the October 1965 Swedish "sky train"" (PDF). (187 KiB), Clas Svahn, Archives for UFO Research Foundation Newsletter, Issue 48, Page 2.
  • Childress, David Hatcher (1991). Vimana Aircraft of Ancient India & Atlantis. ISBN 9780932813121.
  • "FAQ - Svar på vanliga frågor om UFO och UFO-Sverige". <www.ufo.se> (in Swedish). UFO-Sweden. Archived from the original on 2008-04-25. Retrieved 2008-05-06. "Några övertygande bevis för att händelsen gått till som Gösta Carlsson beskrev den finns inte"
These are the current sources:
  • Carlsson, Bo; Backman, Jyri; Stark, Tobias (June 2022). "The hegemonic impact of the NHL and the 'Americanization' of Swedish ice hockey and resistance: Rögle BK as 'hockey culture'". Sport in Society. 25 (6): 1125–1141. ISSN 1743-0437. Retrieved 2023-01-29. "Gösta Carlsson, in addition to his influence and legacy for Rögle BK, is locally well-known for his self-proclaimed UFO experiences, allegedly having been in close contact with aliens."
  • "Världens första monument över "flygande tefat"". Arbetet. 29 September 1972.
  • Dick Harrison (28 April 2017). "UFO i Skåne?". Svenska Dagbladet.
  • RAÄ-nummer Strövelstorp 47:1
  • "FAQ - Svar på vanliga frågor om UFO och UFO-Sverige". <www.ufo.se> (in Swedish). UFO-Sweden. Archived from the original on 2008-04-25. Retrieved 2008-05-06. "Några övertygande bevis för att händelsen gått till som Gösta Carlsson beskrev den finns inte"
  • Oscarsson, Mattias (18 December 2022). "Finns sanningen om utomjordingarna i ett arkiv i Norrköping?". Sydsvenskan (in Swedish). Retrieved 16 January 2023.
  • Anders Högberg, Cornelius Holtorf, Cultural Heritage and the Future. (2020). United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis
  • Gunnarsson, Evelina (20 July 2015). "Nu röjs det kring ufot". Helsingborgs Dagblad (in Swedish). Retrieved 16 January 2023.
  • Niklasson, Anette (11 July 2022). "Guidade turer vid ufo-monumentet". Helsingborgs Dagblad (in Swedish). Retrieved 16 January 2023
Red sources were removed, green sources were added, and the one source in black remains. Perhaps we should ping earlier commenters or the Fringe board to get updates on the current state? Additionally is there a good way/place to reach out to Swedish/English editors?
Rjjiii (talk) 20:19, 11 February 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! 06:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Li Sheng (artist)

Li Sheng (artist) (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)

Notability. The person is real, at least as far as the baidu page indicates. His name, and the name of the painting (which also exists, although the link is dead) produce a grand total of zero relevant hits on google and gnews, including searches of "Li Sheng", "Li Sheng (Yuan artist)", “李升”，“李升 畫家”, corrsp. in simplified, etc. JSTOR also gives nothing. He doesn't even have a page on zh wiki. Fermiboson (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I previous held of from a keep/delete opinion, as I was wondering whether if there was a single surviving work in a museum it might be better served by consolidating the artist and the work in a single article. However with the identification of further sources, and further works in Taipei, Stockholm and Cleveland, I think there is enough for
    WP:NARTIST #4. AllyD (talk) 20:42, 6 February 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, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nabab Nandini (TV series)

Nabab Nandini (TV series) (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)

Seems to be a

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL pay-TV series. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete There are no proper sources which describes about the show perfectly not notable show. 49.32.162.175 (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - coverage doesn't indicate notability; just routine announcements of an upcoming show Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:30, 10 February 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Although I encourage interested editors to ensure that the article reflects the view that this is very likely a hoax. Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whole stuffed camel

AfDs for this article:
Whole stuffed camel (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)

