Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 30

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect‎ to XIII (comics). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XX (organization)

XX (organization) (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)

Initiating AFD per IP user's request: Non-notable fictional organization; could not find any SIGCOV. 2605:B40:1303:900:CAD:8F6F:33AA:50BF (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  WP:ATD-M —siroχo 02:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  WP:CHEAP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as aboveTheLongTone (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. Not enough
  WP:SIGCOV for a separate article. Expansion can take place at the target, through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to XIII (comics).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:27, 7 October 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Shakya

Vikas Shakya (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)

Indian "model, choreographer and social media influencer", signally fails WP:GNG - was deeply tempted to go G11 with this. Hair color Black, eye color Brown, apparently... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep the subject is notable as many secondary source have covered him. India Today, The Telegraph, Zee News, ABP News are all national level media houses of India. Also, infobox for the model provides the parameters like eye colour and height etc. Also, we have similar articles on model on Wikipedia for years. Please see, he is a winner of India's national level beauty pageant title. Similar articles are here:- Vishnu Raj Menon, Jitesh Singh Deo etc. There are 10 good quality source, covering the subject, and there are many articles on Wikipedia with 2-3 source. PS: All source talks about the subject, no passing mention.-Admantine123 (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note Mister India icon [1] is India's National level beauty pageant title.-Admantine123 (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: clearly fails in WP:GNG nd no any secondery reliable source. only PR stuff Worldiswide (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG.-Admantine123 (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You can also nominate that one for deletion, it also appears as non-notable as this person. Thank you for pointing it out. Oaktree b (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it, I don't think it's notable, with the sourcing available at least. Oaktree b (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. he received awards that seem quite significant, and significant coverage in independent sources (Telangana Today, Lokmat) (on the page) so that he can be considered notable.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:33, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Here's a source (PhD Dissertation) that doesn't seem to mention this, despite covering the period. I may have missed something tho so I'm still not sure. [7]. —siroχo 03:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD
  and the result was Speedy Keep.

Previous discussions: 2015-04 (closed as ✓ Speedy Keep)

--

talk) 00:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sarkar, Jadunath (1920). Shivaji and his times. London ; New York : Longmans, Green. pp. 262–263. mentions fighting between Shivaji and the combined forces of Rustam Zaman and Fazl Khan near Panhala in late 1659 or early 1660, which is consistent with the article, although it does not corroborate the article's details regarding force compositions or tactics.

Sardesai Govind Sakharam (1946). New History Of The Marathas Vol-i 1600-1707 (1946). B. G. Dhawale, Bombay. p. 131. has similar details and gives the date (28 December 1659) that's in the article.

Jfire (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the recently cited source https://archive.org/details/ShivajiSouvenir

Page no 164 does not mention a battle at Kolhapur in 28th December 1629. It is removed now.

talk) 05:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

talk) 05:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Both of these sources are many decades before the creation of the article, but obviously they don't corroborate the details regarding force compositions or tactics. Unless there are reliable sources for those, I believe the best course of action is to merge and redirect to Shivaji#Siege of Panhala as suggested by User:Jeraxmoira. Jfire (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: By looking at Shivaji, I see that the Battle of Kolhapur comes under the Siege of Panhala [8]. This article can be redirected and expanded under Siege of Panhala due to lack of sources/verifiability or it can be renamed and copyedited to match the sources.Jeraxmoira (talk) 09:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This independent blog covers the events happened on 10 November 1659 to 28 December 1659 and others [9]. Source doesn't look like

  WP:CITOGEN Jeraxmoira (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Redirect to Shivaji#Siege of Panhala as suggested above. Not every military engagement is notable and this clearly lacks WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS, I don't see anything that can be merged due to sourcing and vague wording about details that a milhist article should have. Ping me if verifiable sources with SIGCOV are found.  // Timothy :: talk  20:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aquadoodle

