Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< January 07	January 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remote location stress reaction

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

This seems to be a

combat stress

. I couldn't find any results for either of the names this "condition" in Google, Google Scholar, JSTOR or Google Books.

Since most of the article seems to be pulled from information about WWI and WWII (not data logging), I think this might be a hoax. I definitely can't find any sources for a stress disorder caused by excessive data logging. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychology and Internet. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I was also unable to find any sources that cover this subject. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero mentions in any sort of academic literature sounds pretty hoaxy.

(stress ... caused by excessive data logging is actually a thing I have experienced before, but that was a very specific situation that is definitely not what this article is about.) ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 04:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:NEO. I found exactly one google scholar cite and one google news citation. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C/Z Records

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

WP:CORPDEPTH. Graywalls (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, California, and Washington. Graywalls (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NCORP is one avenue by which a record label can be deemed notable. By precedent, not all editors believe that NCORP is the best standard for record labels in all instances, and this is just such one case. A record label produces art, and is known by their art and artists, and therefore should also be judged based upon the cultural influence it has exerted. It is hard to overstate the cultural impact on Grunge culture of C/Z, as their issue "Deep Six" has been held by several sources to be the start of the grunge movement. The label was highly influential in the careers of several highly notable bands, including Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Melvins. I'm going to list a bunch of links. Some of them are SIGCOV, many are not but demonstrate the label's large influence, but there are at least three sources here that meet NCORP anyway. So it meets the spirit of NMUSIC #5, GNG, and NCORP. [1], [2], [3], [4] (can't see book, but C/Z is in the chapter title, which is highly indicative of substantial coverage), [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. This isn't even nearly the google books search results available. I have not searched newspapers.com or archive.org. Given their prominence in the Pacific NW grunge scene in the early days, it stands to reason there are several non-digitized publications waiting to be discovered that cover the topic.

So all that said, I am concerned about the current state of the article. Much of it fails

WP:V. For instance, I originally didn't find that The Presidents of the United States of America (band) recorded for them, but further research indicates that they did (reference is C/Z Records cat# CZ082) 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Reply @

WP:CORPDEPTH and significant, totally independent, reliable and secondary coverage? A bucket of numerous bits of window glass that adds up to the same weight as a full window can't be presented to equal an intact piece of window. For example, the coverage about C/Z Records in Nirvana FAQ was just a tad more than a mention. Graywalls (talk

)

If we are going to use NCORP for labels, why would we not want to use it for bands? Bands, after all, meet, to the T, the definition of the thing that NCORP covers - an association of people organized together for a specific purpose, and indeed, in nearly all cases an explicitly commercial purpose. What makes more sense is that people interested in music should evaluate musical topics, and in fact that is how WP:MUSIC has historically been interpreted. Chubbles (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because, the use of NBAND alternative evaluation criteria has been vetted by broad consensus, which you will see on the talk page for NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By that I take it you mean this discussion from 2007, which is not a broad consensus; it is a quick addition made as an afterthought. It is the only discussion of any depth that I could find on the NCORP talk page. If we are going to apply NCORP consistently, I see no rationale for why it should not also trump WP:MUSIC for bands as well. Chubbles (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Noted that the article could certainly stand improvement esp. in sourcing. However, per above, C/Z was a pretty significant presence in the Seattle grunge scene of the 80s and 90s. Deep Six is the defining compilation album of early grunge, and the label issued early tracks by multiple artists that later became both highly influential and commercially successful e.g. Nirvana, Soundgarden, as well as releases by acts that never became known to a wider audience but were nonetheless highly influential e.g. Skin Yard, the Gits, and/or had members that did achieve wider critical and commercial success with later acts e.g. Green River, Treepeople. I'm trying to be mindful of WP:civility, but I'm finding it hard to believe that anyone with knowledge of alternative music history would support this nomination. CAVincent (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good grief, this label is important. If NCORP dictates we should delete it, we may as well not bother covering independent labels at all. Luckily, people who are interested in music, rather than people who are interested in corporations, usually decide which label articles to keep and which not, and this certainly meets the sense of "one of the more important labels" mentioned in WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's been some voice to objection to assessment under NCORP and suggesting the use of NMUSIC. I disagree with this objection although I was not sure if there's been previous generally accepted consensus on this. I sought another input just on NCORP vs something else on things like record labels and recording studios. Please see/comment at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Categorization_of_notability_requisite_for_record_labels,_recording_studios,_art_collectives_and_like Graywalls (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice. I'm approaching my limit of how much time I want to devote to WP tonight but planning to read over and maybe comment further in the next day or two. Cheers. CAVincent (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- - @Graywalls:, don't you think in order to gain broad consensus you should have the conversation at a neutral location and then also notify the NMUSIC people, and perhaps put out a notice at WikiProject Record Labels? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 11:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed on this. Just going to NCORP may be a bit of forum shopping. CAVincent (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - If it makes you feel better, it's been added to NMUSIC discussion as well just now. Graywalls (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NCORP is a useful guideline for ensuring Wikipedia doesn't end up filled with spammy articles serving as adverts for present day corporations. I'm not convinced applying it to a record label that closed in 2001 is appropriate or beneficial to the wiki. The above arguments make a good case for keeping the article. Garuda3 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I belive as others have said that if this does not meet the letter of NCORP it meets the spirit of
WP:NCORP. Lightburst (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eyring Research Institute

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

I can only locate minimal sources on this company; and none that satisfies

WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Utah. Graywalls (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current article isn't very good, but Eyring Research Institute played a role in the early history of technology in Utah Valley. You can see this by the articles that link to it. This role is why per this release they were inducted into the Utah Valley Entrepreneurial Forum's Hall of Fame in 2011, following companies like WordPerfect and Novell. You can also see some of their history, contracts, and big-name customers in Utah newspaper stories from the time like this one from 1973 and this one from 1979 and this one from 1980 and this one from 1981 and this one from 1983 and this one from 1985 and so on. Some of the pieces are on the boosterish side but they establish that it was an enterprise of some significance in the area. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in evaluating notability, press releases have no bearing in establishing notability. In order for a company/organization to be deemed notable, there needs

significant, independent and reliable coverage in multiple sources. Coverage by the same journalist or the same publication counts as one. The Hall of Fame host is not independent and being in the host's press release is nothing like being mentioned for being in Utah Valley Entrepreeurial Forum in a multi-page article dedicated to Eyring Research Institute in PC Magazine. The link to it from Novell was added by what appears to be a connected contributor/SPA in Special:Diff/127481326 Graywalls (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment The diff mentioned about was where Eyring Research Institute was added into Novell. It was in Special:Diff/136422976; again by the same COI/SPA editor where wiki link to ERI was added. Graywalls (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotta say, characterizing these contributions as coming from a SPA, or indicated a COI, seems completely unwarranted to me here. A gentle reminder to

WP:AGF. Suriname0 (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually that editor was indeed an SPA of sorts, whose contributions revolved around some claims and disputes associated with the Eyring Research Institute, WordPerfect, and Novell, as described in this Deseret News story from 2003. I'm not saying those contributions are sound or that those claims are true. I'm saying that the Eyring Research Institute was a real entity that played a role of some significance in the rise of tech industry in Utah Valley. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. Graywalls (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore
HighKing⁺⁺ 22:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. If this is a non-profit, then the
WP:NCORP guidelines for companies. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

In which case, this doesn't. This is essentially constrained to Utah. Also, the intent of the guideline you cite isn't black or white simply based on the classification status of the organization in question by the IRS tax code. Graywalls (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real definition of what constitutes a non-profit, but it was initially founded as a charity but later (which is in the article) The Utah Supreme Court terminated ERI's tax exempt status in 1979 because the Court found that ERI was not devoted to a charitable purpose. So in my opinion, at least from a tax code pov, I don't believe it is a non-profit.

HighKing⁺⁺ 13:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NCORP. Coverage is simply press releases. BruceThomson (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per

WP:INHERITORG and lack of reliable sources. Wozal (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

The result was merge to Saint Antony's Syro-Malabar Church, Ollur. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Matha Syro-Malabar Church, Ollur

)

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

Fails GNG and WP:NBUILDING. No results in Wikipedia Library and news. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 23:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and India. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 23:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to
church building administered by the Saint Antony parish. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge as suggested. Currently unsourced. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saint Antony's Syro-Malabar Church, Ollur.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Saint Antony's Syro-Malabar Church, Ollur, as not enough coverage for a standalone article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It lacks citations and it doesn't include much the suggested merge article is missing: it being in Ollur under Saint Anthony's Syro-Malabar Church is already stated in Saint Antony's Syro-Malabar Church, Ollur.User:Referencer12 (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As User:Referencer12 mentions above, there's nothing to merge. The sourced information is already at the target article. There's really nothing to merge. Joyous! | Talk 03:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the available sourcing doesn't satisfy

WP:NCORP. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Bounce Scooter Share

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

Only PR Based News. Non notable company. Lordofhunter (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sufficient sources to establish that this company meets
WP:NCORP. Jfire (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Singh, Manish (2020-01-23). "Indian bike rental startup Bounce raises $105M". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2023-01-01.

