Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 23

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Riffee

William H. Riffee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Delete: as non-notable in any regard. Vanity creation. Nirva20 (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, Florida, Ohio, Texas, and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see enough citations to his publications to convince me of
  WP:PROF#C1, and dean isn't a high enough administrative position for #C6. Nothing else in the article can be used to make any kind of case for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:SIGCOV otherwise. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. nf utvol (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater 14:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He easily passes
  WP:PROF#C5. I updated the page with a link. People seem to be simply voting to delete without doing a basic search on the subject. Contributor892z (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2024 (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 to Keep and no support for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tankeshwar Kumar

Tankeshwar Kumar (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)

Academic who does not have a publication record or awards that would pass

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Our article claims that he has been head of two new-ish regional universities in India,
  WP:PROF#C6? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I did think about this, particularly in the context of the recent discussions at

  WP:PROF#C6 which I feel is warranted. (While some months ago I accepted it as an OK criteria, I am now dubious.) Let's see what others think, I don't have to always be right. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I don't see why you don't think that reference verifies his membership in

  WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep. His citation record is good [2] but in a high-citation field, so I would prefer not to rely on
  WP:PROF#C1. And I have no idea whether UGC Professor at Punjab University (his title prior to becoming VC) is the sort of thing that would count for #C5. Instead let's go with #C3 and #C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  My apologies for strongly disagreeing with you, but he definitely does not qualify for

  WP:PROF#C1 in Materials Science and Engineering (MSE), the US term for his field. He has 4 decently cited reviews on popular topics in reasonable journals, but not those with the highest impact factors and he is not one of the big names in those topics. He has several ~50 cited papers in decent impact journals (e.g. JPCC), but again nothing original in a high impact journals. (Nowadays even to get hired as Asst Prof you need articles in the top journals.) His publication record would just about get him tenure in the US, but not promotion to full professor at a major university. In his area 50 is notablable, 250 puts your name into the nobel pot. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Perhaps I did not word my comment carefully enough to be understood. I am neither claiming that he passes #C1 nor basing my keep opinion on #C1. I am using different criteria.

  As for impact factors: please no. Judging someone by whether a few of other people's papers in the same journals happen to have sudden early citation spikes? It's meaningless numerology. If you're going to judge by whether the work is well-cited, judge by whether it is well-cited, not by whether it is well-cited-adjacent. If you're trying to avoid citation counting for something more meaningful, then avoid citation counting, don't just keep doing it but more indirectly. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I looked not just at the citations of his papers, but also the topics and the journals -- it was not "just counting". For instance his reviews/work on nanotubes is not even slightly close to that of Sumio Iijima or Pulickel Ajayan.

  In terms of journal impact factors, sorry but again I strongly disagree with your comments. It really does take a lot more to publish in Science (journal) than J. Phys. Chem. C. Not too far from the difference between a GA and a Start-Class article. Academics, even PhD students and some undergrad look at impact factors, as do Chairs, Deans and funders. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - The individual the VC (highest functionary) heading a Central (Federal) public university. Appointed by the President of India after open-applications, search and selection by the Ministry of Education. Similarly, has held VC position at a State public university. I do not agree with the nominator's view to cross-check everything academic from citations, and journal publications as also nominated here, given the flaws and MLM type model of this now discussed far more openly than ever, it is time that we keep academia free and open without any gate-keeping. Non-relevant: There have been many people who have contributed much without joining the feudal/elite academic circles. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 12:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As David Eppstein pointed out, subject at a minimum meets #C3 and #C6 of
  WP:NPROF - and might meet #C5. A subject need only meet one of these criteria to justify notability; this one meets at least two. Qflib (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep.
  Assuming everything is true, he easily passes the PROF test. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2024 (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 23:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Troiano

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

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

Seems to fail notability requirements as per

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He is mentioned in this Windsor Star article on Guy Lombardi. The "Quartet moves tuba to center stage" item which is paywalled looked like it might have some coverage. I was able to see the full article via Wikipedia Library access and it turns out to be part of a community events type of article. I am unable to find any coverage in reliable sources to establish notability; only more announcements about playing at local libraries and such. -- Whpq (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Autobiographical page of a local community musician/school teacher without any significant RS coverage. My search found him mentioned in some articles in the Suffolk County, NY editions of Newsday, but only in association with the Long Island Tuba Quartet or local community events -- nothing in depth about him. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article should be deleted for all the reasons stayed above. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per specifically
  WP:SIGCOV. There is scant coverage in the current version of the page, and almost nothing in Google News. He has virtually no social media presence, outside of YouTube. That's surprising. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom etc --Devokewater 20:03, 29 March 2024 (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 23:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton Chipungu

Brighton Chipungu (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)

Lugstub that fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Zimbabwe. JTtheOG (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in absence of a suitable redirect Looks to be a
  WP:GNG and given we don't have any lists for Zimbabwean cricketers currently, there's no suitable list to redirect to either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG. Robo^Cric Let's chat 16:13, 24 March 2024 (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 23:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tinashe Nenhunzi

Tinashe Nenhunzi (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)

Lugstub that fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Zimbabwe. JTtheOG (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in absence of suitable redirect Looks to be a
  WP:GNG fail this one, and with no lists of Zimbabwean cricketers there's no redirect here also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG. Robo^Cric Let's chat 16:13, 24 March 2024 (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 23:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baral Agreement

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

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

This article is a den of

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Politics, and Jammu and Kashmir. Mach61 21:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging users who participated in
  WP:APPNOTE Mach61 04:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per nom, and seconding the apparent CIR issues. The citations for this article read like the editor simply searched "Sudhan" in Google Scholar and added a citation to every result, regardless of content. Searching myself for terms like "Baral" 1956, "Baral Agreement", etc on Google Scholar and Google Books returned nothing useful. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Publishers like Oxford University Press and Springer are not samizdat they are very respected publishers, article just needs a little bit of editing that's all.--TheQirim (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you demonstrate that any of the cited sources actually mention a "Baral Agreement" or otherwise address this topic? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This might be notable, but right now, it's a
  significant coverage Bearian (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I couldn't find any sources using this name. Those in the article are, as far as I can tell, about the 1955 Poonch uprising or the History of Azad Kashmir more broadly and only mention this agreement in passing, if at all. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per the comment by Rosguill. Lagdo22 (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2024 (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.