Whole stuffed camel does not sound worthy of being included on Wikipedia. This is more of an urban legend/hoax so it should be deleted as Wikipedia is not an urban legends site. Even if it is not a hoax, it would not be notable enough. 747pilot (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding if this is a hoax, I found one book that quotes Guinness World Records as naming it the largest item on a menu in the world, but my searching of the easy-to-search Guinness database found no such record.
My searches of news and books could only find very low credability sources talking about this without irony, and even then they were mostly talking about it jokingly.
I searched images of this, but the results looked doctored.
Conversely, I did find a published academic paper identifying this as folklore "In their collection of urban folklore titled Never Try to Teach a Pig to Sing: Still More Urban Folklore from the Paperwork Empire, Alan Dundes and Carl R. Pagter identify “Elephant Stew,” “Stuffed Camel,” and “Best Ever Rum Cake” as examples of joke recipes that recur in multiple recipe collections" (source: Dutch, Jennifer Rachel. “Not Just for Laughs: Parody Recipes in Four Community Cookbooks.” Western Folklore 77, no. 3/4 (2018): 249–76. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26864126.)
So I think this is a hoax. CT55555(talk) 03:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with no offence intended to 747pilot it is appropriate for Wikipedia to document notable urban myths and hoaxes, identified as such, of course. I'm currently a very weak keep on the grounds that it does seem to have been referred to quite a bit. But with no strong feelings either way. The test is this: could a reader come across it, and wonder what the background is? Can we help them? I think the answers are just about 'yes'. Elemimele (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the sources exist and it appears that the WP page reflects the story rather than being the origin of it. It might need work to reflect more clearly the multiple sources which say it is a legend/myth. JMWt (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it appears to be real from the article. Those who are uninformed may really think it's real. Wikipedia should be a source of information, not misinformation so I think deleting it will be best. 747pilot (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the job of WP to police what is or is not a hoax. We reflect what is written by others, we don't have a role in producing original research. Even if this is a longstanding hoax, the fact is that plenty of sources have repeated it. Providing that the uncertainty about the facts is properly and prominently stated, it is perfectly normal to have pages on topics which other people think are hoaxes. JMWt (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 10:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as per arguments laid out by JMWt. Bondegezou (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia covers notable hoaxes and urban legends. BD2412 T 19:22, 6 February 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! 19:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Koinonia of West Georgia

Koinonia of West Georgia (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 cites no sources and is an orphan. Additionally, the topic of this article refers to a small private school that no longer exists and has made no notable impact worth noting on a Wikipedia article. This is after a failed

WP:PROD objected by User:Gumlau who did not provide an explanation as to objection. EmperorKen (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:06, 6 February 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! 08:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by population in 1907

List of countries by population in 1907 (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)

Reason: There is really no reason to have both a 1900 and 1907 population article. Reading the archived talk page, there was a discussion about this in 2007, of which one argument was that 1907 was a hundred years from 2007, so that argument is now outdated (as of 2023). There is no need to differentiate 1900 and 1907 in the first place, must I repeat.

While I don't necessarily agree with a 1989 population article either, the political changes that occured since then makes sense.

Another issue with having a 1900 and 1907 article is that you have to make changes to both articles instead of one. All the other population articles end in 00s, so why should this one exist? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 08:45, 6 February 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! 08:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Gregory Goffredo

Gregory Goffredo (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 extremely short and minimally-sourced article might have BLP problems, but for the fact that some unreliable sources suggest that the subject died several years ago in a garbage truck accident.[18] [19] As a result, it seems like this person is most notable for being a relative of someone who isn't notable enough to have his own page either (redlink:

WP:Basic in that there are not multiple independent in-depth sources even after his death, and it now seems unlikely that there will ever be more. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 08:40, 6 February 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! 07:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Sonam Tshong

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

I created this article, however Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event." I consequently no longer believe that there is anything noteworthy about the subject's diplomatic career to necessitate its own article. Uhooep (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Farnworth

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

I created this article, however Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event." I consequently no longer believe that there is anything noteworthy about the subject's diplomatic career to necessitate its own article. Uhooep (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Clarke (diplomat)

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

I created this article, however Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event." I consequently no longer believe that there is anything noteworthy about the subject's diplomatic career. Not sure if the book award is enough to swing it. Uhooep (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soehardjono Sastromihardjo