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

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

seems it was proposed for deletion in the past so my PROD is not valid

may not be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys and Education. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete, There is only PR type articles about the product [10] is typical. Oaktree b (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally PROD'd, so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge content to Pilot (pen company) and Spin Master. - Indefensible (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Indefensible: I do not think we should be merging a mess of unsourced content. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to decide between Deletion and Merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No SIGCOV to prove notability has been found. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A search will show that references exist online such as https://www.proquest.com/docview/2055576160/C889464995794866PQ/4 - Indefensible (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case, I would be fine with a redirect since it is a plausible search term. However, the article content has no sources, so I would prefer to not drop it into another article. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We cannot redirect to 2 article targets. My point is the content needs to be merged to multiple places and references can be found online to source it. - Indefensible (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, it turns out neither article mentions this product. What I am saying is that you should add new content about this product to the articles instead of merging content from here, since this article is in very bad condition. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Adding content for this subject on those articles would be a merge. - Indefensible (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not if you don't copy anything from this article. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There would be material copied from here such as being toy of the year, it just needs referencing. - Indefensible (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Why copy it when you could just summarize it from the sources? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Besides, a merge would have to leave a redirect behind, and where would the redirect point? QuicoleJR (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The main point is to appropriately preserve the information somewhere on Wiki, not the redirect. When the article says things like it earned toy of the year, that is already largely summarized. It just needs to be packaged into the other target articles with suitable referencing, which is the merge. - Indefensible (talk) 20:43, 6 October 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. Complex/_Rational 20:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hanoi University of Pharmacy

Hanoi University of Pharmacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No sources since 2013. Perhaps merge into Hanoi. Qcne (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Qcne (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Vietnam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this is the same place as Hanoi Medical University. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It seems okay now. Hanoi Medical University is not the same. The two institutions were split many years ago. The article could be expanded by adding text from the corresponding article in the Vietnamese Wikipedia at vi:Trường Đại học Dược Hà Nội. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  we make it one article and provide the inital history & cover the splitting PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We generally keep state-accredited universities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Necrothesp's comment. Wikipedialuva (talk) 08:41, 4 October 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. Complex/_Rational 20:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hanoi Medical University

Hanoi Medical University (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)

Relies on a single primary source. Has had maintenance tags since 2008(!). Has promotional language. Perhaps a merge into Hanoi? Qcne (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Qcne (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Medicine, and Vietnam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

same place as Hanoi University of Pharmacy PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there should be sources in Vietnamese that could be translated. - Indefensible (talk) 07:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Searching for "Đại học Y Hà Nội" results in thousands and thousands of results. For example https://daibieunhandan.vn/giao-duc--y-te1/truong-dai-hoc-y-ha-noi-don-chao-1-349-tan-sinh-vien-trong-le-khai-giang-nam-hoc-moi-i344460/, https://viettimes.vn/truong-dai-hoc-y-ha-noi-khai-giang-nam-hoc-moi-trong-tam-la-chuyen-doi-so-quan-tri-hieu-qua-post170281.html, https://tuoitre.vn/diem-san-truong-dai-hoc-y-ha-noi-tu-19-23-5-diem-20230726215636475.htm. The subject is a century old and the leading medical school in Vietnam, it should easily meet on notability. - Indefensible (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We generally keep state-accredited universities. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It does not appear that an adequate
  systemic bias like this is improving the articles, not AfDing them. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:01, 3 October 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. Article is no longer unsourced. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:38, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajonye Perpetua

Ajonye Perpetua (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 BLP, GNG and NBIO. Essentially an unsourced BLP from 2011. Single existing ref is a dead link. BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with SIGCOV addressing with subject directly and in-depth. WP:BLP requires high quality sources.  // Timothy :: talk  17:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subject has not held any role that would count as "inherently" notable under
  WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Do you still think this after the expansion, curious? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have added an archived copy of the single existing ref, which lists Paperture as an office holder. TSventon (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