Midwest Social Forum

Midwest Social Forum (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)

Unsourced, could not find sources, and does not meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Organizations. DrowssapSMM 17:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is no sourcing in the article aside from one inline external link to the organisations "about" page but it is no longer there as the site appears to have been taken over. I can find no sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2024 (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!} 00:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6mm Optimum

6mm Optimum (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 appear to be a notable concept, unable to find

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is no independent coverage about this concept. It's just one person's opinion on an optimal caliber. -- Whpq (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - one non-notable person's opinion is
  we are not Hyde Park Corner. Go to X or what they used to call Twitter. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2024 (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} 06:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aa Bhi Ja O Piya

Aa Bhi Ja O Piya (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

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 21:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Added 2 refs. Not opposed to keep, but opposed to deletion. If coverage is judged insufficient, redirect to List of Hindi films of 2022.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--->changing to Keep in light of 2nd review (see below).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• First added link is a press release as it can be seen from from URL structure, writer name as "ANI PR" and the disclaimer at the end: "This story is auto-generated from a syndicated feed. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content." These press releases can't be used to determine notability. Its "strong box office start" claim also contradicts the second link's "opening: very poor" statement. Tehonk (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, don’t use it, then, and feel free to remove it from the page. It’s a mirror of a link I did not manage to format properly. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC) PS- I took the liberty to do it myself and put the original ANI link mentioning the contradiction you have noted.[reply]

• See comment below, Mushy Yank. -The Gnome (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Saw it. I consider the film meets GNG. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for Redirection from editors, especially nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of deleting per NOTDIRECTORY, apart from insufficient coverage, the "widely distributed" part of the criterion doesn't seem to be met either. Tehonk (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Almost all sources are listings and announcements. Nothing to truly support
  directory of film titles. -The Gnome (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: Added a second review that saves the article, per
  WP:NFILM. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

WP:NFILM requires reviews from nationally known film critics and not just any review in any publication. Pankaj Pandey, the author of the text in Raj Express, does not satisfy aforesaid criterion. We still only have about one half of a review-cum-advertorial. -The Gnome (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC).[reply

]

• Delete While Raj Express is an independent and reliable source that can be used because of its editorial oversight, the other source from Film Information cannot be considered an independent review. It was posted by Film Information desk without any specific author, and these types of posts are generally part of press releases and paid branding. So, this film does not meet
  WP:NFILM with only one review. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I cannot see why Komal Nahta's FIlm Information should be considered unreliable nor not independent. As for the general assumption that these types of posts are generally part of press releases and paid branding., applying it to the present case does not seem exactly obvious.... just look at the review. If that is a PR data copy-paste, with such PR who needs enemies?:D -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No matter who owns Film Information, but for Indian films, I believe the review should be from a named critic because there are many websites that publish paid reviews and articles. – DreamRimmer (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Which does really not seem to be the case here but thank you for your reply. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect to List_of_Hindi_films_of_2022#October–December. I could not find top critics reviewing this movie or any major known websites with any coverage on the film other than the synopsis. RangersRus (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm seeing No consensus right now. This might be time for a source analysis table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: most of the sources are press releases/announcements. ANI is marginally reliable at best and neither article was written by them. One is attributed to SRV which is a digital marketing agency and the other to NewsVoir which is a press release service. I share DreamRimmer's concern about Film Information insofar as there is not a named author and it is not a widely used source so does not appear to meet "nationally known critic" per
  WP:NFILM. That leaves maybe one critical review which is not enough. No issue with redirecting though. S0091 (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep. The Film Information and Raj Express reviews both look usable to me. In particular Film Information describes itself as "the most widely read film trade magazine in the film industry and is known as the industry’s Bible since 49 years. Founded by late Shri Ramraj Nahta, it is being run by his son, Komal Nahta, since 1993 when Shri Nahta passed away." That is as something at least trying to be a reliable source and not a fan site. Note also that the review is negative enough that it is pretty clear not a paid ad. Also, the Bhaskar.com source looked probably reliable to me as reportage of rather than copying a press release, but I can't read the whole thing. In short I would rate the sources as just over rather than just short of the
  WP:NFILM line. If there is no consensus to keep the article, a redirect to List_of_Hindi_films_of_2022#October–December is certainly a reasonable ATD. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - non-notable short. The sources are not impressive. Even the better sources fail to establish notability. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The two reviews cited in the discussion appear to be enough.
  RSes, for example: [3] and [4]. Raj Express is an RS that appears to circulate in several major cities in India. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:14, 1 April 2024 (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Davies (headmaster)

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

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

Not convinced of notability here. I don't think that everyone who has been stripped of their knighthood is notable enough.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  BangJan1999 21:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I can't also see that as Notability and hence, since it may be important to Wikipedia, I suggest redirecting to
  talk) 04:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. I'm on the fence about this, so interested to hear others' views. The article on the school already covers these events well. There was a lot of coverage of the fraud in RS, and I don't think
  WP:BLP1E applies as the third condition is not met. There also must have been coverage of Davies at the time he was knighted. I guess I'm leaning weak keep, but happy to be convinced otherwise. Tacyarg (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. A knight is clearly notable per
  WP:GNG. Ridiculous nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went to this school, I say we keep this.