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

I created this article, however Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event." I consequently no longer believe that there is anything noteworthy about the subject's diplomatic career to necessitate its own article. Uhooep (talk) 07:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Politics, and Indonesia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Secondary sources in Indonesian, such as Tempo and Kompas do exist to corroborate the individuals diplomatic postings, but the depth of coverage is very shallow and does not go beyond mentions of such postings. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 15:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage limited to routine announcements. No significant indepth coverage to meet
    WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:12, 6 February 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Diamond (artist)

Steve Diamond (artist) (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 to suggest notability, and notability is not inherited. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be nice to see a second or even third opinion on whether or not this article should be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 6 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo–Myanmar relations

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

Just replicating content from International_recognition_of_Kosovo. There is little chance of expansion of this article. Also nominating:

LibStar (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The articles have been created because
    WP:GNG. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Important topic that satisfies GNG. Serratra (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way does it meet GNG? All these articles only have 1 or 2 sources, have you looked for significant coverage? LibStar (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 6 February 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcegraph

Sourcegraph (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 too many tags on this page for me to be comfortable marking it as reviewed - especially concerning is the possible UPE Taking Out The Trash (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Source assessment table: prepared by User:Worktheclock
Source
Independent?
 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/10/sourcegraph-devs-are-managing-100x-more-code-now-than-they-did-in-2010/ Yes Yes Wikipedia's Reliable Sources page says "Ars Technica is considered generally reliable for science- and technology-related articles." ~ The article discusses the subject in the context of reporting on a developer survey Sourcegraph contracted Dimensional Research to do. ~ Partial
https://lwn.net/Articles/828748/ Yes Yes LWN.net is not listed in Wikipedia's Reliable Sources page, but it is generally considered reliable in its niche. Yes The article discusses the subject directly in detail. ✔ Yes
https://venturebeat.com/business/sourcegraph-raises-23-million-to-bring-universal-code-search-to-all-developers/ Yes Yes Wikipedia's Reliable Sources page says "VentureBeat is considered generally reliable for articles relating to businesses, technology and video games." Yes The article discusses the subject directly in detail. ✔ Yes
https://venturebeat.com/business/sourcegraph-raises-50-million-to-tackle-big-code-problems-with-universal-search/ Yes Yes Wikipedia's Reliable Sources page says "VentureBeat is considered generally reliable for articles relating to businesses, technology and video games." Yes The article discusses the subject directly in detail. ✔ Yes
https://venturebeat.com/business/sourcegraph-now-lets-enterprises-automate-large-scale-code-changes-across-repositories/ Yes Yes Wikipedia's Reliable Sources page says "VentureBeat is considered generally reliable for articles relating to businesses, technology and video games." Yes The article discusses the subject directly in detail. ✔ Yes
https://venturebeat.com/business/sourcegraph-plans-to-index-the-entire-open-source-web/ Yes Yes Wikipedia's Reliable Sources page says "VentureBeat is considered generally reliable for articles relating to businesses, technology and video games." Yes The article discusses the subject directly in detail. ✔ Yes
https://www.wired.com/2016/03/former-open-sourcers-ask-companies-pay-fair-share/ Yes Yes Wikipedia's Reliable Sources page says "Wired magazine is considered generally reliable for science and technology." ~ The article discusses the subject in the context of the Fair Source License. ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • I would respectfully disagree with some aspects of the assessment above. The second and fifth sources mostly discusses the product of the company, not the company itself. The third and fourth are announcements of the raising of funds, which is a routine business activity. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, if I compare this article to, for example, Grafana, it seems as though the standards for sources are not equally applied. Worktheclock (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that's true, it's the nature of a volunteer project with people from all over the world working when they can. I can only comment on the article in front of me, as with us all. 331dot (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But then it's fair for this article to be given the opportunity to be improved on by the community, as much as the Grafana article, or
Loom (company), or Airtable are. Deletion denies it that opportunity. Deletion has been proposed based on the number of tags and the UPE tag at least can be removed, and notability seems to be a matter of opinion rather than consensus. Worktheclock (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
This article has existed since 2017; it's had a chance. That's why we're here. Chances are not unlimited just because we haven't gotten around to every other inappropriate article yet, otherwise nothing could ever be removed from Wikipedia. Deletion is not permanent nor is it a permanent prohibition against recreation. If things change in the future(as they can and do) then this can always be revisited. Certainly the two of us(three if you include the nominator) is not a clear consensus, but it's worth having the discussion. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have stated that I will not !vote in this discussion (see Talk:Sourcegraph) and I don't have any beef with any conclusions arrived at by evaluating the article against notability requirements. But I will note the following: Taking Out The Trash, that nominator statement is useless. "Has lots of tags" is not a reason for deletion. Please state a relevant deletion rationale, or desist from nominating an article for AfD if you don't have one. You are not required to binarily either mark as reviewed or delete. - 331dot, the article has not "had its chance" since 2017; it was in user space until I moved it to draft in September last year, and had not seen mainspace before January 6 this year. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but my opinion as to the AFD remains unchanged, and you don't seem to dispute my evaluation of the sources. Please show where too much work needed to salvage(i.e. "too many tags") is barred as a reason to start a discussion. I'd also note that it's possible that the software merits an article but not the company. There seems to be some attempt to refocus the article in that way, I would be okay with that. 331dot (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please show where too much work needed to salvage(i.e. "too many tags") is barred as a reason to start a discussion I'm not seeing that in the statement; I'm seeing "this has too many tags for me to mark as reviewed", which is a different kettle of fish. And even "too many tags to salvage" would require some justification as to the specific perceived issues. I'm increasingly finding the handling of this article an illustration of bad practices in working with imperfect material, at sucessive levels. Suspect I'm usually not picking up on this stuff because I have no reason to feel ticked off on part of the creator. - Anyway, I'd better keep out of it as intended. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I appreciate the value of Wikipedia's processes but this article is not being given a fair chance to be improved on so that it meets requirements. I have found additional sources I would like to add; as 331dot notes, I'm attempting to refocus the topic; and I am happy to continue the discussion on the article's talk page. Worktheclock (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Consider the possibility of draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the software appears to be marginally notable (I'm looking at IEEE Spectrum, Ars Technica and BI coverage). I'd support removing most of the coverage of the company that appears to originate from non-independent sources from the article, and treating it essentially as a semi-stub article on the software that needs improvement. PaulT2022 (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC) PaulT2022 (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Based on the coverage in news sources and books found by Google, it seems to pass WP:GNG. The number of tags on the page is irrelevant. The page is not avout a corporation, but about a software tool. My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The source review table is nice, but most is from Venture Beat. Multiple, different RS would push this over into notability territory. This Ars Technica one seems ok [21] Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
but as with the Wired article, it's really only partially about the company. I'd like one more strong article about the company before changing the !vote Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The source assessment table above shows a clear pass of
    WP:NCORP. Frank Anchor 15:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I disagree with the assessment above, as routine funding announcements are very specifically trivial coverage; the subject does not meet
WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm interested in seeing opinions after the recent "reworking" of the article to have a different focus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 6 February 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) ASTIG😎🙃 07:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Muli (Ramon Jacinto album)