Singh, Manish (2021-12-02). "Bounce's first electric scooter features swappable battery, costs less than $500". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2023-01-01.

"Bounce's shared mobility business shrank 83% during the pandemic". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2023-01-01.

Techcrunch source shared is not even considered reliable here. In the ET we don't have the journalist's name, the whole news is based on the Financial report filed and the company future plan announcements. Lordofhunter (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just examples. There are many, many sources available.

Goel, Vindu (2019-05-05). "Ride-Sharing's Future? It May Sit on Electric Motorbikes". The New York Times.

ISSN 0362-4331

. Retrieved 2023-01-03.

Walmsley, Julie. "India's Bounce Zips Up Another $72 Million To Continue Scaling Scooter Culture". Forbes. Retrieved 2023-01-03.

"Bounce is running out of cash". The Morning Context. Retrieved 2023-01-03.

"From Scooter Rental To EV Player: How Bounce Morphed To Survive The Pandemic". Forbes India. Retrieved 2023-01-03.

Singh, S. Ronendra (2021-10-22). "Bengaluru-based start-up Bounce targets $1 billion turnover in the next two years". www.thehindubusinessline.com. Retrieved 2023-01-03.

Patwa, Prasannata (2020-01-24). "This Motorcycle Lover Turned His Passion Into Business". Entrepreneur. Retrieved 2023-01-03.

Ahmed, Amaan (2022-07-28). "Bounce Infinity E1 e-scooter completes Kanyakumari to Khardung La ride, covering 4,000+ km inside 3 weeks". NEWS9LIVE. Retrieved 2023-01-03.

Livemint (2022-04-08). "Bounce Infinity begins E1 production, deliveries to start from this date". mint. Retrieved 2023-01-03.

S.H, Salman (2020-12-15). "Of Pivots, Calibration And A New Road Map: How Bounce Is Resurrecting Its Stalled Journey". Inc42 Media. Retrieved 2023-01-03.

Shanthi, S. (2021-11-11). "India's EV Race Begins Again; After Ola, Bounce To Launch Electric Scooter". Entrepreneur. Retrieved 2023-01-03.

It's not a close call. This company very clearly has received significant coverage. Jfire (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those were examples? I don't understand what you are trying to prove then. I will not interact if you share more such examples which even you know, are pointless. Please share your fav 2 sources not a list of junk. Don't share non-reliable sources like livemint. Entreprenue.com is not independent at all, totally driven by PR material. I have a similar comment on other sources. Kindly don't share funding, launches, announcements, or future plan-related news. Lordofhunter (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times doesn't even talk about the company in detail, it mentions Ola, Uber, Vogo and Bounce, all in relation to the industry in general. We require substantive information in the article about the thing you're trying to have a wikipedia article be about. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore
in-depth information *on the company*
. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company - e.g. simply regurgitating quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews - these fail ORGIND. Here's a review of the references:

This in Money Control and this in VCCircle are funding announcements of the same funding round. They're all published using the same information and around the same date. They all rely entirely on the same information with no "Independent Content" as required by ORGIND. Here are five other articles all from the same time period, all regurgitating the same information. These references fail ORGIND
This in Hindu Business Line is about the parent company and doesn't mention the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
This in Entrepreneur is a puff piece times to coincide with the Series D funding round mentioned above and relies entirely on interviews and information provided by the company/execs along with their investors. There is no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND
This about the name change from Metro Bikes to Bounce is based on an annuncement at the time of their investment round in 2018, same as this article in VCCircle, no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
Both this and this from Business Standard are both based on company announcements with insufficient "Independent Content", fails ORGIND
This in inc42 is based entirely on what a company spokesperson told the publisher, followed by a basic and oft-repeated company description (e.g. here and here), fails ORGIND
This in CarTechNewz barely mentions any details about the company, focused as it is on a product. The topic is the company, not the product, fails CORPDEPTH

None of these meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. There's no doubt the company has an active PR and Marketing department, but volume of "coverage" doesn't translate into notability.

HighKing⁺⁺ 19:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Conflicting views on the sourcing, relisting for further discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Thinly-veiled PR piece; most sourcing is only mentioning the company in passing. Based on what I see, I don't even thing they're notable enough to have an article. It almost seems to be a minor business. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hartley Bolt 4 engine

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

Non-notable product. Mikeblas (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree, there is no indication about what this engine is used for: marine, street racing, lawnmowers? I can't find anything discussing the engine or the company. Lack of any sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Humphries

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

There is precisely one "Arthur Humphries" in the encyclopedia, and one "Arthur Humphreys". Unless I am missing something here, there is no need for a disambiguation page between these two different spellings. Any confusion can be handled in a hatnote. BD2412 T 21:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 21:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and move
Arthur Humphries (rugby union) to base name, linking the two articles by hatnotes. It seems that Humphreys article was created in 2009 using "Humphries" and immediately moved, leaving the redirect; when the article on Humphries was created in 2016 it should have been created overwriting the redirect but instead was given a disambiguated title. PamD 08:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nomination - hatnotes meet dab guidelines best here Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom two different spellings.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ndola Girls Technical High School

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ndola Girls Technical High School

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

Notability not established. The article is clearly promotional. The only articles linking to it are lists List of schools in Zambia and Lists of girls' schools except for a trivial reference to its location from Simon Mwansa Kapwepwe International Airport Hmee2 (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've toned down the promotionalism and added a new source which verifies their ranking as 3rd in the country on one measure. PamD 08:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It appears to be a reputable school. Tictictoc (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note Tictictoc has recently been blokced as a sockpuppet Hmee2 (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It could use another source or two maybe but it appears to meet
WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No significant coverage to meet
WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 11:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep - has 7 out of 10 factors in my standards for secondary schools. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Apart from that "AllAfrica" source, it is difficult to find any "source" for this school apart from Social Media sites & Location Sites. A web search isn't bringing the right results. GeographicAccountant (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the AllAfrica source, I was able to find [14] and this YouTube video by Paul Shalala, a renowned reporter from Zambia. House Blaster^talk 20:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the above sources show article meets GNG.

// Timothy :: talk 20:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Boudro

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

I'm not finding anything of substance in a BEFORE search to establish the notability of this artist. Does not meet

WP:NARTIST criteria for inclusion. The current article sourcing consists of three primary sources: galleries that show his work, one of which is a blog for the gallery, and the other is an online sales site - all of which do not count towards notability; and one ~~review~~ press release in Mixtemagazine, which is not enough to meet notability specifications. An online search on Google turned up social media, Google Books turned up nothing, and Newspapers.com had only calendar listings. No additional reviews of exhibitions, art historical analyses of his work, nor museum collections. Bringing it here for the community to weigh in. Netherzone (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, and Canada. Netherzone (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find this source [15] but that's about all. We'd need more to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:06, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding
WP: NARTIST Expandinglight5 (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@Expandinglight5, are there verifiable reliable sources for this that are independent of the artist? If so, could you please link them here? Not sure if that fits criteria #4, but it would be good for the community to assess these sources. Thanks! Netherzone (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails
WP:NARTIST. He has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. The sources presented are from galleries. The article from Mixte Magazine appears to be a press release. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I've added a few additional sources which helps support notability. Expandinglight5 (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider sources added late in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources added do not add to notability. One is a link to the gallery showing work. The other two are puff pieces International artist BOUDRO finally in Quebec City at Galeries Perreault Guy Boudro's pop art in Old Quebec. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 20:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources above fail to show notability, and also the article itself has no reliable sources. Fails NARTIST.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 20:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Henry (American football)

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

Just routine coverage, nothing in-depth enough to pass

WP:NSPORTS. Was deprodded with the addition of single source of short, routine sports coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is a big ten coordinator, besides him being first team all big ten and playing a bit in the nfl makes him notable.