It's important to have this so, this doesn't happen again. (Stealing from children's education) 2A00:23C7:D00A:E601:EC8B:7A5F:E4C:B65D (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original research is not allowed on wikipedia. You may want to read

talk) 03:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep More work needed. If he was awarded a Knight, which is one of the highest
  talk) 03:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Reluctant keep. Reluctant as he is far from being an admirable individual, but keep as he is clearly notable, whatever one might prefer. Athel cb (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  ongoing and significant coverage in reliable sources. If the consensus has changed, we need at least a few dozen experienced voices to chime in. This discussion needs to be re-listed, or many articles need to be re-created, for that reason. Keeping this article opens Pandora's box. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep As a headmaster he is imho not notable enough, being knighted proves that he has done something good (but more sources are welcome) that makes him notable. Unfortunately, it is the false accounting and loss of his knighthood that makes him notable. Just. The Banner talk 00:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: He did not receive his knighthood for a reason that is notable enough to have received SIGCOV in reliable sources, and I have not been able to find any. He obtained his knighthood as part of a Labour granting of knighthoods to people related to schools, for his work turning his school around in terms of performance. See [5]. The only SIGCOV is of his loss of knighthood, which fails BLP1E because losing an award is not significant in itself. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 31 March 2024 (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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ATunes

ATunes (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

Comment: The first AfD contains some sources that could establish notability. Two of the links are rotted and I couldn't find any archive of them. The other two are fairly short reviews, no more than a couple of paragraphs. I'm leaning slightly in favor of delete because I don't think this coverage is clearly extensive, but if there is consensus otherwise, I can understand that. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: A download page with a description is probably not significant coverage. The article is mostly a list of features, I would keep as an entry on Comparison of free software for audio. IgelRM (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per IgelRM. popodameron ⁠talk 00:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The
  scope of the Comparison of free software for audio list is "notable free and open source software". Since this software is not notable, the article should be deleted and the entry removed. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 31 March 2024 (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.

Safehold

Safehold (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)

Collection of text summarized from pages on the constituent novels and the references only concern individual books. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep
  WP:SS parent of substantially notable individual books. We keep these around for pretty much any series, per NLIST and SALAT. It's still entirely likely that the books are discussed as a series--the nominator does not articulate any BEFORE attempts to find such coverage. Jclemens (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  A quick perusal of Google shows that this series is most commonly called "The Safehold Series" and it is described in blog posts, Reddit threads, Goodreads, Amazon and every other bookstore, Audible, publishers' sites... most of which are not independent RS. Epic Stream seems to be the one thing on Google News that appears to be RS discussing the series as a whole. Possibly RS discussions include Elitist Book Reviews and Most Recommended Books which don't appear to be blatantly commercial, but it's hard to definitively classify them as more than topical blogs. Jclemens (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is already a dedicated list under

  WP:ALLPLOT with an irrelevant reception section bolted onto the end. Book series can also demonstrate notability as a shared setting, which Safehold fails in the same manner you described above. Orchastrattor (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  So are you proposing a redirect to the relevant section of David Weber bibliography, given that this is clearly a common enough name to be worth a redirect? Jclemens (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That would make sense, sure. And/or just a list of sequels under Off Armageddon Reef with an extra detail or two on the overarching setting. Orchastrattor (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think both Safehold and Safehold series would be reasonable redirects if this is how it ends up closing. I still think keeping this as a list and trimming inappropriate plot commentary is preferable to deletion, but there are worse alternatives. The Honorverse is the only other David Weber series that has its own article. Jclemens (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The current title is preferable IMO, to my knowledge appending a "series" to an article title is only necessary in cases like

  MOS:TITLE with italics as you have to mess around with pipes to display Culture series rather than Culture series or Culture series, which kinda defeats the point of leaving a redirect in the first place. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @Jclemens Good find. I'd call Epic Stream reliable, the article is written reasonably well and signed by a real person (generative AI is becoming a real problem these days), and the site has extensive about us info and claims to have internal review process: [6]. The other two links, sadly, don't seem useful for anything outside a list of books and maybe, maybe, the first one can be used as a review for the first book but it seems blog-level. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Jclemens. Also helpful to have an overview of the series. Murray Langton (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is a mess (there is no denying 90% of the article is
  WP:FANCRUFT - way too much plot summary), but this is also a series I like which may color my judgement (I'd like to see this rescued and I'll see what I can do). Sigh. My current search is not showing any reliable sources discusing this as a series. Some books in the series may have stand-alone notability (see Safehold#Reception). Off Armageddon Reef for example should be good as it is. The others may or may not, I'll be adding what I can do the individual book pages first (reviews) and ping User:Cunard and User:Siroxo for help. PS. Note I've added a source that discusses the series (first two books) but it is, sadly, just a fanzine. Let's see what else we can dig up. PPS. ISFDb lists no reviews outside first two books, although some were nominated for award(s). I've added all information (reviews and awards) to the relevant book entries. PPPS. I'll add some Polish reviews but they are sadly from fanzines (ex. Fahrenheit (fanzine)). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. Pinging User:Onel5969 who boldly redirected some later chapters to the series (I concur they did not look notable at that point, similar to some of the ones we still have, sadly). --03:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The question is whether or not the series as a whole meets the in-depth requisite of GNG, the page would need multiple sources discussing the series beyond individual works in order to pass.