Muli (Ramon Jacinto album) (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)

Topic created last 2015 and a user moved this to draft last month, violates

WP:BEFORE shows nothing that can pass this policy. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to Ramon_Jacinto#Compilations_and_other_albums: found no additional coverage and the article relies solely an an Amazon page. QuietHere (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ramon_Jacinto#Compilations_and_other_albums. Fails notability tests. No PARI gold/platinum status, no awards and no charts found. --Lenticel (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:NALBUM per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 23:39, 9 February 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. After 3 relists still minor participation and no apparent consensus. No prejudice to a re-nomination in 1 or 2 months time if no improvement is forthcoming. Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irpin Declaration

Irpin Declaration (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)

Sources don't establish notability for this organization, nor for it even being an organization. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote it's a Political Union not an organization TheVoltigeur (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a reference from the Kyiv Post, which is considered RS. What's with "claimed" in small text? Elinruby (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well it’s not that either. It’s a declaration, as noted in the text. It might be notable to include in the individual articles of the groups, but it’s not notable alone, and doesn’t meet notability guidelines for an article. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 23:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linguist111 (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 04:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure draftifying this would help, almost looks TOOSOON. If not, Delete is fine. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what we can find a single news source by Kyiv Post and nothing at all suitable English Wikipedia. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Seems like a notable thing if you search for it in using the local language "Ірпінська декларація" CT55555(talk) 01:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Any sort of notability it seems to have is as a news event, though. Not every news event is worthy of an article, and it seems like this information would be much better suited as a sentence or two as a part of the history section on the articles about the individual groups which either signed or were alleged to have signed the declaration. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 01:38, 12 February 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 Mumuni Bawumia. Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mariama Bawumia