Comment - none of those things passes GNG or NSPORTS.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG / SIGCOV. E.g., this (part one/part two), this (part 1/part 2), this, this, this, this, this, this. Cbl62 (talk) 00:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing provided by Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable having passed
WP:GNG with ample sourcing from a variety of sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per the sources provided by Cbl62. Clear pass of
WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 03:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep User talk:Cbowers77 07:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets
WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - obvious GNG pass. Rlendog (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Satisfying
WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Cbl62.
LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Meets
WP:GNG.HennSw123 (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep passes
WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Mall

Gulf Mall (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:TOOSOON. The article was this one from Doha News. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Qatar. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another of these non-notable mall/building articles by this same editor. Fails
WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete -
poorly referenced. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lakewind Sound Studios. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Lavery

Fred Lavery (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)

Semi-advertorialized
WP:BEFORE search for other sources I get a lot of glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, but virtually nothing that's about him for the purposes of building passage of GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Studio he operates seems notable [16] and [17], perhaps redirect there? Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to above - @Oaktree b:. Good idea Oaktree. I have now created an article for Lakewind Sound Studios. If the AFD discussion leads away from a keep, if could possibly be merged and redirected to article, this preserving the history. Thanks for taking the time to do some research and bring up the studio. Karl Twist (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for several reasons. First off, with only two citations, one of which is a governmental tourist board,
run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep or redirect & merge. Fred Lavery did compose the regional hit "Song for Noel". I just had a look at his credits on Discogs - here and it is fairly impressive. Also a C&P from the page content here "In 2001 Lavery won ECMA SOCAN "Songwriter of the Year" for "Get Me Through December" a song co written with Gordie Sampson recorded by Natalie MacMaster and sung by Alison Krauss. In the Spring of 2007 Alison Krauss included this song on her Rounder Records US release "A Hundred Miles or More". I haven't got time to do any more research. But anyway, if the article leans away from Keep, a redirect will preserve the history and when any more info is forthcoming, we could look at it as a standalone. Karl Twist (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment, gosh the article is so poorly sourced. It needs a fair amount of work to get it up to scratch Karl Twist (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Netgate

Netgate (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)

Its notability cannot
WP:INHERIT from pfSense. Before search for Rubicon Communications didn't yield anything ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find sales and technical info about the product but nothing independent about the company itself. Lamona (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails
WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolay Hristov (footballer, born 1985)

Nikolay Hristov (footballer, born 1985) (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 Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Bulgaria. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found a few bits of routine sports coverage but these mostly seem to relate to Nikolay Hristov (footballer, born 1989). I found Gol, which I presume to be about the 1985-born Hristov, but it's only a trivial mention. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion, and a reasonable basis in policy for keeping a list of proposals where the proposals themselves are or can potentially be sourced. I would further suggest moving everything that is in fact unsourced or self-sourced to the talk page for individual examination and discussion. BD2412 T 05:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of proposed national monuments of the United States

List of proposed national monuments of the United States (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)

Most proposals don't end up going anywhere and can be transient. Several of the external links in that column are already dead and the page isn't even that old! Obviously there's been so many more proposals over the years with varying extents of progress and support and it's not really objective to list them this way indefinitely. Plus more than half the list is just places named as potential candidates in an internal draft report from the Obama admin but which don't necessarily have advocacy or further proposals behind them. I just don't think being "proposed" or "potential" is certain, discriminate, and long-term important enough for this to be a list topic here. Reywas92^Talk 22:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete
WP:INDISCRIMINATE Dronebogus (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. It is valid and good for Wikipedia to cover these, like it does for many other types of proposed things, e.g.
List of U.S. state partition proposals. Sourced, useful to cover history of failed past proposals and to cover proposals looking forward. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The list-article was previously much longer, but has been reduced by edits by the deletion nominator and perhaps others. One big reduction edit in the history has an edit summary suggesting it was eliminating items that were once proposals which were eventually accepted. Which could be reasonable, but actually I don't see why some/many proposals might not have been "partially" accepted and partially not, so still be outstanding in effect. And also actually it is very appropriate to cover proposals that were notable by dint of years of protests, petitions, actions etc. The history of all that activity is notable on its own, and is relevant in considering ongoing proposals. "Once notable, always notable" applies to proposals too. I would agree that if there is no significant coverage of a given monument's proposal as such, and the monument is created, that its proposal itself may not be notable, and need not be listed (consistent with some standard for "list-item notability", to be discussed by editors at the Talk page).

The big reduction edit (with edit summary "this doesn't make sense, by definition all of those that have been created were formerly proposed") removed an entire section "Formerly proposed national monuments" which covered substantial proposals. Including the Big Ears case which was subject of contention and where much less than originally proposed was eventually made into a monument by President Trump. The reduction deletes mentions of Big Ears Collective, Save the Front, and other organizations/movements involved in various proposals. That section also included an introductory statement of reasons for keeping proposals in the list, too. I think the removal of all that was a Bold edit which should be Reverted and Discussed. It is fine for the deletion nominator to disagree with the previous standard for notability of list-items, but that is a matter for Talk page discussion. In past AFDs, sometimes a deletionist cuts down an article and then proposes it for deletion with justification "look how little there is", which is a tactic for "winning" and not right; that is not what happened here (note the big reduction edit was in Sept 2021, more than a year ago). However it still is a bit confusing that a large amount of material was already deleted (and to me it makes sense to have a section on formerly proposed cases). Now, I think that the big deletion should be Reverted and Discussed at the Talk page (I suppose after this AFD is closed).

Also, I don't quite understand the deletion nominator's next deletion, also in Sept 2021. This all needs more attention, and I will post notices of this AFD at
wt:HSITES, and perhaps elsewhere. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:36, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, of course practically everything in List of national monuments of the United States had been previously proposed. So why would you list previous proposals here as well? Honestly I think that section was so bad that it makes a stronger argument for deletion. Sure, those were conservation efforts that were succesful in Obama's second term, but there are 130 national monuments altogether, plus many more that have been protected in other ways! I mean, a "national monument" is not necessarily the end goal, it just can be easier to get a presidential proclamation than a bill through Congress to get a site protected. If there are "years of protests, petitions, actions" (very few national monument proposals actually even reach that), obviously that can be covered in their respective articles, but such a vague list like this doesn't fit that. Similarly "Big Ears Collective, Save the Front, and other organizations/movements involved in various proposals" should all be in the Bears Ears article, but there's no need to list that here – it's a list of ideas, not an article about issue advocacy groups and conservation.

I'm still confused why the status column I removed was there. If a monument was in fact created, it would go on the primary list and removed from this one. One can add some sort of summary of what the groups are working on I suppose, but there's not an objective progress bar or boxes to check for that, and moreover, most on this list would now have a status of "website dead" and questionable encyclopedic value and need to be grouped. I mentioned this to Cielquiparle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deanna Lynn Wulff, where an advocate of a proposed monument here had written an autobiography, and I moved relevant info about that proposal to Sierra_National_Forest#National_monument_proposal. But to be clear very few proposals get much media attention (+my reply below). Reywas92^Talk 17:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. However, I note that the National monument (United States) article itself does not have a link to this list. Also, if a portion of a proposed monument does become recognized, wouldn't that article be the logical place to detail all the history of the proposal rather than retaining it in this list? Of course, if no part of a proposed monument has been recognized, then it may be proper to retain it in this list. The sticking point seems to be determining which proposals are "serious". Is there some official process for proposing a monument, or can any group just take it upon themselves to advocate for one? Indyguy (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
Pullman National Monument was just renamed a National Historical Park). The Owyhee Canyonlands row links this, but they're advocating for protection in general, not national monument in particular because it doesn't really matter! While all those on this list are natural, here's advocacy for a "national park site", which could include being a national monument, at least at first if made by Biden – should it be here? Grouping those with this particular proposed designation isn't particularly meaningful. And yes, histories of proposals can be interesting, but that should go in the respective place's article rather than in a table. Reywas92^Talk 17:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The deletion starts with comment "Most proposals don't end up going anywhere ..." which is a statement you can make based upon what? Upon the knowledge provided by existence of this list, I think, or at least I myself would not where to start in coming to a generalization like that (and if I did undertake a research study on my own, say to inform a given new proposal, I would certainly create a Wikipedia list-article about previous proposals if one didn't exist already). I believe that the collection together of information about multiple proposals is clearly useful. And other statements above are informed by the existence of this list (in current or larger previous version).

Also, it is pointed out that detailed history of a given proposal that achieves monument status can be included in the article about a new monument, rather than in this list. Sure, yes, but this list can and should include a summary pointing to that detailed discussion. Or, if editors at the monument article don't like so much being included about the proposal, that material can and should be covered here. Clearly IMHO some proposals are noteworthy. And then it is obvious IMHO that a list-article of the individually notable ones and other significant ones meeting a lower threshold of "list-item notability" is useful and valid. Very often, including IMHO here, having a list-article is useful for covering multiple items rather than having separate articles about them....and the list-article provides a sensible target for merging articles about less-than-individually-notable cases. It is simply good to have a list-article.