  Like a Mighty Army is the only page I'd consider MISSING if its immediate sequel and prequel are both notable, the other two are recent enough to leave be for a short while longer. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @Orchastrattor Problem with LaMA is that all I (we) have for it is a single Polish fanzine review ([7]). That's not enough... :( Also, @ReaderofthePack just in case they are interested in this series/books and can find some sources. I am running on fumes here (Polish fanzines :>). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is the main article for books in the series. It does have coverage in various citations.[8] Knox490 (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Knox490 Fail, go to jail, do not collect $200. Sigh. You do realize that the single citation you linked is about the useof this term in a totally different work? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Offhand this looks like it's probably notable as a series. The main things I'm looking at are as follows:

1. Several of the entries have placed on the NYT bestseller list for hardcover fiction. This is pretty much the main list for fiction, so this would be a nod towards notability.
2. Some reviews for the books in reliable sources, particularly for the first two in the series.
3. It seems like the individual books have meh levels of notability with the exception of the first book, which has a stronger argument towards this just based at a first glance.

My general rule of thumb is that it's better to have a single series page than a handful of wimpy individual pages for books with lukewarm notability. So far I think it would likely be better to rehaul the main page and just redirect any of the individual books there. I don't know that we really need an independent page for any of them, but offhand it seems like there is probably enough coverage to justify a series page. I'll do a bit of a dive, though, before making any true official judgment since I haven't taken a deep look at the sourcing already present on Wikipedia and the arguments against here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've decimated all but the most basic intro plot. I think it can be selectively re-added later with much, MUCH lighter and more succinct info, but for now part of what needs to be shown is that it's not just a plot dump. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A list of characters might be a good direction to take with reintroducing the plot, you can include some notes on their larger series-wide arcs but it would still be formatted in a way to justify a separate series page instead of just regurgitating info from child pages (assuming said children are either kept or left open for restoration later). Orchastrattor (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably add a short list of characters later, after bulking up the other sections. I've built out the themes area quite nicely and I took a broom to the reception section and separated it into reviews and the NYT/sales portions. I summarized the NYT stuff so it's not just a list. I hate listing it out like that and try to put it into prose if I have the time, they're not really pleasing to the eye. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands the subject of the page - the topic as a series rather than a parent collection of other topics - has not been demonstrated to pass GNG. A list of the books already exists elsewhere so a clean delete of the page and some keeps where appropriate of the other books was my original nom to follow GNG and BKD to the letter, but I guess keeping the parent and deleting the children would be preferable to keeping absolutely everything. The issue there is that again the parent doesn't pass GNG so you will need a good argument for WP:Ignore all rules if that is where the discussion heads. Orchastrattor (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused - are you saying that a series cannot inherit notability from individually notable works or are you saying that there was/is not enough in the article to show where a page is justified in comparison to a basic list on Weber's bibliography?

If it's the first, then I have to disagree with you. A series inherits notability from the individual works as long as the series is an official one. IE, fans can't call three unrelated books by a single author a series and say it's notable.

If it's the latter, that's something that can be rectified by way of coverage in other sources. If notability is already established by way of the individual books, it becomes a problem of working on the page to show where it's not just a collection of plot. We can resolve that by drawing on various sources - interviews, forewords, coverage, and so on to fill in the other sections. Theme and element discussions are common features in reviews, for example. You just have to look for the specific keywords.

I'm willing to do the work and have already done a fairly massive cleanup of the article - I've added small sections on themes, development, and release. These need more work, but I wouldn't say that it's a huge barrier. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to argue that novel series cannot inherit notability from the individual, official works then I would suggest that you bring this up at NBOOK. The general rule of thumb here is that series is one of those areas where the individual books give notability because they are the series. Coverage of the individual books count towards the series because in almost every case they are discussing how the individual work builds upon the series as a whole. Awards and honors perhaps would be more specifically for the book but that's still an area where the individual parts lend notability towards the whole.

It's not like a situation where we're arguing that notability for one of Weber's other series or standalone books would give notability for all of his other works. Just that coverage for books in the series gives notability for that series. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point of GNG being the General NG is that it's the baseline other topics can defer to when they do not have a standalone NG to use instead. New guidelines get proposed and rejected plenty often enough, if a "rule of thumb" has enough consensus to become policy then it's no longer a rule of thumb.

Like I said I'm sure people here would be happy to hear out an IAR argument but if there is no policy for it then it has to be a case of IAR specifically, I've had stuff rejected from AFC over far less pressing issues than is seen here; It's rather irresponsible to talk about inheriting series notability like it's an established NG when no such policy exists.

NBOOK is also very spotty towards the newer end of the series, as discussed above the two most recent titles still don't have articles a year or more after release and there is even a case of one of the books being skipped over even with its direct sequel and prequel both being notable enough. No one would publish an article on a parent series if only one or two of its books were notable, so your rule of thumb needs a specific cutoff point in order to be applied. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that NBOOK covers series. The thing with GNG is that it isn't a one size fits all type of deal. Nor is inherited notability. It's meant to keep people from arguing something like "All of Patrick Swayze's films are notable because he is notable." Saying that the individual, notable parts of a series cannot be used to establish notability for the main whole is kind of like saying that we can't use an author's books to establish notability for the author themselves.

While yes, the NAUTHOR criteria does specifically say that notable works can make someone notable, I would like to say that people would still argue for the books giving notability even if the criteria didn't exist. There's nothing out there that specifically says that the individual parts cannot give notability to the main whole.

This is absolutely and positively the type of thing that would need to get discussed before making any blanket statement because this is not the same thing as someone trying to claim notability that is not theirs so they can have a biographical article, which is what NOTINHERITED is meant to cover. Stating that the notability of individual works cannot establish notability for the main series is a very, VERY big statement. It would basically require that we take a new look at EVERY series page out there, regardless of whether it's about books, film, photographs, or what have you because by large it has been assumed that the notability of the smaller parts of a larger whole does give notability to said whole. It's not a small or simple thing that you're stating, saying that books in a series can't count towards notability.