› 2018/01 › T.OT-Report.pdf PDF here from the South Sudan Women Empowerment Network discussing her role in a meeting, but nothing biographically on her...♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article cites Gurtong, which shows she was Minister of Legal Affairs and Law Enforcement for
  gender based violence. Given the chaos in South Sudan, nice clean sources are hard to find. But Radio Miraya, run by the United Nations Mission in South Sudan, notes her activities on several of its Facebook pages, such as [11] or [12], and an image search for "Justice Ajonye" (Ajonye is her surname) shows various other sources e.g. [13], [14]. [15]. [16], [17]. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Ajonye Perpetua seems to be more common than "Paperture". I'm still not seeing biographical coverage in the sources though. I do think her positions in government and work in human/gender rights seems enough to make her notable though. I was leaning towards delete because of the lack of sources I could find directly written about her under the name Ajonye Paperture. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are several sources under the name "Justice Ajonye Perpetua". That she held a state government ministerial position in South Sudan. is the chair of the national law society and seemed to be active in women's right issues in the country is enough for me to pass notability, but there is still an abundance of biographical sources lacking on her, Perhaps over time they will become available. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of names seems to often be phonetic. I have also seen "Ajonye Papetus". This source uses "Ajonge Perpetuar". It gives a snippet of biographical detail about her dismissal from the President's Office and downgrading from first class judge in 2013. If she stays active I expect that sooner or later some article will include a potted bio, probably using information provided by the subject. Until then,there is enough to name some positions she has held and describe her activities. She technically qualifies under

WP:JUDGE (as a first class judge in the national judiciary), which is good enough for a keep. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is divided and the situation is complicated by the variety of different spellings for this article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: state government ministerial position in South Sudan. Victuallers (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Victuallers and others. --Rosiestep (talk) 12:04, 2 October 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.

Amilton Filho

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

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:19, 7 October 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.

Dion Frazer

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

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:25, 1 October 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.

Rudolph Flowers

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

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:32, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dalton Eiley

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

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Only match reports in the Amandala newspaper are what I find for sourcing (one mention in the Salt Lake Tribune), none of which helps for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:20, 1 October 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.

Jarret Davis

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

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belize. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:20, 1 October 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.

Grand Slam Prize in harness racing

Grand Slam Prize in harness racing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged as unsourced for 14 years. My own searching found a single AP article picked up by the NY Times which doesn't say anything we don't already have. So it passes

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:54, 30 September 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. The assertion that the available sourcing is too thin to support this article was not particularly refuted. Being mentioned a lot is not equivalent to being covered in depth, and the assertion that most if not all proposed reliable and independent sources are indeed such brief mentions was not convincingly shown to be incorrect. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Gokhshtein

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

David Gokhshtein (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)

American entrepreneur, internet and media personality, and former politician - who achieves notability under none of these roles. Not elected to office, not feted widely in media, no track record of significant entrepreneurialism and all sourced to Fox blurbs, owned media and interview. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Websites, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Hits in Gnews all talk about crypto, so I suspect this is some sort of promotion. Back to the article, being a member and writer for the Forbes Council is non-notable; we don't consider it a RS, so being a writer for it would not help. Rest is non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Kindly read the article again. It is clearly non promotional.. Corrugateboard (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It helps boost Google Search results, so does help promote it. SEO is a concern. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As per

  WP:HEY please check again as has been significantly updated Rescendent (talk) 07:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Should now pass via

  WP:SOURCETYPES Rescendent (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm new here and don't know what people say to win arguments. He's an expert in his field and I am under the impression that Wikipedia is for experts in their professions even when we don't agree with the profession or the profession doesn't align with our personal convictions. I'm saying keep Corrugateboard (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC) — Corrugateboard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  We aren't here to win, we're looking for reliable sources to use in the article, showing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Crypto-crap. Though the sheer number of GHits makes searching difficult, I could not find any
  WP:ATD. Curbon7 (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  "Crypto-crap" is a little

  WP:IDONTLIKEIT

  ?

  Are multiple hits in GBooks and GScholar either for his name or analysing his twitter account 'davidgokhshtein'. So it can be highlighted that academic research has recognized David Gokhshtein's notable influence within cryptocurrency social media circles. For instance, in the study analyzing Electra's Twitter community, Gokhshtein is identified as one of the most influential actors, underscoring his recognized position within this domain. This evidence contributes towards establishing his notability, as it reflects a level of significance and impact in the cryptocurrency community, thereby warranting his inclusion on Wikipedia.