It is pointed out that a national monument designation is just one way that a given area can be protected, and that some proposals end up being resolved by other designations/protections being put in place. That is an argument for broadening the scope of the list-article to cover a broader set of protection possibilities, not at all for deleting it, IMHO. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 18:47, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is too indiscriminate to list any place, natural or historic, that is or was proposed to be protected, either as a national monument or as other designations. Whether proposals are likely to reach success or not, I think it's too speculative and irregular to list things that by definition do not exist together this way. There are many more conservation and heritage protection proposals for the current administration and Congress (once Biden moves forward with Draft:Avi Kwa Ame National Monument, I'll add a section to Environmental policy of the Joe Biden administration) and I've found many more historically as well (not to mention expansion proposals). Combining places that were just mentioned as potentials in a list not intended for public release and places that have – or had – advocacy behind them to varying extents that may or may not care about the particular type of designation is not the way to go. Write something in National monument (United States) about these procedures, but I don't think this page works and I don't intend to keep it updated as I do List of national monuments of the United States. Less-than-individually-notable cases will typically have a national forest or national conservation lands article that can cover them, or one for the place or topic (e.g. there's a proposed national historical park I added something about here – like this one, the park service has done many of these studies for proposed national park sites, but even with Congressional directives to do such research and outreach I don't think we should have a list specifically for proposals!). Reywas92^Talk 02:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hear your anguish about having a not-well-maintained list with not-extremely-good-or-obvious-standards-for-list-item-inclusion, and that it is in the topic area of national monuments where you have been taking responsibility. Thank you for your updating/maintaining the list of national monuments and the general
National Monument (United States)
article.

I agree the list is not great or very useful for readers now in its current state. For example, I see there is no explicit information about any national monument proposal at the article, Bodie Hills, linked from the first item. So the only info given by Wikipedia is that it was on a 2010 Department of the Interior "internal-type" list (which is something, not nothing). Browsing "Bodie Hills" on internet, I find my way quickly to this Bodie Hills organization with some statement of concern about endangerment. But I myself am not right now going to do the research and writing to develop a real world tangible proposal, nor to ferret out more about any proposals that have been made. However, there is an idea there.

The list is much less helpful, I think, for not continuing to show the past items like Bears Ears in table that was deleted (and should be restored IMO). It is a big strategy or tactic, to seek national monument designation, possibly available to local organizations like the Bodie Hills one, or to state- or national-level organizations. A related strategy or tactic is to get National Register listing for selected places like ruins in the Bodie Hills area, perhaps. In an advocacy type way, I'm interested in Wikipedia providing info on the general process of how the public can get places protected, by this tactic or others, and keeping a list of examples where this tactic was pursued, and succeeded or failed, seems highly relevant. This encyclopedia is not here to support advocacy, per se, but honestly I think you and I and most NRHP editors are somewhat motivated towards protecting places....writing articles nominally about somewhat protected registered places is partly to ensure the public knows about them, to further protect them....and I don't think it is bad for Wikipedia coverage to be heavier on advocacy-related things and lighter on possibly encyclopedic and objective topics like, i dunno, characters in online games, or maybe tables of properties of engineeered materials.

We both also might not like List of threatened historic sites in the United States, which is not well-maintained. OTOH, related list America's Most Endangered Places, is easy to maintain, as it objectively states what the National Trust for Historic Preservation's top 10 lists are for each year, and helpfully for the reader links to Wikipedia articles about those places.

Bottom-line, i also don't have very strong feelings here, but I do think the list-article topic is valid as something that could be a good, continuingly relevant Wikipedia list-article. It sure would be better if some editors were interested and maintaining it. But I don't recall AFD decisions of "delete" where the problem is just bad current status of an article, or vagueness of list-item notability determination. Those seem to be editing issues, to be addressed by tagging of articles and by jawboning at the Talk page and perhaps at related WikiProjects. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 03:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lists like this are speculative and don't belong in an encyclopedia. Farragutful (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all, thank you very much for the extensive discussion during the holidays. I originally created the list after I read about the Interior Department memorandum to track the progress of these proposals. When writing the list it turned out that there are also other proposals, not listed in the memorandum, with even more active campaigns (e.g. compared to some vague memorandum entries). Thus, the list expanded and much fewer national monuments were proclaimed compared to what I initially had anticipated / hoped. Although I am no longer sure about whether to maintain the entries for proposals which are meanwhile proclaimed as national monuments, I am strongly in favor of keeping the list of proposals. All web links worked when I created them and usually I create a web archive snapshot for links which I am adding, so there should be a good chance to repair meanwhile broken links. Chstdu (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, the issue with the dead links is that proposals and advocacy tend to be fleeting, not that the links don't work. Reywas92^Talk 03:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There appear to be 2 for deleting, 2 for keeping, and 1 neutral comment that's skeptical/lean delete. In lieu of a no consensus close, let's relist once more.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it could use a better explanation if we do keep it, past proposed monuments that never got protected or pending future designations that may or may not get designated. The first option is probably more useful as it would present historical info. The future can and will change. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good, that makes sense, and I agree with you that keeping it and improving explanation and extent of proposals....

So Delete this list, or at least BLAR it. Oaktree b (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...WHAt?!?!? The "So" does not follow at all. I just had to look up what you mean by "BLAR", and I see at
wp:TNT", an exhortation to delete everything and start over (this is exactly the same except that to get the past history of a page, an editor who is not an admin has to request it, rather than have it available in the redirect's history... either way is wiping out anything the public can see and wiping out what many/most editors can reasonably know about). In the past I saw wp:TNT being invoked way too often, and i saw it was pretty awful, and I and others were energized to create counter-essay wp:TNTTNT
to point out it is basically just wrong. If "BLAR" is being used as an argument(? not sure it is one ?) or being cited more widely than just here, I am inclined to review that and probably engage in wide-ranging battle against it.

For probably all the reasons expressed in wp:TNTTNT, the call for "BLAR" here is illogical and should be opposed. Starting with the fact that its invocation is acknowledging the validity of the article topic (which Oaktree b explicitly acknowledges). So I say: STOP. WE ARE DONE. The topic is valid, then the resolution is "KEEP". Almost anytime anyone invokes TNT to call for deletion (with the exceptions including cases of copyvio and plagiarism), they are acknowledging the validity of the topic and the result should be KEEP. (If you want, please consider other logical paths of reasoning in wp:TNTTNT which also bring one back to "KEEP").

To the future closer, I request that you consider Oaktree b's !vote to be one for "KEEP". Not just neutral, or to be dismissed, but actually please consider this as a positive !vote KEEP, per their reasoning as far as it goes. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete My main argument here was initially going to be that this (and similar) articles support the national bias of Wikipedia, because similar lists for other countries would likely get deleted very quickly. But it turns out that there are several list-articles of all sorts of proposals, for example of proposed railway stations and power stations. Regardless, I don't think articles like that have any place in an encyclopedia, being mostly trivia. The proposals could (and probably should) be mentioned on the individual monuments' pages, but it does not warrant a separate list. Kaffe42 (talk) 20:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, this does not make sense to me either. "Being mostly trivia"? If any of the proposals covered is not a serious, reasonable initiative to seek national monument protection for an eligible area, then yes it should not be included. You mean like, if there are "joke" proposals, or ridiculous proposals where some group of crazed fans of a celebrity who once walked thru the area want it consecrated, or what? On the other hand, if there are "false"-type proposals where for political or strategy reasons some proposal is made to further something entirely else, well actually that should be covered. Anyhow, this is to be addressed by sensible editing, and is not for AFD. About bias, that is to be addressed by bringing more attention to comparable proposals in other countries. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Meets LISTN and provides useful information and is a Navigation tool. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Lists // Timothy :: talk 21:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kingoodie artefact

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

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

This topic lacks significant coverage; there's not even enough sourcing to establish the context or significance of the "nail". The only sources are an 1845 primary-source description in an apparently reliable journal and a modern "debunking". These do not provide enough information to write a balanced article or meet the basic requirements of GNG. I did not find further RS coverage in my BEFORE search. –dlthewave ☎ 18:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Archaeology. –dlthewave ☎ 18:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources I see are literal conspiracy theories
Out of place artifact
style things, and it gets a blurb.

Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG. -Roxy the dog 08:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The initial report of the discovery is very brief and, with the exception of Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews blog post which highlights some of the issues and gives some useful context, subsequent mentions do not add further detail. On balance, the coverage is not significant enough to pass general notability guidelines. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plenty of academic coverage of valid findings from historic Kingoodie sites, nary a mention of this. This might be worth a sentence at Kingoodie if that article ever features any substantial treatment of the valid stuff. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails
WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miloš Ubović

Miloš Ubović (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. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all I can find is Dnevnik and Ns Fudbal, both way short of requirements. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Mitic

Scott Mitic (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:BIO. The sources that mention the subject are actually about other subjects, not the subject of this article directly. I see issues here with puffery via REFBOMB. The author also wrote an article about a company founded by this person and I have COI concerns around that. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 15:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "a professional in the field" simply means he works, I don't find reviews for the one book he wrote and the rest doesn't seem much beyond routine coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't seem to be much significant coverage on the subject, probably fails
WP:BIO. All the given references mention him only in passing and his book is not particularly well-known. It seems that his most noteworthy accomplishment is founding the company TrustedID, later acquired by Equifax. Possibly merge into Equifax. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 17:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete only passing references fails
WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Academy Islamabad

Westminster Academy Islamabad (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)

Promotional article about a private school without any coverage. JamesH567 (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Pakistan, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 15:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Clearly fails
WP:NSCHOOL. Insight 3 (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Just an ordinary college and nothing notable, which does not fulfill the
WP:NSCHOOL. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No significant coverage to meet
WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete fails
WP:NSCHOOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to Rugby union#Variants. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ten man rugby

Ten man rugby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination
)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. I could not find any sources which go beyond a mere mention. Steelkamp (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Steelkamp (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rugby union#variants Not enough for a standalone article, some of this information can be merged to the main rugby union article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Merge with Rugby union gameplay or Glossary of rugby union terms. CUA 27 (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Due to the ambiguity with other variant names and usages - the inclusion within the glossary would be very helpful JarrahTree 03:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Editors are encouraged to make improvements to the article, as indicated in this discussion, to prevent renomination in the near future.
(non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 13:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

NER Class Z

NER Class Z (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)

Aside from being virtually uncited, Can't find enough in-depth sourcing to show that other than existing, it was notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is plenty of material available (although I expect that some of it is duplicatitive), it just needs somebody to visit their library and write it up properly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually can't find more than 2 duplicates of sources Ilovejames5 :) 10:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean that two sources may actually provide the same information as each other. Nock, for example, is famous for plagiarising his own books - his prolific output is partly due to him lifting paragraphs (even whole chapters) from an earlier book in order to quickly fill out a later book. I wouldn't be surprised if portions of Locomotives of the North Eastern Railway (pub. 1954) also appear word-for-word in British Locomotives of the 20th Century: Volume 1 1900-1930 (pub. 1983). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand. ~~Also, do you like my new signature?~~ Ilovejames 5 :) 12:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you use the sources with earlier dates if they are duplicatitive ? Ilovejames 5🚂:) 03:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You probably won't be able to get hold of them all, use the ones that you can find. Yesterday I added some info from Ahrons. If you have several, use the most reliable - definitely The Engineer, if you have a subscription. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of sourcing given in the article and identified above. Article does need a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is poorly written and its original author incompetent, but the class of locomotives is notable. I'm seeing results such as [18], but I'm not having great success since I'm in the US and not very familiar with U.K. sourcing. Going to AGF that Redrose64's sources are significant coverage. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It takes time to add sources. Also it appears Onel5969 is bullying me, as he is removing my uncited info but keeping uncited info by others, so this shouldn't be deleted Ilovejames5 :) 08:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nom.
(non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Bridget Twar

Bridget Twar (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)

She gets a few mentions, but couldn't find a single source which goes in-depth about this individual. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - by nom. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per
WP:NPOL. Shoerack (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Per Shoeracks arguments. Kaffe42 (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to EVT Limited. czar 09:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

British Empire Films

British Empire Films (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. They do appear to have distributed notable movies in Australia though they don't appear to have significant coverage about their film distribution as a company. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Business. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Book searches show a little coverage of BEF, though in relation to the associated Cinesound: example. Perhaps redirecting to
alternative to deletion? AllyD (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Sure a redirect works or a merge if relevant to Cinesound Productions. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete— I really could not find any sources on it other than maybe this journal. I can't access it, but possbile merge if it states that Cinesound Productions and British Empire Films are connected. Also, I'm not sure if this page copied the Wikipedia article or vice versa. 🧐 Mike Allen 16:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have thought there would be something for the company, plenty of hits for films about the Empire, nothing for the company. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there's enough coverage in Trove Newspapers to suggest notability. Looks like it was established in 1932 (first link). A lot of the hits will probably refer to films from the British Empire rather than production company but there are over 6000 hits for "British Empire Films". The most recent hits are from the 1990s which refer to it as defunct. Piecesofuk (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fun find, though most appear to be what often would be considered press releases or just information about on-going business such as a review of a movie they were the distributor for. The Monday 7 January 1952 one does have potential to show a bit a notability. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that 1952 article is about the company or just a film from the British Empire. I think this is a better search for the company in Trove , gives far fewer hits but more likely to be about the company. It might also be worth searching in archive.org as there are hits for it in a number of books on the history of cinema, eg its formation is mentioned in John Sedgwick - Towards A Comparative Economic History Of Cinema, 1930 to 1970 & Studies in Australasian Cinema - Volume 1 Issue 3 which seems to compare it to other distribution companies like Warner Brothers, United Artists and Twentieth Century Fox. According to the BFI here was a production company called British Empire Films that existed in the 1910s but probably nothing to do with the Australian distributor. Piecesofuk (talk) 10:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that at some point the company changed its name to BEF Film Distributors and has a production credit on Picnic at Hanging Rock (film) (BFI) Piecesofuk (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and according to History and heartburn : the saga of Australian film, 1896-1978 BEF changed its name to GUO Film Distributors in August 1976 Piecesofuk (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any information of what name it went under before becoming BEF? KeepItGoingForward (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was formed in 1932 as British Empire Films (source). Not sure when it was renamed to BEF Film Distributors but there's an article in the Times from 1970 that refers to it as "B.E.F. Film Distributors (formerly British Empire Films)" Piecesofuk (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it seems that there was an earlier incarnation from 1930 called Union Theatres Feature Exchange, see https://caarp.edu.au/company/view/570 "distribution company established by Union Theatres in 1930 as it sought to re-enter film distribution. Previously the distribution arm of the company had been Australasian Films. During the 1920s the distribution business of the company had dwindled as American companies moved to direct distribution and the Australasian/UT combine had centred its activities on building and operating cinemas. With the financial crash of 1929, UT reopened its distribution business as UTFE and specialised in British films. This became the basis for its later name British Empire Films (BEF)" Piecesofuk (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, maybe someone can look into new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per piecesofuk, looks like enough sources in Trove. Deus et lex (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~as per the additional reliable sources identified in this discussion that show a pass of
WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC) changing to Merge to EVT Limited Atlantic306 (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
HighKing⁺⁺ 21:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to EVT Limited As per HighKing, I would support a merge/redirect. Equine-man (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to EVT Limited. There have been significant discoveries (above) since my last comment. Mike Allen 17:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As the opener of the AFD based on the research found during the AFD I think a merge sounds to be a good plan. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of trees of Denmark

List of trees of Denmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

PROD was removed but I felt the reason still applies, thought to put it up for AfD afterwards "In the category 'Trees by country' this is the only one that is a list article; would be better to delete and tag species as such for a category in line with standards." per Kazamzam --Izzy Moony_{Hi new friend!} 11:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this discussed for deletion exactly? Im new at W:AFD. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Lists, and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and create and populate the category Category:Trees of Denmark instead. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a pointless list. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unclear scope. The title would make one think this is about individually notable trees, but its not. I do not see how "List of tree species of Denmark" is useful either, as above better as a cat. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus against deletion, and no consensus to move to draft, where a clear consensus would be necessary, bearing in mind this article's age (more sources have also already been added since the "draftify" votes) so I'm closing this one as keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

La Excelencia

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/La Excelencia

Articles for deletion/La Excelencia (2nd nomination)

La Excelencia (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 have been keeping an eye on this page for a few years now following the split of
proven wrong but after four years of hoping someone will succeed where I failed I think it's time to cut our losses. Primefac (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and New York. Primefac (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no discussion yet. One last attempt at a relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's not exactly correct that this is a "one-source article" as the nominator states; besides the NYT article, there is an article in Latin Beat Magazine in the references section but not cited inline, which unfortunately isn't available online. Additionally, my search found this article from Indy Week; given this, I think the band meets GNG. Hatman31 (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft pending improvement with the addition of other sources sufficient to clear the notability bar. BD2412 T 05:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per above. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 15:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hatman31; there's also a review in the Washington Post (
WP:TNT. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep per
WP:TNT, I don't think drafting is necessary here. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment. @
WP:TNT). Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 07:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on
"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