I will bring this up at NBOOK and ask others to take a look at this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any notability guidelines for book series beyond BKD, and equivalent WP:N guides for things like

music recordings don't seem to grant any notability based on constituent works. The reviews can mention aspects of the series that would be good to cite in an established article, however if they are only mentioning it as a parent topic of the actual focus of the review then it fails the in-depth requirement of GNG. Orchastrattor (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Part of the issue here is that the lack of specific detail doesn't automatically mean that something is forbidden or that an existing guideline doesn't cover something. I've had AfDs close before with the consensus that a series page would be better than individual book articles, even when there's not a lot of coverage for the series as a topic. I think this is one of those areas where it wasn't specifically mentioned because it was assumed that the individual parts of a main whole would establish overall notability. Since it's getting brought up, I think the better option would be to hold off on any deletion here, since there is precedent for keeping series articles when there are notability granting sources for the books. And to then discuss this further at NBOOK because this is absolutely an area where discussion is needed. Then if the consensus is that series should not be covered by NBOOK and need their own, independent sourcing, the series can be re-nominated for deletion. Books and creative works that are part of a series is pretty different from what GNG is often used to cover (in the absence of a more specific guideline), which is usually biographies and businesses. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There has been precedent in the past with AfDs that the notability for individual parts of a series can establish notability for the main parent series - even if the sourcing for those books do not go into depth about the overall series. You can see my above comments for further detail, but the gist is that since these books are part of the whole, coverage for the novels can be seen as coverage for the whole since each book builds on the existing storyline. Merging everything into a single article for the first book would run the risk of putting undue weight on the series or providing incomplete coverage when more sourcing is available and a more reasonable compromise would be to have a main series page.

The argument for whether or not series can gain notability for their individual pieces is something that should absolutely be discussed at NBOOK before the article is deleted. (If the consensus of that is that there must be individual coverage, then of course this should be renominated.) To be blunt, this would likely decimate a sizeable portion of Wikipedia's coverage on literature. Not all of it, but quite a bit, so if this is going to happen we need to discuss it first. GNG is not a one size fits all scenario and this is one of those areas where NOTINHERITED, in my opinion, does not apply. It would only apply if we were to argue that the series is notable because some of Weber's other series are notable. Arguing that series can only be notable if there is specific coverage of the whole feels a little like it's defeating Wikipedia's purposes, to be honest because it feels like we're arguing that a whole person cannot become notable because the coverage only covers what they can do with their hands and feet. Plus from a deletionist's perspective the series page is more efficient because then we eliminate the need for individual series pages as the main series page covers the books far more efficiently. (To be perfectly honest, I think most series should have only one main series page and not individual book articles unless there is a large amount of coverage to justify this.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It just feels a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If the goal is to reduce the amount of useless pages, then a series page accomplishes this. It would also likely prevent recreation of said useless pages too. (Of course notability for the books would need to be established, I'm not arguing against that.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I can also bring this up at
  WP:3O, if you wish. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Bringing it up at the RS noticeboard may not be a bad idea, by which I mean to ask them to comment at the post I made at NBOOK. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Authors are just covered under N Creative Professional, which has very clear guidelines for how and when the notability of a creation translates to the notability of the creator. An author is a type of creative professional, a shared chronology and setting is not a type of book. As it stands the article is just an intersection between GNG and BKD. As I said above I'm not too strongly against the conditional keep of deleting the children instead of the parent topic; The difference can essentially be said to be that one follows GNG to the letter and BKD to the spirit, while the other follows BKD to the letter and GNG to the spirit, I just prefer the former because that's how I interpret GNG.

  On that note I think this is a large enough thread to use RFC instead of 3O; Jclemens (talk · contribs) and Piotrus (talk · contribs) seemed to be working off of something closer to my interpretation of GNG than yours, I'll ping them here in case they aren't watching the discussion.

  I will also admit your edits have improved the article quite substantially, I would still say it's not strictly necessary from a subjective standpoint but from an objective one it's at least no longer fancrufty enough to damage the credibility of the actually important parts of the encyclopedia just by existing on the same servers as them.

  To be blunt, this would likely decimate a sizeable portion of Wikipedia's coverage on literature.

  To be blunt in return, that's just going to devolve into ILIKEIT. If all this affects is niche genre fic about guns and spaceships I wouldn't exactly be overcome with grief at the loss. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've been pinged to comment, I believe that if a series of books exist, (as described above) and at least two entries are notable, then a series article should exist for both navigation, including overall content not specific to any one book, and including specific content for non-notable entries that don't deserve their own article. If there's one thing Wikipedia editors routinely get wrong, it's what NOTINHERITED actually means. Applying it in the procrustean manner that would suggest a series of notable books needed coverage as a series to exist as a separate article isn't the worst take on it, but it's certainly not encyclopedic. Consider list articles in general--how is a book series article different than a list? Jclemens (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens It would be good to get this estabilished as a notability guideline following an RfC or such. I'd support it, probably. It's weird to have some books in the series be notable but have nothing covering the rest. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reader started a discussion of this on Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Should NBOOK cover series or just individual books?, your input would be welcome. Orchastrattor (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Stand-alone lists have strict notability requirements same as everything else, if anything a "List of Safehold novels" would be even easier to argue deletion for than a mainline article since the SAL NG is just a direct application of GNG rather than a spinoff like NBOOK. Orchastrattor (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only exception to NSAL is navigation, which we already discussed above for Weber's bibliography. Orchastrattor (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop thinking like a Wikilawyer. Start thinking about what will serve our readers best. Notability is, and will always remain, a guideline not a policy for the very important reason that it should be implemented with flexibility and common sense, caveats that do not apply to V, NOR, NPOV, etc. If you think that the novels entirely lack enough RS material with which to even build a list, then suggest merging them to the author's bibliography--arguing that the parent article should be deleted is perplexingly reader-unfriendly. Jclemens (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're already on the list, delete vs merge would just be semantics. If a topic isn't important enough to generate RS then being reader friendly would mean redirecting readers to the section of a bibliography rather than saddling then with a pile of meaningless fancruft. Orchastrattor (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful using the term fancruft because well, what could be considered fancruft is highly debatable. I admittedly would agree with you on overly long plot synopses and character lists as far as fancruft goes, but there is encyclopedic value in covering a series' themes, reception/sales, and so on. This is why I made sure to stay away from fansites and instead stuck to using or keeping the author or reliable sources (major genre publications like Reactor or outlets like Locus and the NYT). If the publications met their guidelines for inclusion that implies a wider range of interest than just the fanbase.