AfDs for this article:
Mariama Bawumia (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)

Per IP on

WT:AFD#Mariama_Bawumia_--_deletion: not inherently notable and that any salient info can and should be added to her husband (Mumuni Bawumia)'s article UtherSRG (talk) 12:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:45, 6 February 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Joel Watson

Joel Watson (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:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 6 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wong Wai Hung

Wong Wai Hung (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)

Biography of a subject whose entire claim to notability is that they were executed for drug trafficking. This does not make them notable by Wikipedia standards. Mccapra (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep hi all, i created this article and others of a similar style to provided info on foreign drug mules who were caught moving drugs via Singapore's changi airport, info is impossible to find online so i had to dig into archived newspapers (i have provided links throughout). i wanted to record the circumstances of their arrest and their attempts to present legal arguments to get off the charge, which always failed ... if others think its not Notable there isnt much i can say in reply as that is their opinion, howevere i will point out there are countless other articles that could be considered not notable, such as Duncan McKenzie (murderer), that have been on wikipedia for many years without any issues at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk • contribs) 08:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment consider merge to "drug laws in Singapore" or the like? Elinruby (talk) 02:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    how about i create a new page "Drug Trafficking in Singapore" and add in each of the offending articles as paragraphs, would that work ? please dont delete until i get direction ... it would look something like this:
    ==================================
    opening paragraph
    the brief history is blah blah
    can be split into 2: local dealers and drug mules caught at airport
    notable local drug busts
    bust a
    arrest of offender
    trail
    verdict and sentence
    notable drug mules
    person a
    arrest
    trail
    verdict and sentence
    person b
    arrest
    trail
    verdict and sentence
    ================================== WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think it would be an improvement, since it answers the question of "why I do need to know this?" I can't speak for other people, but if it was a good article then hey. How many arrests were there? Elinruby (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the general topic of drug laws in Singapore, together eth relatec enforcement and punishments, is certainly notable, and a brief para about individual cases would be appropriate in my view. Mccapra (talk) 12:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider possible merge (target page?)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reiterating support for the author's proposal to combine the articles about individual arrests Elinruby (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    hi all, there is little point having a brief paragraph about each when a user can view the ref links to the newspapaer articles instead IMO WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like an argument for deleting the whole of Wikipedia. After all, we are only supposed to contain content that is verifiable to independent reliable sources.
    Phil Bridger (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep as case of co accused Ho So Mui was unique in how she was re arrested after first acquittal but authorities fast tracked the prosecutions appeal to be heard in a matter of weeks instead of the ususal 6 to 9 months — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

struck out duplicate !vote. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sorry thought i had a new vote 13:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC) WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 13:35, 8 February 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! 03:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All Bengal Students' Association

All Bengal Students' Association (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)

Currently has no in-depth coverage, and searches did not turn up any. Fails

WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 19:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:05, 6 February 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! 19:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Ile-de-France Region Waste Management Observatory

Ile-de-France Region Waste Management Observatory (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)

Organization that cites no sources and fails

WP:BEFORE search TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 20:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No references in fourteen years for this apparently self-published page? Rhadow (talk) 09:55, 6 February 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! 03:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gylles Mitchel

Gylles Mitchel (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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:46, 6 February 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! 03:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Malcolm Joseph

Malcolm Joseph (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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:43, 6 February 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! 03:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lobi Manzoki

Lobi Manzoki (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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep - Per GiantSnowman. I also found 5 among many many more English, French, Chinese, and Swahili sources. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources linked by GS meet requirements. We only need 2 RS showing non-trivial coverage and we have that here. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, lazy nom with no BEFORE.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:35, 8 February 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! 03:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy backon

Sammy backon (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)

BLP of an elected local councillor. Does not pass WP NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 00:11, 6 February 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_February_6&oldid=1139195779"