2023 APIA Leichhardt FC season

2023 APIA Leichhardt FC season (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)

Declined at
WP:CRYSTAL to presume that it would be notable at this moment. Looking in news articles, I can see some passing mentions of APIA Leichhardt but nothing to substantiate a stand-alone article. If anything newsworthy happens in this coming season, it should be written in the APIA Leichhardt FC article. I see no reason for a separate article for the season. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Khoury

Jackson Khoury (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)

Declined 3 times in draft space then moved over to mainspace with no improvement. Subject is a semi-pro footballer with no significant coverage cited. The 2nd reference is archived here but only mentions the subject twice and it's only a basic match report. Only other sources that I can find in my
WP:GNG and Khoury demonstrates neither as he only has database coverage and trivial mentions. He wouldn't have met the old notability standards based on professional play either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, semi-pro/youth playeyer lacking significant coverage. --Mvqr (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond roster lists, no sourcing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrew my nomination. Best,
(non-admin closure) Reading Beans (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Larry L. Meyer

Larry L. Meyer (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 author. Does not meet GNG. Reading Beans (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Literature, and United States of America. Reading Beans (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - his author bio on his website suggests he's potentially notable (professor of journalism, longtime magazine writer) but that the sources are likely to have been published a long time ago. This article could be a good target to fix up if someone has time to do the research. Blythwood (talk) 08:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep, I think he's going to pass
WP:Author
.
Reviews of Shadow of a Continent in Louisiana History[19], The Pacific Historian(journal pg 231, file pg. 124)[20], Journal of the West[21], capsule review in Arizona and the West (journal pg 198)[22].

Related to No Paltry Thing: Memoirs of a Geezer Dad, a Publishers Weekly review[23], Kirkus review[24], a Daily Pilot profile[25].

Review of the co-authored Rancho Los Alamitos: Ever Changing, Always the Same in History Teacher[26], Pacific Historical Review[27]

Review of My Summer with Molly in Library Journal[28].

Updated. Jahaza (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:AUTHOR. I added the reviews above to the article, and a few more besides. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per the reviews
WP:NAUTHOR criteria 3. VickKiang (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

'Withdrawn per the citations added by Epstein. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per discussion at
WP:DRV (here), the original close was overturned to delete. As noted by some editors, the AfD had already been relisted twice, and the keep !votes where either by sockpuppets or were rebutted by those chossing to delete, which had stronger arguments. The fact we are dealing with a BLP pushed some editors towards the more conservative route of deletion. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Fatih Mehmet Gul

Fatih Mehmet Gul (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 significant coverage from independent reliable sources found. Fails
WP:BIO. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, and United Arab Emirates. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of RIS. Mccapra (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The majority of the references are from dependable sources, hence they satisfy
WP:ANYBIO. Sooterout (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:ANYBIO? I don't see how the fact that majority of sources are dependable make him satisfy any of the three criteria for ANYBIO. Even if they are reliable, I am uncertain if all are independent, and they don't have significant coverage on the person. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:26, 1 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!} 07:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~Delete Most of the coverage is actually coverage of the hospital he runs. ~~But he made a Forbes list of 50 leaders transforming healthcare.~~ BruceThomson (talk) 08:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BruceThomson: that forbes list is from forbesmiddleeast.com, and not Forbes itself. Anyone can nominate themselves on Forbes Middle East,[29] so this is different to Forbes. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. BruceThomson (talk) 09:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would have vote for delete but While making futher research I found this [30] BruceThomson Is not anybody that apply that actually get selected on Forbes middle east kindly see [31][32] According to Forbes, the CEOs were ranked based on five criteria, including impact on the region, experience, size of company, achievements and innovations.And Forbes middle east is not fake but a local edition of regions see Forbes it listed among the 45 local edition.Princek2019 (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that
WP:ANYBIO. And there doesn't seem to be enough coverage of the subject to support general notability. BruceThomson (talk) 03:49, 4 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!} 05:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google hit shows multiple reliable source from different independent reliable sources which clearly illustrates that the article has pass
WP:ANYBIO. Puvasoca (talk
) 6:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@
WP:ANYBIO.. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. While the participants are evenly divided, I'm more persuaded by the opinions and experience of those advocating Delete while almost all of those editors suggesting we keep this article are inexperienced, have low edit counts and don't seem to understand SIGCOV. The article creator has a version of this piece in their sandbox but if they would like to work on this article in Draft space, let me know. But be aware that a swift move back to main space will result in a second article deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Kemmer

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

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

Appears promotional for a non-notable businessman, nothing found in Gnews or other sources. Google only returns his personal website and various social media accounts. Discussed technology in various sources, nothing talking about him as a person. Also created by a SPA with no edits outside of this article. Oaktree b (talk) 02:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Spaceflight. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I just searched Gnews and lot of articles are coming up. Including articles recently in the last few weeks. Check it out: https://news.google.com/search?q=%22aaron%20kemmer%22&hl=en-PH&gl=PH&ceid=PH%3Aen. Maybe some of the recent news articles should be included on the page? Not sure why it would be deleted...

Also, I just did a check, I also don't see any social media links or links to personal websites, or promoting anything really. Can you point to where those are?

I think we could clean this up though and update it more.Mollymiller (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC) Mollymiller (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I’m kind of confused on the reasoning for deletion… did you get a chance to check the reference links?

Just researched this more and it looks like Aaron's accomplishments meet
WP:NBUSINESSPERSON
and related rules on companies.

https://getmagic.com/blog/the-present-and-future-of-work-magic-on-at-your-doorstep/

https://www.madeinspace.com/

This also meets
WP:BIO
for being recognized to lead the first program with NASA for the first manufacturing device used in space.

https://www.issnationallab.org/implementation-partners/made-in-space/

https://techcrunch.com/2020/09/22/made-in-space-is-sending-the-first-ceramic-manufacturing-facility-in-space-to-the-iss-next-week/

He also created several companies like Magic, which a quick
WP:GTEST
shows several pieces on.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Magic+inc&rlz=1C1UEAD_enPH994PH994&oq=Magic+inc&aqs=chrome..69i57j46i433i512j46i131i433i512j69i65j69i60l2j69i65j69i61.3610j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=Lab+At+Home&rlz=1C1UEAD_enPH994PH994&ei=vVOkY6vmBMPR-Qa4j6iYDQ&ved=0ahUKEwjruP_1oo38AhXDaN4KHbgHCtMQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=Lab+At+Home&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIECAAQRzIECAAQRzIECAAQRzIECAAQRzIECAAQRzIECAAQRzIECAAQRzIECAAQR0oECEEYAEoECEYYAFDgCljlDGDmDmgAcAJ4AIABAIgBAJIBAJgBAKABAcgBCMABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Last month it looks like Aaron judged the Miss Earth international beauty pageant, hitting
WP:LASTING
criteria as the pageant is a long-running and reputable organization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Earth_2022

https://www.philstar.com/entertainment/2022/11/30/2227522/korea-wins-miss-earth-2022-philippines-top-20

I actually found some stuff that’s not there and maybe should be included on the page- It looks like there's a new article about Aaron producing an AI film out (I just found that was written today. I don’t know much about the topic so I don’t feel comfortable adding it myself), but it seems to hit
WP:ANYBIO
requirement:

https://news.abs-cbn.com/life/12/22/22/watch-this-short-film-was-directed-and-written-by-ai

https://entertainment.inquirer.net/477117/the-safe-zone-the-first-film-written-and-directed-by-artificial-intelligence

Also, it looks like he went to University of Florida and was listed as one of The 20 Most Notable University of Florida Alumni in Business which meets
WP:GNG
guidelines.

https://moneyinc.com/most-notable-university-of-florida-alumni-in-business/

I suggest editing the article to keep it updated rather than deleting. Maybe we clean it up instead?