Genre fiction, particularly sci-fi, tends to reflect issues and mindsets of when it was written. Tons of academics and researchers have written on this at length, covering the themes, sales, and basically the info that I've added/improved in the article. Given Weber's fame and notability, it's not unreasonable to expect that someone might come to Wikipedia for information on this. Just redirecting this to a bibliography page (when there are RS to establish cumulative notability) would strip Wikipedia of content that could be of genuine interest and use. Note: I'm not arguing this from a perspective of

WP:ILIKEIT

- I don't argue for inclusion unless I believe the topic is notable.

Basically, we need to make sure that we aren't assigning zero encyclopedic value to it because the topic is of no interest to us personally. For example, I'm not a reader of David Weber and typically don't read sci-fi so I wouldn't have come to this page unless I was told it needed work. I work on these articles because I want others to be able to find this information. This is all kind of straying off topic, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:05, 28 March 2024 (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.

Math-U-See

Math-U-See (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)

Cannot find any reference to Math-U-See - other than advertisments for the materials. It may have won awards from Home Schooling organsations but I cannot find any firm evidence of that. Newhaven lad (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Mathematics. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no secondary coverage, just adsHi! (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I also cannot find any news coverage on this company.Bradelykooper (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2024 (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 23:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Doctor of Diplomacy

Professional Doctor of Diplomacy (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 is part of a walled garden of other articles connected to a fraudulent institution. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I came across this problem the other day and added a PROD tag to
  Diplomatic Academy of London. This article was clearly created as spam by a single-purpose account, and it's disappointing it was moved to mainspace by an AfC reviewer in this state. We have effectively perpetuated a nonsense and given credence to a fraudulent institution for over 15 years. Searching "Professional Doctor of Diplomacy" returns nothing other than Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors, and Facebook. AusLondonder (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Agreed, no coverage, non-notable and possibly non-existent qual. Tacyarg (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: doesn't look notable even if it exists.Tehonk (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2024 (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 23:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BMI Federal Credit Union

BMI Federal Credit Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find any coverage in

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunately I have discovered today that we have quite a few utterly unencyclopedic articles on completely non-notable credit unions, some created by single-purpose spam accounts. Like this example, they completely fail
  WP:ORGCRIT. Many have few or no secondary sources. This article was also created by a single-purpose account as spam. AusLondonder (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: I did get some hits on ProQuest but they were all trade publications, local routine coverage, brief mentions or based on their comments. S0091 (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2024 (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 23:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Press Service

Associated Press Service (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)

Procedural nomination per WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 12#Associated Press Service. The nominator of the RfD did not find any evidence that the Associated Press Service still exists. Participants observed that the entity appeared to have gone offline midway through 2023, and there weren't enough sources to establish notability. Sources that do appear in the stub are no longer working. Jay 💬 17:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, and Pakistan. Jay 💬 17:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I never heard of APS before. Seems like a self published source. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. No evidence that APS still exists, let alone that it's notable. Dan Bloch (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beverley Elliott

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Some limited coverage [9] of a performance she puts on (stage show), but nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Bearcat and Oaktree. She's far from passing
  WP:NACTOR. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Not notable. This is an easy call. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pippa Taylor

Pippa Taylor (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Poor article, padded out with unnecessary detail (an entire paragraph on the subject's mum being a local councillor is particularly filler-like). I'm not sure
  WP:AUTHOR - just quiz books. News coverage is limited to tabloid coverage of her relationship to Toby Tarrant (who is also questionably notable). There seems to have previously been a presumption that anyone who appears on or works in radio is automatically notable, but this is no longer the case, radio presenters or producers even at a national level need to meet GNG and this individual appears non-notable in the specific context of that Wikipedia guideline, has not made a significant contribution to the field and is just another workaday radio producer. Flip Format (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Agree with most of your comments, but to be clear I did conduct a search prior to nomination. I found tabloid celebrity stories such as this. Her quiz book received virtually no coverage, certainly nothing to even consider per

  WP:NAUTHOR. AusLondonder (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete. Tabloids don't contribute to
  WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. No evidence of
  WP:SIGCOV.Contributor892z (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2024 (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.