  I have added additional references to the page to the books and journals he is analysed in. Rescendent (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not "for experts in their professions" per se — if all it took to get into Wikipedia was for the article to say that the person was an expert without having to have their expertise independently validated by third-party
  WP:GNG — it's coverage about other things which merely quotes him as a provider of soundbite, which is not what we require. Unelected candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates; founders of companies do not automatically get Wikipedia articles just for founding companies; and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Are multiple published papers and a Columbia University Press book which examine the influence of his twitter account about independent topics and from independent researchers; does this not establish notability? (Have updated page with references and additional details) Rescendent (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Expanding on above article satisfies the purpose of

  WP:SOURCETYPES

  .

  • Caliskan, Koray (2022). "Data money makers: An ethnographic analysis of a global cryptocurrency community". The British Journal of Sociology. 73: 168–187. doi:10.1111/1468-4446.12916
  • Caliskan, Koray (August 1, 2023). "Chapter 4: Global Cryptocurrency Communities as Data Money Makers". *Data Money: Inside Cryptocurrencies, Their Communities, Markets, and Blockchains. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231209592
  • Guidi, Barbara; Michienzi, Andrea (2022). "How to reward the web: the social dApp yup". Online Social Networks and Media. Elsevier. 31: 100–229. doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2022.100229
  • Tjahyana, Lady Joanne (2021). Brand Monitoring for Dogecoin Cryptocurrency on Twitter (PhD thesis). Petra Christian University
  • Schnülle, Tim (2021). Algorithmic trading with cryptocurrencies - Does twitter sentiment impact short-term price fluctuations in Bitcoin (MSc). Nova School of Business and Economics. p. 49

  Additionally other sources regularly mentioning, quoting and interviewing fit under "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers"

  WP:JOURNALIST (1.) although not as reliable sources as the academic ones. Rescendent (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  No, the first is a name drop, the rest have no links. The Guidi article doensn't mention this person at all. The first one is on the Pubmed website, so can be read easily enough... Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As mentioned in other reply you can confirm the the Guidi article does mention when checking via handle in GScholar (as well as other papers) and

  WP:OSO is clearly listed as WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Offline_sources_only. However they can be confirmed via a correct GScholar search. Rescendent (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It does not mention the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It says "and davidgokhshtein, a politician and financial consultant, with great interest in all cryptocurrencies"; how is this not mentioning the individual? Rescendent (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not know, you haven't linked to the papers. The two I could read, one was trivial, other didn't mention him. Oaktree b (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The one you are saying doesn't mention you are reading a short summary (public availability) but can confirm via the scholar search I linked and you can read the full version in the Wikipedia Library Rescendent (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While this individual fails WP:NPOL, he does seem to be a notable figure in the cryptocurrency community and has been regarded as such by multiple independent, reliable sources. Pat-Bassey Charles (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Which reliable sources? Curbon7 (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As per

  WP:SOURCETYPES

  > When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.

  As his tweets have been studied in multiple peer-reviewed journals, an academic text book and both a PhD and MSc dissertation that pass via

  WP:BASIC

  notability?

  • Caliskan, Koray (2022). "Data money makers: An ethnographic analysis of a global cryptocurrency community". The British Journal of Sociology. 73: 168–187. doi:10.1111/1468-4446.12916
  • Caliskan, Koray (August 1, 2023). "Chapter 4: Global Cryptocurrency Communities as Data Money Makers". Data Money: Inside Cryptocurrencies, Their Communities, Markets, and Blockchains. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231209592
  • Guidi, Barbara; Michienzi, Andrea (2022). "How to reward the web: the social dApp yup". Online Social Networks and Media. Elsevier. 31: 100–229. doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2022.100229
  • Tjahyana, Lady Joanne (2021). Brand Monitoring for Dogecoin Cryptocurrency on Twitter (PhD thesis). Petra Christian University
  • Schnülle, Tim (2021). Algorithmic trading with cryptocurrencies - Does twitter sentiment impact short-term price fluctuations in Bitcoin (MSc). Nova School of Business and Economics. p. 49