Here are some other references I found on some quick Google searches:

https://news.google.com/search?q=%22aaron+kemmer%22

https://push.abs-cbn.com/2022/12/21/fresh-scoops/richard-juan-produces-short-film-directed-by-ai-10-204507

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2015/01/05/30-under-30-reinventing-manufacturing-in-a-greener-tech-savvier-world/

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/first-3-d-printer-space-makes-its-first-object-spare-n255516

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/29/nasa-prepares-launch-3d-printer-space

https://www.universetoday.com/112548/3-d-printer-to-fly-to-space-in-august-sooner-than-planned/

~~~~ Mollymiller (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some/most of those aren't about him, but about stuff he's been involved with. There are no stories about him as a person. Oaktree b (talk) 04:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 06:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete per the sheer stretch needed to wring notability from these sparse mentions. BD2412 T 21:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep I am very inclined to believe that the person in question is notable largely due to the fact that the person is mentioned so often. Granted that yes, I would want to see more depth in terms of mentions, but I would imagine the person would have to be notable given the available sources and that it's not unusual to write an article through piecing together information from various sources. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything I can find is about the technology, not the person, and in some of the sources here he isn't mentioned. There is an article for Made In Space which I think is sufficient for the topic. Lamona (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm checking the links and finding specific pieces with Aaron, such as the first thing that popped up my news feed:

https://www.cnnphilippines.com/videos/2022/12/26/Richard-Juan-and-Aaron-Kemmer---The-Source.html
https://moneyinc.com/most-notable-university-of-florida-alumni-in-business/
It seems people are just focused on the Made In Space part, which is understandable since a lot of the older links focus on that, but I'm finding stuff focused on Aaron when I do quick searching around. Prizms08 (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)— Prizms08 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

One of those is a single paragraph, the other is an interview. Interviews are not third-party sources. The former does not provide enough biographical information for an article. Lamona (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just as an aside, I'm not stating this as a potential discussion closer, but being a beauty pageant judge does not help establish anyone's notability. I think it actually might cause readers to take this biography less seriously. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think being a beauty pageant judge is just one of the factors that leans towards notability. The pageant industry has a very large fan base and has been part of so many countries culture for centuries. In fact, there are 54 WP pages in the International beauty pageants category alone. Mollymiller (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - In agreement to Sky Harbor. The subject's involvement in various projects and organizations that continuously makes an impact in technology, entrepreneurship and his recent involvement in the field of arts/cinema should weigh greatly in keeping a separate article for him.

Also,
WP:WHYCITE
enables users to verify information on WP through citations and references. On that note, I would rather acknowledge someone being mentioned in more than 10 references from different sources than just one dedicated reference with nothing to cross reference it with. Technically, Aaron Kemmer meets both.
Improve the article - Yes, Delete - No! Gillianreyesv (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)— Gillianreyesv (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hello, Gillianreyesv,

This is your first and only edit. How did you find your way to this AFD discussion? Do you edit with any other accounts? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is very weak in the form of either interviews or passing mentions, and is always in the context of the companies he co-founded, whereas the notability is not
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to The Twelve (comics). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Wonder (Timely Comics)

Captain Wonder (Timely Comics) (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)

Minor comic book character that seems to fail
WP:ATD I can think of is redirecting this to The Twelve (comics). Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 1 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!} 03:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to
WP:ATD

Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per
WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavik Mehta

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

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

self promotional writing. Written about the topic by a user who identified his business. Appears not to satisfy
WP:GNG. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-advertising. Written by himself under his company name. Most of the sources provided are about the company, not the subject. His claims are that he teaches students, he founded a company, and he once was invited to a conference. -- Alexf^(talk) 03:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete nomination, and Alex leave nothing to added further. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails
WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. This AFD discussion is placed out of sync on the daily log page so this closure might be a bit early but I think the consensus is still clear and there is no editor advocating Keeping this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Nosta

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/John Nosta

Articles for deletion/John Nosta (2nd nomination)

John Nosta (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 individual lacks notoriety
The current article is merely promotional
Prior final recommendation was speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopod52792 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, and United States of America. AllyD (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is full of
WP:Puffery and I am shocked dindn't hit G7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WngLdr34 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment As I understand it from the log at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=John+Nosta the page was deleted in 2015 but was then reinstated in 2016 by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SwisterTwister, subsequently blocked as a Sockpuppet. Hmee2 (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So this is a SpeedyG5, thanksAsk me about air Cryogenic air (talk) Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a recreation of previously G7'd article. No indication that it passes
WP:GNG. Graywalls (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who: Philip Hinchcliffe Presents

Doctor Who: Philip Hinchcliffe Presents (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:RS. As an alternative to deletion I think this article should be redirected to List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish. OliveYouBean (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

NOTE: List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish transcludes this article - so deletion as suggested would require migration of the table to that article. Other than that I abstain from voting. Dresken (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish - I found no evidence that the subject is independently notable. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish, unnecessary duplication. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete amid suspicions that this is a hoax article that keeps being recreated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Mohammadi

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Mahmoud Mohammadi

Articles for deletion/Mahmoud Mohammadi (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Mahmoud Mohammadi (3rd nomination)

Mahmoud Mohammadi (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 in 2013 and recreated, another deletion nomination in 2015 led to "no result" but when I check the sources everything about looks fake to me, he never won anything in Junior/Youth level. United World Wrestling has a nice database and there is nobody with this name. I checked World and Asian tournaments in 1999 and nobody with this name (or similar to this) won a medal. based on the page he won a "Youth" medal at the age of 19, that's not possible! in this sport Youth means Under 17. and Lyon (France) didn't host any wrestling tournament in 1999. he only won a Pahlevani title which is not notable. there is almost no coverage about him in English sources. Sports2021 (talk) 01:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources for this person found, based on the discussion above, appears to be a hoax. Oaktree b (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to not be a real human. Possibly an algometric error?

Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American International University - Kuwait (AIU)

American International University - Kuwait (AIU) (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)

Creator is move warring, so we're here. Likely UPE and copypasta, definitely COI editing with no independent sourcing. If deleted, suggest SALT to enforce Afc until a proper article can be created. Star Mississippi 01:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Middle East, and Kuwait. Star Mississippi 01:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: And indef the author for UPE. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 14:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and indef their sock, Wikicgk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm taking this to SPI now. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 14:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment creator and friends sock blocked, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Juhrisel. Master wasn't blocked, so this isn't a G5. But hopefully the disruption will cease. Star Mississippi 22:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Not a good faith contribution to the encyclopedia. MER-C 04:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus here is clearly to Keep this article while the sourcing in this article could definitely be improved. The nominator should perhaps consider moving to other subject areas when suggesting articles that should be deleted as their assessments of academics are not shared by other participants in these discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Keysuk Kim

Stephen Keysuk Kim (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 no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The only references cited are academic user profiles and listings of self-published scholarly articles in scientific databases. Both the university profile and the database listings could actually be posted by the subject, so they are not independent sources. Furthermore, the citation count, which may indicate some importance, is merely a vanity metric and cannot be used alone to establish anything. The page is ~~virtually self-promotional~~ until reliable, independent sources are added. Multi7001 (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:NACADEMIC-5, as he holds a named chair. His work is not self published, and is highly cited. --Mvqr (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: Citation count is a vanity metric and not a reliable measure of notability. It is similar to social media shares. Some of the citations can very well be friends, students, colleagues, or other affiliates who cite the work in their own material. As to your mention of the subject holding a chair position at an organization, it isn't mentioned in the article or the sources. Overall, the page reads more like a resume or portfolio than an encyclopedia page. Multi7001 (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citations are not a vanity metric. As for the named chair, here's a citation for you: Journal of Business Research: "Stephen K. Kim is the Raisbeck Endowed Professor of Marketing at Iowa State University’s Ivy College of Business." --Mvqr (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article cited about being named chair is authored by the subject. And I don't believe that becoming chair of an organization establishes notability for inclusion, as notability is not inherited. Typical pages I've encountered on similar subjects usually have awards, honors, in-depth coverage of the subject in an academic journal editorial piece, mentions in books, and news media stories. This page just seems like an indiscriminate collection of information and ~~self-promotion~~. Multi7001 (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And again you call this "self-promotion". Substantiate your accusation or withdraw. --Randykitty (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm sorry, but citations are vastly different from social media shares. Throughout academia they are considered evidence of impact. NACADEMIC gives clear instructions on how to interpret citation counts and how they may satisfy the very first criterion. Reference 2 clearly states that Kim holds a named chair. I hope you won't now argue that the university is not a reliable source for this. And you still have not addressed your accusation that this is "self promotional". --Randykitty (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Holds a named chair (meets