Lumber Yard Bar

Lumber Yard Bar (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)

Suggest deletion because of lack of notable people or events associated with the bar. (I have checked other well known bars and the ones on Wikipedia tend to have famous clientele or events associated with them). Newhaven lad (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, Sexuality and gender, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep GNG is clearly met. Article is well-referenced to RS. Jclemens (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep tons of local, regional, and national coverage in the 31 (!) sources provided by the article creator make this unquestionably notable. LGBTQ Nation, based in San Francisco, covered the impact of changes to Washington State regulatory body policy (WSLCB) directly connected to events at this particular bar; it is noted in several local "top establishment" lists and in-depth reviews, as well as being noted as a best-in-nation by the national publication Esquire; coverage spans from well before the 2021 arson until the present time. When evaluating sources pls note KING-TV#Canadian and out-of-market coverage which states coverage extends well beyond the Puget Sound terrestrial broadcast area with 4 million+ potential viewers; it is carried in Eastern Washington, Canada, Alaska, and even the Bahamas. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Happy for this to be retained. I struggled to find any meaningful links to other Wiki pages. I know that isn't a reason for deletion, but it makes it harder to justify retention. Perhaps those in favour of retention could add some wikilinks. Newhaven lad (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Speedy keep, per comment by nominator ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arshi shopping mall fire

Arshi shopping mall fire (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)

Reviewed during NPP. Thanks to the creator for their work but IMO this pretty clearly fails the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (events) and also wp:not news North8000 (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls, Events, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Run-of-the-mill structure fire with no lasting societal effects or analytic coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of meeting
  WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Peel

Nick Peel (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)

When this article was created the new page patroller wrote to the creator "Sources cited are not enough to establish notability per WP:GNG, and elected officials at local government level are not automatically notable per WP:NPOL." This is my exact concern now. Coverage is very much local, routine and expected for a local government leader. Peel is lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and England. AusLondonder (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - local councillor. SportingFlyer T·C 16:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Politicians at the borough council level are not automatically notable just for existing, and have to pass
  WP:NPOL #2 on the basis of a hell of a lot more reliable source coverage about their council work than has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Local politician who doesn’t meet criteria for an article. Not notable and few RS media coverage. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Local councillor without evidence of
  WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Muhammad Faraz Noon

Rana Muhammad Faraz Noon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject initially met the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN after winning a national parliament seat in the recent election and taking oath as a member of parliament. However, due to a recount the following month, their opponent was declared the winner, resulting in the subject losing their parliamentary seat. which means the subject met WP:POLITICIAN but for brief time. further, the subject fails to meet the basic WP:GNG criteria. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I'm not sure what the policy is for situations like this, but it would seem like they'd still be considered notable. Worth pointing out that there are other people who were elected and never seated but still got a Wikipedia page, such as Luke Letlow. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make sense. I Withdraw this nomination. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siju Adeoye

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

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

This article has been repeatedly nominated for deletion by

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. AusLondonder (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not pass NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article has been edited severally over the years by different editors and this article has been nominated severally for deletion discussion. She being an elected official whether one term or not passes the Notability test. If there have been any issues with NPOV I taught us editors we will rather correct thoses statements but using that as a basis for deletion is not what as Wikipedians we hold ourselves out to do. Owula kpakpo (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately being an elected official in local government does not "pass the notability test" see

  WP:PROD but not for a deletion discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete. The party switch means that she garnered more media mentions than your run-of-the-mill local councilor, but not enough significant coverage to pass the notability bar, IMO. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leonel Pérez (footballer)

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

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

It seems his main claim to fame is playing 23 mins in the Mexican second tier many years ago. The best source that I can find is Informador, which is simply a match report that mentions him scoring a goal in a cup match. I can't find anything towards

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:SPORTBASIC. Open and shut. Anwegmann (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. Fails
  WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - at least as of now this article is not within WP:GNG.

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fayston Preparatory School

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

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

No evidence of any notability. No independent sources. Preparatory schools are very rarely notable and this is no exception. I draftified the early version but the author has decided to move it to mainspace without any indication of notability. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and South Korea.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of citation for the document. It is factual info describing school, just as many other schools do the same. Can you give constructive criticism because citation exists? 20240318wiki (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

De

rname/Wikipedia Comunity],

I'm writing to request reconsideration of the deletion of the Fayston Preparatory School page. Established in 2010 in Yongin, South Korea, the school's notability is underscored by:

- A Grand Prize in International Education from the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea in 2022.

- The AP Computer Science Female Diversity Award in 2023.

- A top ranking in the 2023 Canadian Senior Mathematics Contest, highlighting its academic excellence globally.

These achievements are well-documented in reliable sources, demonstrating the school's significant contribution to education. Additionally, FPS's innovative curriculum, integrating personalized learning with advanced technologies, represents a noteworthy educational approach.

I propose enhancing the article to better meet Wikipedia's standards and am open to community feedback for improvements. The school's recognitions and educational advancements contribute valuable information to Wikipedia and I believe, with adjustments, the page can comply with Wikipedia's notability criteria.

Thank you for considering this request. I look forward to any guidance or feedback.

Best,

[Your Username] 20240318wiki (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be a reasonable amount of independent coverage on the school in the Korean language (google "페이스튼 국제학교"), but kinda difficult dealing with this user it seems. I don't want to validate this editing behavior by voting keep. The existing article isn't very good in the first place; maybe someone else can come along another day and take a shot at writing this article.

talk) 03:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete the bulk of the sources are the school's own website and text like "Fayston Preparatory School has been distinguished by several notable achievements that underscore its commitment to educational excellence and innovation" is just blatantly promotional. This is an advertisement masquerading as an article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your personal thoughts. I have to respectfully state that if your comments are true, then many of the articles on wiki about international schools need to be deleted as well. These are based on cited evidence and the article is open to constructive feedbacks, but your claims are what is ungrounded. 20240318wiki (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The school's accreditation codes can be verified, and references to the national assembly award are corroborated across multiple translated articles. These aspects add credibility to Fayston Preparatory School, supporting the case for retaining the article. Wiki1972able (talk) 09:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)— User:Wiki1972able (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete mainly based on primary sources and not enough sourcing to meet
  WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Most of the sources are the school's own website, which doesn't help towards establishing notability, per
  WP:INDEPENDENT. One of the other two is a mere mention in a table indicating that a team and two students did well in a maths contest. The remaining one ('Power Korea') isn't independent coverage, being largely what the headmaster said. Not sure of the notability of the Korea Education Industrial Awards. SPA author likely has a conflict of interest, has not responded to the COI warning on their talk page, and may be operating two accounts. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment the term 'preparatory' can be confusing as in the UK it means a primary school (seldom notable) but in this context it seems to mean college-preparatory school, preparing students for university. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Laguna

Jorge Laguna (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)

Extremely poorly sourced and doesn't show evidence of

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Fails
  WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2024 (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.