  Rescendent (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No. The first one is literally a one-line mention in a chart, and it's a username that just happens to match the subject here (it could be anyone). It talks about an entirely different crypto currency. The rest have no links, so I can't evaulate them. He's not mentioned in the Guidi article you cite either. I'd revisit your sources, perhaps re-read them. A name drop in an article (peer-reviewed) or not, beyond proving existence, isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Your assertion about the 'entirely different cryptocurrency' requires clarification. Which cryptocurrency are you referring to as different? The mention of davidgokhshtein in diverse crypto contexts just further underscores his broader notability within the cryptocurrency community, showcasing a wide-ranging impact that extends beyond a single cryptocurrency. This aligns with the subject's recognized persona and influence across various digital currency platforms, further warranting his inclusion on Wikipedia. The individual academic mention you highlight, though brief, in a peer-reviewed publication, is a noteworthy acknowledgment in scholarly discourse, supplementing other evidence of his notability from the other multiple sources. Additionally, per

  WP:PAPERONLY

  , the lack of online links to the cited offline sources does not undermine their validity or relevance in supporting notability.

  You can confirm he is referred to in the Guidi article and others via Google Scholar search if you use his twitter handle: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22DavidGokhshtein%22&btnG= which is entirely expected as he is a social media influencer; though he also shows up for other papers with full name (which is just adding a space in handle).

  As per

  WP:NBASIC the papers demonstrate multiple reliable sources, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject and as per policy: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" Rescendent (talk) 06:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The subject of the article is about a cryptocurrency, not about David. David is only listed as a username in a chart. I can't make it any clearer. Oaktree b (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:FIXIT I have improved layout; categorisation and extended the referencing; including multiple references in journals; dissertations and a book to his twitter handle. The pervious focus on political candidate wasn't very notable, however isn't really the area of notability which is more the categories: Category:Social media influencers and Category:People associated with cryptocurrency Rescendent (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Although it may sound controversial freedom of speech is still protected in the USA along with Free-Press & Free Interpretation that being said anything about the tech industry you should always do your own research but not many people have the adequate knowledge or understanding on how to extract facts from fictions or in this case personal believes. I vote for this article to stay open and not be altered or deleted in any way shape or form. 2600:6C56:6E09:2143:7529:128C:C934:6BA9 (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC) — 2600:6C56:6E09:2143:7529:128C:C934:6BA9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  This user's sole contribution to Wikipedia... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NOTE for notability to be included. Rescendent (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  "Freedom of speech" does not confer any entitlements to inclusion in Wikipedia in the absence of passing Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Private speech is not protected. Wiki is a private institution. Oaktree b (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You may want to review wikipedia licensing, we can cut and modify articles at will as new information is added or removed. If you want to keep a copy as-is, it should not be on wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions, list of People-related deletion discussions, list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Rescendent (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Rescendent (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is a lot of stuff in the article and plenty of sources, but I can't find the in-depth coverage in reliable and verifiable sources that would be about him needed to meet the notability standard. Most of the sources are mentions, brief interviews of him, interviews he did and tweets, but there is no support for a claim of notability, nor could I find anything more useful in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As per

  WP:SOURCETYPES

  > When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.

  As his tweets have been studied in multiple peer-reviewed journals, an academic text book and both a PhD and MSc dissertation that would suggest notability via

  WP:JOURNALIST (1.) although not as reliable sources as the academia ones. Rescendent (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  They have not, the peer-reviews are about different subjects, that mention him in passing. The first one is about a type of crypto currency, with a username that could or could not be this person. The rest are about as useless. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  > with a username that could or could not be this person

  Not sure I understand your point; as a social media influencer establishing the fact that they are indeed the same person is a fairly important aspect and not something to be brushed over as "could be someone random"? Rescendent (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  David is mentioned as a username, once. That is not substantial coverage. There is no proof it's the same individual (the article does not verify the identity of the username), and the subject of that article is not about David. Being listed in a chart is not what we require for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]