WP:NACADEMIC-#1). Several of his publications have citations running into the hundreds, that can't all be self-citations. (And if you know ow to interpret them, citation counts are certainly not a "vanity metric"). And, Multi7001, what makes you think that this stub is "self-promotional"?? Are you suggesting that Vycl1994 is Dr. Kim?? Please provide evidence for that accusation or withdraw it. --Randykitty (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Update: The page reads like a resume and not encyclopedic. Tag added. Multi7001 (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If you think this stub looks like a resume, you obviously have never seen a resume... Tag removed. --Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please do not remove the tag until the page has been improved. Multi7001 (talk) 02:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put frivolous tags, that is considered
WP:BATTLE. --Randykitty (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

There must be independent source(s) added, or the page should be revised because it looks promotional. The only references cited are a resume/CV and a user-generated directory by the subject. Multi7001 (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is clearly a renowned scholar in his field of research, and some of his works are highly cited. Scholars are not celebrities with various news coverage, and he comes from a non-English speaking country. Perhaps someone who knows Korean can contribute some Korean language sources?--Sima Sam (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The purpose of this proposed deletion discussion is not to downplay the subject's presumed notability. But rather to debate whether it is encyclopedic and worthy of inclusion in the article space. If refraining from adding independent sources and relying only on user-generated sources that the subject created is the norm for pages involving scholars, then there should be no problem with keeping the page. However, the page will look promotional. Multi7001 (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have gone through the article with a fine-toothed comb. It is not promotional any more (if ever it was). There are 3 reliable sources, one of them independent of the subject. It would be nice if somebody could find some more sources so that the article could be expanded, but as it stands it meets criteria 1 and 5 of NACADEMIC. I would remind
personal attack about this article being "self-promotional". I see no evidence that the article creator is the article subject. --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Per WP:Notability: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics." In my opinion, this should apply to all articles, including those of scholars. Otherwise, it will look like an indiscriminate collection of information. My intentions are in good faith and solely to encourage discussion and improve the encyclopedia. Multi7001 (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep as he clears weakly NPROF, after being in the field almost 25 years these citation numbers are decent but not terribly impressive. Still there are 11 articles with 100+ citations which should clear the bar for NPROF. --hroest 03:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Named chair and some publications with over 100 citations each seems like a pass of
WP:NPROF to me. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC) P.S. Citation count is very much not just "a vanity metric". -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: To be specific, citation counts are vanity metrics when they are inadequate and involve the counting of non-peer-reviewed work. In the case of the subject, the count is modest at best. In my opinion, there should be more than just a modest citation count. There should also be awards and honors, as well as mentions in editorial scholarly publications, books, or mass media outlets, independent of the subject. Otherwise, it would be an indiscriminate collection of information. Multi7001 (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to be careful to not give the impression of
WP:BLUDGEON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: As previously stated, my intentions are in good faith. The purpose of this proposed deletion discussion is not to downplay or undermine the significance of the article's subject. Rather, it is to encourage discussion and improve the encyclopedia. I am neither against nor supportive of the subject. Multi7001 (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on
"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Aleksa Jovanović (footballer, born 1998)

Aleksa Jovanović (footballer, born 1998) (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. I didn't even find database entries for this player. Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pelmeen10 (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I looked around on Soccerway and noticed something really odd. This Aleksa Jovanović, allegedly born in 1998, played for Dinamo Vranje briefly then disappeared. The Soccerway profile for
WP:BEFORE is very difficult because the name is so common. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The majority of participants disagree with the nominator's position on this article subject. They are primarily Weak Keeps but they are still Keeps so that is the consensus I see here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bettina Renz

Bettina Renz (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)

All references cited are not independent of the subject. They are either published by the subject as part of self-PR or a basic academic user profile. None of which are significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. Multi7001 (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 01:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ironically here its a good example. All of these things are fairly common from working on government powered projects to accomplishing a PHD. Good find @Multi7001

Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is the author of a book that gets many independent reviews (see
WP:NAUTHOR

https://networks.h-net.org/node/10000/reviews/6515099/taylor-renz-russias-military-revival

https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/ASPJ/Book-Reviews/Article/1957547/russias-military-revival/

https://www.cejiss.org/images/docs/Issue_15-1/05_BR_Levine.pdf

She is an expert, quoted many times, with some examples following:

https://www.ft.com/content/e89dcba8-6264-436b-9b50-e8740d18e943

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2307922-meet-the-amateur-drone-pilots-defending-ukraines-border-with-russia/

https://www.bbc.com/somali/war-60978943

https://time.com/5534357/us-europe-nuclear-risks/

And most clearly, she is a "disginguished professor", which meets criterion 5 of
WP:NACADEMIC CT55555(talk) 13:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
And a quick note on using academic institutions as sources. Once the passage of one or more notability criteria has been verified through independent sources, or through the reliable sources listed explicitly for this purpose in the specific criteria notes, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details. from
WP:NACADEMIC (bold emphasis mine) CT55555(talk) 14:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Being consulted as an expert makes you notable for the record? I ask because as an expert in some fields I thought I would not fit notability as I am just quoted on the TV or radio Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk)

Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should stay away from the topic of your personal notability in this discussion. CT55555(talk) 14:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However, in case anyone is interested in how being quoted as an expert in media applies to this discussion, please see the notes at
WP:NPROF where you will read: ...the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area.. CT55555(talk) 14:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep she's frequently quoted as an expert and Russia's Military Revival is notable as a book with all the reviews. --Mvqr (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with AUTHOR based on the reviews above. The Air University seems iffy, the other two, ok. The war college press, not sure if being a member of the editorial board qualifies for ACADEMIC. Oaktree b (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The proposed page for deletion has been updated with numerous new references. The following is a rundown of all of them.

1. [33] Only a trivial mention and no significant coverage of the subject itself.

2. [34] Only a trivial mention and no significant coverage of the subject itself.

3. [35] A user profile.

4. [36] A user profile.

5. [37] A review that establishes some notability for a book but not a person.

6. [38] An online listing only. Notability is not inherited.

7. [39] Self-PR and not independent as a source.

8. [40] This source covers her book to a large extent, but no significant coverage of the individual subject.

9. [41] Self-PR and promotional.

10. [42] No significant coverage.

11. [43] A trivial mention. No significant coverage of the subject.

12. [44] A trivial mention. No significant coverage of the subject.

13. [45] The Azure Forum is not a reliable source.

14. [46] Self-published PR.

15. [47] A user-generated profile.

16. [48] The subject is not the main topic of the story. No significant coverage. Furthermore, the reliability of ukandeu.ac.uk is questionable.

17. [49] A user profile.

18. [50] An excellent, reliable source with significant coverage. However, this establishes notability for the book, not the person.

User profiles are only used to validate biographical info and not notability. Also, trivial mentions that do not stick to Bettina Renz—the subject—do not establish notability. Only one of the references cited provides significant coverage of the book but not the subject itself. There might be grounds to have a page for the book, but not for the person, unless there are multiple reliable, independent sources with significant coverage of the person and not a specific material. Multi7001 (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I disagree with this.
WP:BASIC details how If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability but I think my earlier point that she's notable based on the book and being widely quoted are legitimate reasons to vote "keep" even in the context of sources not individually giving substantial coverage. CT55555(talk) 04:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree she passes notability, and the reviews of Russia's Military Revival definitely make the book notable. If we had an article on the book there may have been a point in discussing whether to have both the author bio and the book article, but it's pointless when there is just one of the two. --Mvqr (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Nearly all of the independent sources that provide some coverage are merely descriptions of the book and not of the person's history, awards, honors, or achievements. In my opinion, this should be moved to a page of the book if there aren't multiple independent sources that demonstrate its notability. Currently, only one of the references is good, but that only demonstrates the notability of the book.

Please note, "significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. "Significant coverage" is more than a trivial mention. The references you assume provide depth of coverage only address an Eastern war and not the person's assumed notability. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Multi7001 (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A semester-long "distinguished visiting professor" position is not the kind of position to which
the academic notability guideline refers. The latter are academic ranks above full professor to which a scholar is elevated in recognition of a highly accomplished career. XOR'easter (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Neutral. I'm hesitating between "weak delete" and "weak keep"... I'm not convinced that the book reviews are in important enough publications to meet NAUTHOR. And while being a "distinguished visiting professor" indicates that some people think she is somebody, it's not really the kind of position satisfying NACADEMIC#5. Her citation record is borderline (1100 citations, h-index of 14, 3articles >100). Perhaps a case of
WP:TOOSOON. --Randykitty (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

keep. Based on independent reviews of her multiple books, she should pass NAUTHOR. Also her academic profile [51] is actually quite accomplished for her field, three books with 100+ citations seems like a strong showing to me, which at least partially or fully reaches the requirements of NPROF. --hroest 03:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A reminder that what matters is what sources
WP:NAUTHOR when also combined with citation counts. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep. There are plenty of reviews for one book, but for
WP:PROF#C1 push me from weak delete to weak keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: I agree with your take on the book reviews. However, I wouldn't necessarily regard the citation record as strong. It does indicate some importance for the subject, though. But there should be more than just a modest citation count. Multi7001 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ognjen Ristić

Ognjen Ristić (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. Played only 1 game in Serbian SuperLiga and retired soon after. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all I can find are the usual database websites and a blog post about a young tennis player with the same name Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Issa Hare Diawara

Issa Hare Diawara (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. I'd be glad to be proven otherwise. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Comprehensive
WP:GNG failure. Jogurney (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - I can't find anything other than a passing mention in a Blogspot page entitled Tour d’Europe des Aigles (1/2) : Cheick Diabaté reçu 5/5 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_January_8&oldid=1133938647"~~