Hammed Kayode Alabi

Hammed Kayode Alabi (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: People, Businesspeople, Social science, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The first source [10] and the second [11] were quite editorial, but a bit flawless since ita all about a non notable camping. The third source here [12] and the fourth source here [13] were just interviews and doesn't credit to WP:N. The fifth source [14] look like a freelance writing and is generally unreliable (unreliable news web). The sixth here [15] is same as third source–interview. The paragraph, ...became the first young African Board Member at Peace First in 2020. is not a notable achievement and skeptically fails for the seventh source [16] and the eight [17] Obviously a blog. I haven't seen how [18] supports the cited statement when only the line in the source reads: Speaking at the panel session, Kayode Alabi, the founder of Kayode Alabi Leadership and Career Initiative, noted that the organisation had been leveraging technology to enhance learning among children with disabilities and their teachers. Source [19] and [20] seems not noteworthy and were both interviews failing
  talk) 13:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oyebanji Akins

Oyebanji Akins (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: People, Authors, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: "Bridging cultural divides" and 10 things I should know about him, the typical flowery language from Nigerian sources. I don't se notability when the fluffy language is removed. Oaktree b (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per norm. Sources are
  Run of the Mill. Jamiebuba (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - a critic does
  reliable sources about them and their writing. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2024 (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.

Oga Amos

Oga Amos (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

Currently on the article;

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
https://thenationonlineng.net/comedian-oga-amos-wins-best-skit-maker-in-ghana/	~ Even though the "win award" is true, this is paid promotional puff	~ Ditto		~ Partial
https://pmnewsnigeria.com/2024/02/25/from-content-creation-to-philanthropy-inspiring-journey-of-oga-amos/	paid promotional puff	Ditto		✘ No
https://leadership.ng/oga-amos-from-anambra-roots-to-lagos-stardom/	paid promotional puff ("Oga Amos’s commitment and talent haven’t gone unnoticed, earning him well-deserved awards that acknowledge his substantial contributions to the dynamic world of online entertainment.", really? Only one non-notable award?)	Ditto		✘ No
https://pmnewsnigeria.com/2023/01/27/oga-amos-one-of-nigerias-leading-content-creators/	Ditto	Ditto		✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/11/oga-amos-floats-charity-foundation-to-transform-lives-of-his-fans/	paid promotional puff	WP:NGRS , paid promotional puff		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

From BEFORE:

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
https://newtelegraphng.com/oga-amos-cheers-content-creators-for-incredible-creativity/	~	~ Even though WP:NGRS , this is still dependent on the subject	This is not about him directly	✘ No
https://tribuneonlineng.com/oga-amos-floats-charity-foundation-to-transform-lives/	paid promotional puff	Ditto		✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2023/11/05/oga-amos-floats-charity-foundation-to-transform-lives-of-his-fans	Ditto	Ditto and WP:NGRS		✘ No
https://guardian.ng/news/oga-amos-floats-charity-foundation-to-transform-fans-lives/	Ditto	Ditto		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As the charts show, lots of wording for not much substance for notability. It's all either long fluff pieces or just what reads as SEO spam. I can't find anything that isn't a puff piece either. Oaktree b (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mordvins (term for Jews)

Mordvins (term for Jews) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article does not seem to be based on WP:Reliable sources. I checked the English sources and one Russian source in this article, and none of them supports the claims that Mordvins or other ethnic groups mentioned here would have been Jewish (hence the many {{failed verification}} tags in the article). I did not check all the Russian sources, but I suspect the same is true for them. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, Judaism, and Russia. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "The majority of these, however, were indeed Jews, like Erzyas, likely Meshchers (Mazhars/Mishars), Mokshas, Muromians, Burtas, etc" I'm lost for words. Speedy Delete, and all edits made by the author of this article probably should be checked thoroughly. Finstergeist (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The author of this article is apparently an admin over at Moksha Wikipedia 😐. Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I noticed it too, and I can only wonder about the quality of articles on there. At least on Russian Wikipedia, their contributions look nowhere near as bad (probably because such extreme claims would be challenged very quickly on there). Finstergeist (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. As above, lost for words. Would it be wrong for me to tag this article for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax? Also I think someone needs to bring the account creator to administrator attention, since their entire edit history seems to consist of this kind of behavior. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment.
  mordvin" is also used to mean "troublemaker". I'm hesitant to propose a merge due to the article's quality, but it doesn't seem to be a hoax in its entirety, and a one-sentence mention at Mordva (slur) or Mordvins is possibly warranted. PaulT2022 (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @PaulT2022 thanks for noting this—important context for sure. At the related AfD for Mordva (slur), @Finstergeist claims that the pejorative term for Jews is merely homophonic...but it's clearly unrelated to the main topic (Mordvins don't have anything to do with Jews). Thoughts on this?

  Also worth noting, as pointed out at the talk page for the article under discussion here, that the lead seems to be copied from Turk (term for Muslims) with keywords swapped:

  The ethnonym Turks (

  Balkan peoples to denote all Muslim settlers in the region, regardless of their ethno-linguistic background. The majority of these, however, were indeed ethnic Turks.

  Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply