Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 10 February 12 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 23:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welker White[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Welker White (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)

Recreation of previously deleted article. Lamentably, as in 2015, the subject fails to meet the criteria set in WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. Coretheapple (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coretheapple (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately I am not finding any substantial sources. The only real portrait of her is not independent because she teaches at Brooklyn College and it is an article on their website. There is no question that she has been in some well-known films and TV shows, and has done theater work, but she generally has small parts that at best get a sentence or two in a larger review, and often is just a name-check. The most content that is independent is the Deadline article, and that is just an announcement that she has gotten the part of Hoffa's wife, and is only three sentences about that. There are two sentences in the NY Times about her part in a play, "Wilderness", but it merely recounts that she plays a certain character. Unless we can add up all of the single sentences and name-checks (and some of the sentences are quite complementary) I don't think we can reach GNG. Lamona (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Faile WP:GNG. NYC Guru (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above: the article currently fails WP:GNG and I am unable to find good sources which establish notability. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Thorough search reveals no WP:SIGCOV to establish notability that would satisfy WP:NACTOR or WP:ANYBIO. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Eagle Lake (Ontario). Liz Read! Talk! 07:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe Island (Ontario)[edit]

Canoe Island (Ontario) (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 GNG due to lack of any significant coverage beyond a Canadian Geographical Names Database entry. There is no presumed notability for islands; WP:GEOLAND requires that we have information beyond statistics and coordinates. –dlthewave ☎ 20:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reywas92, do u want to revise ur !vote as a Wp:ATD has been identified. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, redirect. My delete votes usually just mean it shouldn't be an article, and a redirect also achieves that. Reywas92Talk 03:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this location is also fairly remote, in terms of distance from cities, and yet. Unlike the other Canoe Island, it's fairly close to several highways and what look like eco-tourism lodges. Can't see any trace of habitation on satellite view, so it's not itself a settlement, so no, I don't think it needs its own article, but it could be a local landmark or, for example, fishing destination. It's also in the heart of Ojibwe territory, so as ATD I'm leaning towards a redirect to Eagle Lake First Nation. Possibly one of the towns is a little closer; supposedly there is an actual reserve there, but I haven't found its boundaries. Reserves can sometimes be quite small, however, and the entire area, on and off reserve, is definitely Ojibwe. Elinruby (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Canoe Island jengod (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merger option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: To User:Jengod, a merger into a disambiguation page will strip away all references (weird but true fact that in Wikipedia disambiguation pages are not allowed to hold references). And deletionists or disambiguation-focused editors will certainly just delete the item, perhaps with platitude that "disambiguation is only for assisting navigation to actual articles". Please reconsider your position, i suggest. I haven't looked into facts enough to make a !vote yet, but i am positive that "merge to a disambiguation page" is not appropriate. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment OK I understand nothing around here but I'm pretty sure this page exists because there are four small islands in northern North America that are easily confused w each other and need to be distinguished (disambiguated, if you will). Canoe Island (Washington) seems pretty built out. Which leaves the other three in Canada. I would argue for a "set index whatever it's called" thingy or a "list of Canoe Islands in Canada" and just merge it all together jengod (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nom) - I'm still of the opinion that this Canoe Island isn't significant enough to mention at all. However, if we're leaning toward a merge then I would suggest a geographically close target such as Eagle Lake (Ontario) instead of grouping far-flung islands that happen to have the same name. –dlthewave ☎ 02:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Zooming in on its coordinates shows that it is an island in that Eagle Lake. And i see that Connaught Point or some such place on the island is a designated historic landmark. The lake and island articles are both very short; it is fine to merge the island article into the lake one. It could/should be mentioned that the island is about 10 km south of Vermilion Bay, Ontario and maybe that it is about 40 km WSW of the town of Dryden, Ontario. The lake looks huge and should be described a bit more, to at least mention named islands including also Boat Island, Net Island, South Twin Island, North Twin Island, all of which seem fairly large, and more. What is the area of the lake, can that be found in Canadian equivalent of GNIS or whatever?
I think if the overall goal of several AFDs is to attain elimination of the disambiguation page, that has now been foiled. It should be left in place and distinguish between at least these two. Similarly to Jengod, i like the preservation of "set index" and disambiguation pages of same-named things. I'd prefer for the other two ones to he retained in the disambiguation page, too, perhaps unlinked if their articles must be deleted or redirected. And the disambiguation page should be there to receive new items of other islands of this name. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 04:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is an Eagle Lake soapstone quarry which i suppose is a kind of prehistoric site, but mindat(?) shows that near but not on this island. Connaught Point is indicated to be a cliff, maybe it is a quarry site? Maybe the island article should be kept separate to cover this historic site? --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which source mentions a historic site at Connaught Point? I'm not finding anything in my searches. –dlthewave ☎ 17:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like some feedback on recent suggestions for Merge/Redirect targets List of islands of Ontario or Eagle Lake (Ontario) as ATD. I'd rather have "seconded" opinions than make a choice myself.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Eagle Lake (Ontario), which already mentions it. There isn't really anything else to merge as the article doesn't say anything about the subject other than that it exists, and per WP:GEOLAND we shouldn't have an article on it unless there are sources which say more about it. Hut 8.5 19:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gennady Tkachenko-Papizh[edit]

Gennady Tkachenko-Papizh (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)

Gennady Tkachenko-Papizh

Singer who does not appear to satisfy musical notability or general notability. There are two references. The first one is paywalled, but is assumed to be independent and secondary. The second one is a puff piece that cannot qualify as secondary coverage and probably is not independent. So there is only one valid reference, and none of the musical criteria are satisfied.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/03/arts/music/gennady-tkachenko-papizh-georgias-got-talent.html Have not viewed, but assumed to be independent and significant Yes? Maybe Yes Yes?
2 https://www.amnestyindia.org/gennady-tkachenko-magic-miracle-ufo-marvell-music-space-age-music/ A puff piece No? Yes No No
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was in Georgia's Got Talent, I've read the NYT piece and it is significant content directly about him, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: clearly a puff piece without notability. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are many reliable sources that can be found to support this article (many of which are not in English); "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Since AFD calls for deletion which speaks in the negative - edits need to be made with bias towards preservation. This very point is outlined and made in AFD documentation. I do not think it is productive to flag articles for deletion as soon as they are written as this creates a massive disincentive to add content. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I found another sourced and added it, and I expanded the article based on existing sources. I found the New York Times coverage to be significant coverage and a reliable source, and combined with the other source I added, I think that refutes the initial justification to delete. CT55555(talk) 08:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A paraphrase describing his music from the NYT was found the original draft was deleted in tandem with the speedy delete and follow on AFD which significantly weakened the article. The main point of the article was removed in that he "performs "haunting" vocalizations which are ethereal, surreal, and organic. His impromptu vocalizations sometimes mimic natural sounds" Flibbertigibbets (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Have I understood correctly that you have not !voted either to keep or delete yet? CT55555(talk) 19:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still recommend deletion: clearly a puff piece without genuine and established notability. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)— Duplicate vote: BoyTheKingCanDance (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
BoyTheKingCanDance, you voted twice, with almost the same comment, under two different usenames. What happened here? Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 22:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - although in its present state the article is admittedly not impressive, as said above there are acceptable foreign-language sources available - CT5555 has added one; I've added another; and there will be more, particularly in Romanian and Georgian, which I haven't searched - which IMO satisfy GNG. Ingratis (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. With an overwhelming "keep" consensus at the last AFD less than a month ago, and a near-identical AFD rationale, this nomination is out of order. (non-admin closure) Frank Anchor 18:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaker Knockerz[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Speaker Knockerz (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)

As a result of the second nomination and its wrongful keep debates, with the article being deleted without final decision. Therefore, the AfD is being reconsidered for the third time. Recreation of a prohibited article on an unknown or less known person that fails at WP:MUSICBIO, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NBASIC and WP:REFERENCE. This page should be prohibited from ever being recreated on Wikipedia ever again like other lesser known people or facts. I don't care. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 22:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT #2, the contributor opened this AfD with the exact same incoherent deletion rationale a mere 2 weeks after his previous AfD where the community unanimously chose to keep this article. Speaker Knockerz easily passes WP:GNG and I'm starting to think this contributor is acting disruptively to delete the article of a rapper he doesn't like. Célestin Denis (talk) 22:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Célestin Denis: For your information, I like the artist. It's the basic matter that undernoticed people should not have to be articled here. I would recommend you to make a blog about him or via Fandom instead. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 22:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has notability standards and based on those standards he has the right to an article. If you are unsatisfied, you should debate about making these standards stricter. Célestin Denis (talk) 22:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG states: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.", Speaker Knockerz has received independent coverage in Pitchfork, MTV, Complex, The Fader and other sources which the community has considered notable (WP:ALBUMSOURCES) therefore making him presumably notable. Célestin Denis (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Célestin Denis: I put a notice on my talk page about disruptive edits that I am notified of making right here. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 23:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Blatantly biased nomination argument, two weeks after the previous AfD where notability was established. This is a waste of time. SilverserenC 22:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have decided to apologize for such a disruptive AfD prediction without reviewing or realizing. If I deserved to be put down for it, then I deserve it. I respect whatever response you throw at me out of this. I cannot lie and say "it was an accident", but I will admit that it was an unthinkable decision. I hope you all understand whether you accept my apology or I'd be blocked from editing on Wikipedia because of this ever again. I'm very sorry. Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 01:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Just because the article was previously deleted due to an AfD doesn't mean that it could be recreated with better sourcing. Plus, it's only been a mere two weeks before another nomination by the same person, calling the votes to keep the article a "wrongful keep debate," as well as not even saying why it fails to have notability except for the fact that it was previously deleted (which isn't a good rationale). reppoptalk 06:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Family Broadcasting Corporation. Star Mississippi 23:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Family Movie Classics[edit]

Family Movie Classics (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)

Cable-TV channel lacks the in-depth needed coverage to meet WP:GNG. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn. Enough sources here that something can be made of this—thanks! czar 04:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personality Comics[edit]

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

Small comic book publishing company lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in book and news search engines. There are no worthwhile redirect targets; no other suitable alternative to deletion. czar 19:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. I've found a New York Times article from 1992 about the company that also mentions it was in the top 8 comic book companies of the time in terms of sales. I've also found a Comics Journal article from 1992 that talks about the company's growth. Another article I found (from the San Diego Reader) discusses the fate of the company and its founder after its 1994 collapse. I will add information from all three reliable, independent sources to the Personality Comics entry in the next day or two to improve it overall. -- stoshmaster (talk) 06:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the improvements, if you want to vet them -- stoshmaster (talk) 03:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Stoshmaster, nice expansion. How'd you find the Comics Journal articles? For the stuff that's still unsourced, do you have additional sourcing or should it be removed? czar 04:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to a database that includes all The Comics Journal back issues. The only major unsourced statement is the distribution angle, re: Capital City Distribution. Sanford's piece implies that Capital City DID distribute Personality's books, but never explicitly says it. By the time of the NYT piece, which was July 1993, the company was clearly having no distribution problems - and was even appearing on newsstands. So I'm curious as to how and when they resolved the issue. stoshmaster (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to J. Ruiz station. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Ruiz Street[edit]

Juan Ruiz Street (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)

May fail WP:GEOROAD. Like Pureza Street, it uses Tumblr thread Historiles ([1]). For Juan Ruiz it contains three sources:

Unsure if these three sources provide notability strength to the article, if ever these three sources are used as references instead of Historiles.

If no other source that can mention the street as main topic can be provided, then this article must be axed. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Century of Cinema[edit]

A Century of Cinema (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've prodded this with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (films) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar.". It was deproded by User:Mushy Yank with the following comment: "gathers many major figures of the film industry". I am afraid that sounds like WP:INHERITED, We can discuss this further here, at AfD, but right now, this does not look like a notable film (documentary). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and History. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment Each and every one of the 50, 60? interviewees is such a major figure of the film industry that to see them all gathered on the occasion of and about the hundredth anniversary of their art makes this BFI production very seemingly notable. It’s not inherited notability, it would be just inherent to such an amazing collective display, I think. It could be an evident keep. But the C. Thomas who made it is not the one linked on the page and I can find no real evidence of the film except the BFI page. Not even a youtube link. Even the poster shows a different title. Doubts Has anyone seen the film?—MY OH MY 19:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)•[reply]
    @Mushy Yank This is likely a the sad and hardly unsual case of a work that could be important, but was obviously poorly marketed/archived and failed to become important. Or notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not inherited. In order to have an encyclopedic article about this topic, we would need significant coverage in reliable sources about the documentary itself, not just the figures it covers. I looked for them, and didn't find any. Jfire (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete ("weak" because the criticism is more of the film than of the article). The film is absurdly USA-centric: had the makers never heard of films from France, Italy, Spain, England, Mexico, etc.? Did they not think of including Pedro Almodóvar, Alain Delon, Penélope Cruz, Sophia Loren, Claudia Cardinale etc. among their so-called celebrities? The film supposedly celebrated the centenary of something or other that happened in 1894, but what? The film industry is usually considered to date from 1895 (not 1894) with the work of the Frères Lumières such as L'arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat. In other words the film industry started in France, not the USA. Athel cb (talk) 11:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm not finding significant coverage of the article and nothing is leading me to believe that it exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

United Britain Party[edit]

United Britain Party (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 seeing any coverage (let alone significant coverage). Googling "United Britain Party" -wikipedia literally returns No results found for "United Britain Party" -wikipedia.. The only mention I can find is their own (Google Sites!) website, which obviously is not helpful for GNG purposes. HouseBlastertalk 18:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angaangaq Lyberth[edit]

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

Article about a political figure not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. This states that he's a politician, but fails to state what political office he holds or held, and instead stakes his notability entirely on having been quoted as a speaker -- however, notability does not derive from being quoted as a provider of soundbite in coverage of other things, it derives from being profiled as the subject of coverage written by other people. Meanwhile, for referencing it just uses a bullet-pointed list of sources without footnoting any of the body content to any of them, so it's impossible to determine the extent to which he is or isn't the subject of any of those sources (as opposed to just being glancingly namechecked as a provider of soundbite.) And even on a search for better sources, I'm still just getting primary source profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations, rather than WP:GNG-building coverage in reliable sources.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to show considerably better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, he hasn't held an international office. Speaking at the United Nations is not the same thing as being a national representative to the United Nations — the former isn't an "inherent" free pass over WP:NPOL at all, and there's absolutely no evidence that he was ever the latter. And even if he had been the latter, that's a diplomatic role rather than a political one, and thus isn't judged against NPOL anyway, Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed further below, the BLP subject didn't even speak at the UN. The source was misrepresented, as were most of the sources. We have one, rather flawed first person account (who gets names and titles of participants wrong), that he participated in this conference: Millennium Peace Summit of Religious and Spiritual Leaders. Cite: McIntosh, Ian S. "The UN Millennium World Peace Summit Of Religious And Spiritual Leaders". Cultural Survival. Retrieved 15 February 2023. Over 1,000 people participated. Literally anyone can walk in off the street, make any claims about themselves, and speak in meetings and on panels. There is a history of frauds and imposters using these exact events to then falsely claim in their C.V. that they were some kind of official speaker and representative, often for groups who've never heard of them, let alone chosen them as a representative, "at the UN". - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 01:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per LordVoldemort728, the UN representation should be sufficient enough for WP:NPOL. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's no evidence of being a "representative" at the UN (which usually implies being a diplomat, which does not satisfy NPOL), at best it's possible he spoke on behalf of Inuit at a UN meeting or session of the General Assembly (although I see no evidence for the latter). However, this appears to be a book by the same person published by Penguin Random House (Germany) - whether there is a pass of WP:NBOOK, not certain. There's also this from 1975 from the Edmonton Journal, which appears to be the same person and is clearly SIGCOV. However, not to be confused with Jens K Lyberth, a Greenland trade unionist and politician. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Books require reliable source coverage about the book, not just primary source verification of the existence of the book, to get their authors past our notability criteria for authors. Bearcat (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In heated agreement; hence "not certain." Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting that a source for the UN event was just added and it's problematic. While the site looks a bit better than a blog, the writeup is a first person account and contains major inaccuracies (misspelled names, wrong titles for people). It was one of many unofficial meetings that happen around the time of other UN events. It's common for all sorts of unrecognized people to speak at those events, including those who do not represent the communities they claim or who are not even Indigenous. There have been imposters who've spoken at those sorts of events, and then they've misrepresented it in their bios as, "Spoke at the UN". This is not an argument for deletion, just a note about these sorts of claims in articles in general. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the article from the Edmonton Journal, I am not sure how that article denotes notability. It simply talks about him wanting citizenship and to improve housing standards through his place of employment, which is job. I am not sure how being employed by a regional housing authority is notable. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These pieces from de Volkskrant and Hamburger Abdenblatt are RS SIGCOV. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This from 1980 from the Star-Phoenix (Saskatoon) is also SIGCOV. There's enough material to satisfy the GNG, however, I will look a little further on sourcing around the different names to be certain. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

::Strong Keep. As per the following book, he was the leader of an Indigenous nation. A clear WP:NPOL pass.

-Bekoff, M. (2014). Rewilding Our Hearts: Building Pathways of Compassion and Coexistence. United States: New World Library. CT55555(talk) 04:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC) (struck my own comment, reconsidering)[reply]
I see you are the user who is putting in the self-published sources for the unverified claims. Claiming he is or was the leader of an Indigenous nation is an extraordinary claim that will require solid, WP:RS sourcing, not (self-published?) opinions expressed in essays by non-Natives:[2] - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made an edit that said he was a community leader. That edit was citing the 2014 book Rewilding Our Hearts: Building Pathways of Compassion and Coexistence by noted scientist Marc Bekoff published by New World Library. Making improvements of articles while they are up for deletion is a good thing to do. Deleting content from reliable sources (diff) while the article at at AFD can be unhelpful. I do support the removal of the self-published other source.
I did add a tag about the accuracy of the article. There are bona fide concerns raised on the talk page. But your comments "I see you are the user" and "I see someone is now adding that unusable stuff back" are not necessary, everyone's editing history is transparent. Finding a source, using it to inform my !vote, then adding it to the article is the chain of events that tends to be encouraged at AFD.
Please consider, that if I understood your comments correctly, both myself and another editor have adding content from the same sources and you are singlehanded removing it...please reflect on that in the context of consensus. CT55555(talk) 21:23, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever your opinion of that non-Indigenous author, any expertise he may have as a Biologist does not translate to other fields, and certainly doesn't mean he can speak for the Inuit. His opinions on Inuit leadership are irrelevant. Beckoff is not RS for this topic. Yes, contribs are visible unless they've been hidden. But often people glancing at an article will not go through edit by edit; they often won't have time to evaluate sources, and it can be useful to know if it's just one person adding a specific type of content. This is about policy. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your point about the scientist's ability to write with authority on his community connections is of course agreeable. But your comment made it seem like I had added it from a self-published source and it was a legitimate published book, so I hope you can see why I felt the need to clarify. I think there is a middle way, I'm not sure, but "scientists claimed..." or something rather than delete it. CT55555(talk) 21:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you understand that this author is not qualified to speak for the Inuit, I'm not sure why you think the cite should be included, as there's no point to his opinion. Please re-read WP:RS and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. The author seems to have been gullible and simply repeated the BLP subject's self-reporting; that he is also a scientist (singular, not plural), a vegan, etc does not matter, as this is not his field of expertise. The source is not usable for verifying the WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and untrue claim that this newager is the (or even "a") leader of the Inuit people. There is more about these WP:REDFLAG issues on article talk. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 23:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking on this article has shifted twice. My starting point was that an article about an important Indigenous leader was being deleted. So I quickly added sources. As I added more, I learned that the claims are questionable. When I read the talk page, I realised they are probably controversial, when I read your words, I understand things more clearly.
All that said, he is still notable for what he claims, even if the claims are exceptional. I still think we should have something like:
The 2014 book Rewilding Our Hearts: Building Pathways of Compassion and Coexistence by Marc Bekoff includes claims that Lyberth...."
but I'm not in any rush to make that edit, and think we are now discussing content, which should be on the talk page. So I'll wrap this up to say, I think it should be included, but framed as claims, or disproven claims, rather than the article be silent (of course, assuming that can all be backed up).
Also, I apologise that some of my earlier "strong keep" stuff and edits were done before I understood the situation better. I do remain of the opinion he is notable, but more as a ceremony-seller than as a political leader. And I'm massively less sure of that opinion, remain open minded, as it's now a lot more like a WP:BASIC pass than anything about politics. CT55555(talk) 23:21, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mentioned in several books; all sources have not been exhausted. The article is short, but you have to start somewhere. Yuchitown (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • Weak delete. I found more material and added it, but not really enough to establish notability. Yuchitown (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • Comment I did some cleanup on this in the past as it relied on self-published and uncited claims. I see someone is now adding that unusable stuff back. Sourcing this to adequate standards was a problem, as it wasn't always clear if the new age ceremony-seller and the politician were the same guy. This was additionally complicated by them possibly using the name of a deceased elder/ancestor, and some of the more reliable-looking sources not being in English. I know who the ceremony-seller is, as there were scandals about him leading dangerous sweat lodges in regions where that is not the tradition. I thought he was the same person as the politician, but one seems to be from Greenland and another from... Alaska(?). The other claims, like of him being the "leader of the Inuit" are clearly not true. If we can't get solid WP:RS sources that clear up these serious discrepancies, I don't think we should have an article on him. If solid sourcing can be found, and it is cleaned up, no objections to keeping a version; but the falsehoods must be removed for it to be kept. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now Considering Delete: Now that I've gone through the sources and seen how many did not support the text, weeded out the ones that either are not about him, but were about the other Jens Lyberth, seeing how exaggerated other claims are, and having had a contributor turn up and misrepresent sources once again, I'm concerned this will just continue to be a nn target for advert-like text and abusing the 'pedia to perpetrate a hoax. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Care needs to be taken to correctly source him, exclude puffery and inaccurate information. There is a source that includes a member of the Inuit responding questioningly to his claims regarding spiritual practices. He fibbed about a marriage proposal from Brigitte Bardot, his grandiose claims of leadership are not backed up. He can easily be sourced to selling ceremonies that are not part of his culture for a hefty price tag. These points are just as notable as his environmental work. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've gone from strong keep to keep to now undecided. Conversations here and on the talk page have clarified that he is mostly known for selling ceremonies, and the coverage about that is somewhere between failing WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. I'm reflecting what the claim to notability is...speaking? Selling things? There are not the hallmarks of a notable person. Undecided and following the ongoing dialogue... CT55555(talk) 00:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CorbieVreccan investigations into the sources and claims.  oncamera  (talk page) 11:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yeah, see the Cultural Survival source actually added more clarity to the situation than the previous. There was no speech to the General Assembly. This was just a side summit. Those are pretty typical and the speakers there are rarely vetted for accuracy. The original article appears to be a conglomeration of multiple person's and the actual subject of the article isn't notable at all. Therefore I'm solidly in the delete camp barring some convincing evidence otherwise. It's one thing for an article to be about a hoax, it's completely different for an article to perpetuate one. --ARoseWolf 14:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I've thought a lot about if he meets WP:BASIC, but really there isn't significant coverage and I cannot see what his claim to notability is. We can confirm he exists, speaks about climate issues, and sells ceremonies, but we're clutching at straws here. My slow shifting of thinking from strong keep, to keep, to undecided to weak delete is informed by reading comments above and on the talk page. CT55555(talk) 18:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely on board with delete. At this point I just don't see the notability. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:NPOL. LibStar (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Public School, Chikkabanavara[edit]

National Public School, Chikkabanavara (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 can only find basic, generic profiles like Education Today and Edu India News, which every school in India will have. This organisation does not have any WP:ORGDEPTH-level coverage and so looks to fail WP:NORG. I can't find any detailed coverage in reputable journalistic sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gladies Lariesa Garina Haga[edit]

Gladies Lariesa Garina Haga (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)

Was sent to draft in hopes of improvement, but returned to mainspace without any changes. Current sourcing does not support claims made in article, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Ref is the subject's profile on FINA, found few of the RS but still needs in-depth coverage. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Indonesia's national news agency Antara has written plenty of coverage of this athlete. I have added a couple sources to the article, though I'm not familiar enough with the sport to be able to identify RSs for all claims. Indonesia's newspaper of record, Kompas, calls her the "queen" of diving in the country and anticipates a bright career, should she get enough support to be able to compete internationally. No one else domestically has been able to compete at her level. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 20:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 15:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No need to drag this out, the consensus is clear. Randykitty (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandipta Sen[edit]

Sandipta Sen (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)

Actor doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO - lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 15:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Sources already cited in the article appear to be SIGCOV and also show that she passes NACTOR. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Liu[edit]

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

PROD tag removed by User:Carinco Tuck. The article fails WP:Notability. TED website and the subjects's own opinion piece are not independent from the subject. All cited pages on news sites are press releases and the sites have clearly stated that there are "no warranties or representations in connection therewith". Famous Books is an unreliable blog. My search doesn't give any sources for WP:GNG either. HTinC23 (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, though the notability strength of the article at the time of nomination was weak, it has now improved with new sources. Carinco Tuck (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Vents Magazine (4 Feb) is not reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_203#Vents_Magazine. The American Mail (3 Feb) is like a personal website[3] with a broken contact page:[4] "Email: contact@yourwebsite.com". Daily Magzines [sic] (3 Feb) is a site for SEO purpose.[5] It doesn't matter how many such sources one can produce hot off the press since the PROD tag on 28 Jan, as they can't count towards WP:Notability if they are not "reliable (and secondary) sources that are independent of the subject".——HTinC23 (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are at least two useful sources plus the Vent Magazine questioned above. The Vent Magazine is not a deprecated source as commented above. An editor only raised an issue for clarification on whether it could be used or not. But the discussion did not generate necessary opinions to determine whether to blacklist it or not. For now that source can still be used.Hesi0913 (talk) 03:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please point out which two are the useful sources? (Also note that "deprecated", "blacklist", and "not reliable" have different meaning in the RSN context (see WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Legend for more detail) and I'm only claiming it is not reliable.) ——HTinC23 (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There's wide coverage in third-party sources, I believe. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because there are enough independent sources to justify the existence of this article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If by "wide coverage in third-party sources" and "independent sources" the editors mean sources not yet cited in the article, it would be helpful to point them out. (There are other people with the same name but I don't seem to find independent sources about the subject of this article.) I've just done a bit more research into the sources cited. The author of the The American Mail article[6] is named "Clare Green", and when you click on that name, you are lead to an author page whose url says "infodigitalmarketinggmail-com". If you instead click on the globe symbol but not the author's name, you are lead to another site "bbctribune", which again is an SEO site selling guest posts at a very reasonable price.[7] The Vents Magazine article[8] introduces the author as

    My name is Farhan. I am an author on Ventsmagazine. For any business query contact me & also I sell paid guest posts on my high quality websites you can contact me at: admin@technewsbusiness.com http://technewsbusiness.com

    These factors, together with the fact that these posts (also Daily Magzines mentioned above and The Manhattan Herald[9] which was once cited in the article) all appear shortly after the PROD tag, seem to suggest that the sources are not third-party and not independent from the subject, but are rather paid SEO/marketing guest posts with the specific purpose to retain this Wikipedia article. (Reliability is also a problem but let's focus on independence for now.) ——HTinC23 (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 18:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinta, Arizona[edit]

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

A small rail yard, not a settlement; otherwise I couldn't find anything out about it. Mangoe (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No clear desire to work on this in draft space was expressed. If someone wants it, feel free to ping me. No need to go to WP:REFUND Star Mississippi 23:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dr. Floyd episodes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Dr. Floyd episodes (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 list does not pass WP:NLIST because there are no reliable secondary sources that discuss the episodes as a group or set and none of the episodes are independently notable. There was a recent RfC disscussion which determined that podcast episode lists must pass WP:NLIST to deserve a stand-alone list (disclosure: I opened the RfC). I would have WP:BLARed the page, but it was previously nominated for deletion in 2008. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm just not sure what the point of draftifying the list would be considering the last major contributor was an IP editor in 2010 and other major contributors don't appear to be active anymore. So I'm not sure who would work on the draft. TipsyElephant (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 23:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Employee of the Month episodes[edit]

List of Employee of the Month episodes (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 list does not pass WP:NLIST because there are no reliable secondary sources that discuss the episodes as a group or set and none of the episodes are independently notable. There was a recent RfC disscussion which determined that podcast episode lists must pass WP:NLIST to deserve a stand-alone list (disclosure: I opened the RfC). I would have WP:BLARed the page, but it appears the page was previously nominated for speedy deletion under criteria WP:A7. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Saint Kitts and Nevis national football team#Player records. Sandstein 09:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thrizen Leader[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. 67 caps would say there should be coverage, but I can only find match reports. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 22:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Found some stuff, [10], [11], [12], [13], I am not sure it's enough, but with the amount of caps they guy has. Maybe there is more to be found. However what Sportsfan 1234 Has failed to tell everyone in this nomination is that Thrizen Leader is the most capped Saint Kitts and Nevis national football team player of all time. @GiantSnowman: This should not be a delete, a soft-redirect to Saint Kitts page as the top capped player would be a better option in my view, which also allows WP:PRESERVE. Govvy (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be acceptable to me as an ATD. GiantSnowman 19:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not the nominator's responsibility. Please review AFD before criticizing the nominator. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect per Govvy. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 18:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joash Leader[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Upon searching for sources, it appears that while there is coverage, it appears to be too trivial for WP:SPORTBASIC with only databases and general sports coverage only discussing the team's performance and not singling out the player in question. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 16:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 18:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firew Solomon[edit]

Firew Solomon (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)

Lazily created article, fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ethiopia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nominator probably didn't search amharic for sources. Added some coverage, you could also find a list of mentions and coverage here, plus he was part of the squad at AFCON 2021 which should be considered noteworthy on its own.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 among many more Amharic sources. Clearly significant figure in Ethiopia with 11+ national team appearances and ongoing career who has won the Ethiopian Cup. thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 22:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. Sources are a bunch of useless interviews, namedrops and being in some blog's team of the week. Dougal18 (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Player has played 10 international FIFA matches and there are sources per above, the sources are weak in representation, but they do build an overall picture and that just passes GNG in my book. Govvy (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: while the sources are not that good, I still think there is enough coverage for the article to pass WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be enough. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep scrapes though WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per general consensus. (non-admin closure) 141Pr {contribs/Best page} 07:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Salapu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has significant global coverage such as this, this, and this, even if most of it is for the famous 31-0 loss America Samoa faced.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Besides the sources on th page already and the sources Ortizesp found, I found 10 (which goes through his playing career abroad), 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, among many many more sources. He has also been interviewed on many podcasts and YouTube channels (18, 19, 20, 21 etc. Clearly significant figure in Pacific Islands and American Samoan football, the most-capped American Samoa national team player of all time, and one of few to ever leave American Samoa and play abroad (he played in Australia and USA). Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 22:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are clearly a significant number of reliable, independent sources establishing notability, and I am surprised the nominator did not bother to look for them. I've added some of those linked above into the article.--IdiotSavant (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, per passing GNG, @Sportsfan 1234: What's with the half assed nomination? Did you bother doing a WP:BEFORE?? Das osmnezz presented how many cites here?? Some good some bad, but still, this tells me you're not doing AfD justice here, are you trying to waste peoples time? Govvy (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I thought his international record and his involvement in that 31–0 loss were already more than enough to fulfill WP:GNG, weren't they? Oltrepier (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above comments; the article passes WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Bouyei people. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity among the Bouyei people[edit]

Christianity among the Bouyei people (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)

Stub since 2005 Glennznl (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

a sentence based on a reliable source is enough for a merge, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Davenport (diplomat)[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Archer[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Czech Republic, and Denmark. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:Notability (politics) was a proposed guideline which lost steam and should not be used as the basis for anything really. I think using WP:POLOUTCOMES is better for your argument. Curbon7 (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The actual notability criteria for politicians are spelled out at WP:NPOL (which is a subsection of the generic Wikipedia:Notability (people) rather than a standalone document), while Wikipedia:Notability (politics) is indeed a failed proposal to spin NPOL out into its own document. But regardless of the fact that nominator linked to the wrong place, they're still completely correct on the substance of the argument: diplomats are not deemed to be "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability. But this is referenced 75 per cent to primary source verification of his existence on the self-published websites of his own employers, and the only footnote that comes from a real media outlet is not substantive analysis of his work, but mere verification of the end of his term as ambassador. So that media hit is an acceptable start, but it doesn't get this to the finish line all by itself, and none of the other footnotes count for anything at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article contains a number of uncited claims. Fails WP:BIO for lack of coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moe Dalz[edit]

Moe Dalz (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 both WP:MUSICBIO and WP:AUTHOR. As far as I can see, there's little coverage of said person online and the top hits when googling "Moe Dalz" are entertainment/streaming platforms. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and Tanzania. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Medarduss (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Zero sources out there; less than 500 results on Google. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holla, from what i see here, I think this page doesn't violate the terms and conditions for the Wikipedia articles ...as a Wikipedia editor & a contributor , I will try to search for as many sources as i can so as to make this article better, corresponding to the Wikipedia terms, policies & conditions, I'm not thinking of deleting or blank this page yet... I think it needs some additional and relevant references. That's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.250.96.179 (talk) 12 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete - For his musical side, this article is clearly an attempted promotion with content copied from his own social media and self-promotion pages, and his works are only visible in the usual self-upload streaming sites. As an author, his books really are for sale at known retail outlets, but with no pro reviews that I can find. In both media endeavors, he has not gained the reliable coverage from professionals that is needed here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; the article currently fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:MUSICBIO and may also violate WP:NOTPROMOTION. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Municipal Council of Istanbul[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Municipal Council of Istanbul (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 Istanbul Municipal Council lacks the notability/depth that would make it deserving of its own page. The previous deletion nomination was withdrawn on the basis that the council was the administrative body of the largest city in Europe, and thus warranted an article. It should be said however, that Municipal Councils in Turkey are extremely different to the examples given in that proposal, like the New York City Council, which has legislative authority unlike Municipal Councils in Turkey. Moreover, the council is not in the news daily or every two days as mentioned in the comment, as the council only has binding authority on a small range of issues, nowhere controversial enough to make headlines on the daily.

I do not think a council whose main purpose is approving zoning needs its own article. In addition to this, there are 81 provinces and 923 districts in Turkey, all of which have their own councils. There is no need for 1000 articles on 1000 councils that do the same thing. The best solution available is the creation of a general article about municipal councils in Turkey, and details about each city's own council being added to its Administration subsection. Gwro (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Turkey. Gwro (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I did find this, which could perhaps be considered secondary coverage, although all other mentions in English language sources are extremely brief and definitely not enough to establish notability. It's probably worth noting that even the Turkish version of this article relies entirely on a primary source. An anonymous username, not my real name 15:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep thanks to the new sources uncovered. An anonymous username, not my real name 20:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks for pointing out the Turkish article, no idea how I missed that. Did take a look at the article, it seems they used the Municipality website as the source, no foul play though. I was more wanting to mention precedent in the English Wikipedia, It's basically the norm in the English Wikipedia to roll up municipalities, governorships and any other administrative organs of Turkish cities into the Administration section of the article. The way I see it, there isn't really a reason to make an exception for one random council. And please do correct me if I'm wrong but I cannot find another instance where there's a seperate article for the Municipality/Governorship/Municipal Council of any Turkish city on the English Wikipedia. I feel like the solutions to this are either rolling up this article into the Administration section of the Istanbul article as is the norm on the English-language Wikipedia, or the creation of a new article for the Istanbul Municipality (and likely other Turkish cities) to take the place of most of the Administration section(s) of the article(s). Gwro (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The council itself is, in fact, pretty frequently on national newspapers. I'm not talking about small mentions, but entire articles on the debates that take place there: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] + more. It's actually more widely known as "İBB meclisi" in sources. Add in a few journal articles about its workings and comparisons to other cities ([24], [25]) and notability is clear. I do however agree that we miss an article about the municipality itself here. ~StyyxTalk? 16:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks for the newspaper sources! Again, no idea how I missed those. I feel the need to add however, that the main argument wasn't that it was never in the news, but that it wasn't important enough to warrant an article. Adding to that, it only ever is on the news once every month, lining up with how frequently it meets. In keeping with that logic, there should also be an article on the UKOME (Transport Coordination Center), who make just as influential decisions also once a month. The second point I wanted to mention is the point of precedent, Turkish city government not being on seperate articles is the norm for the English Wikipedia, and I don't see any reason why that's creating an issue. Is an exception for the Istanbul Council really necessary? If we decide separate articles are really the way to go, it wouldn't achieve much else other than clutter in my opinion. 5 articles for every Turkish province would be necessary: Province, city, municipality, governorship, and municipal council. The same detail and depth could also be achieved by keeping the status quo and just adding more detail to the "Administration" sections of the articles without causing more clutter, as is currently the de factor norm. This article is an (in my opinion) unnecessary exception to the norm. Gwro (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't keep or delete articles based on their importance, but rather their notability, which is generally shown with sources. For other city councils of Turkey, they are all significantly less in news. For example, a quick look at the one of Konya shows no national newspapers at all and only some mentions in local ones. Similar case for Izmir. Only the council of Ankara comes somewhat close (but still not near Istanbul). So based on that, if those municipalities got their own article, splitting the council alone wouldn't make sense. But Istanbul is different here per the sources. ~StyyxTalk? 16:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources found by Styx. Istanbul is the largest city in Europe. Its municipal council has authority over more people than many countries. Mccapra (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A search under IBB (İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi) will provide an abundance of sources. Mccapra (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We don't need articles on 1,000 councils any time soon, but this is Istanbul. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 22:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Istanbul#Administration says "The Municipal Council is responsible for citywide issues, including managing the budget, maintaining civic infrastructure, and overseeing museums and major cultural centers." This seems like more than "approving zoning", but a redirect there could be an ATD. Perhaps a better ATD would be blending this article and that section into a Government of Istanbul page, a la Government of New York City that discusses List of mayors of Istanbul another administrative topics. Reywas92Talk 02:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Has reliable sources to justify an article. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 04:19, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to borrow a phrase, there's binders full of relevant, peer-review, academic literature; a selection from a 10 minute search.[1][2][3][4][5][6]

References

  1. ^ Demiralp, Seda; Balta, Evren (2 January 2021). "Defeating Populists: The Case of 2019 Istanbul Elections". South European Society and Politics. 26 (1): 1–26. doi:10.1080/13608746.2021.1923639.
  2. ^ Bezmez, Dikmen (December 2008). "The Politics of Urban Waterfront Regeneration: The Case of Haliç (the Golden Horn), Istanbul". International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 32 (4): 815–840. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2008.00825.x.
  3. ^ Erkip, Feyzan (October 2000). "Global transformations versus local dynamics in Istanbul". Cities. 17 (5): 371–377. doi:10.1016/S0264-2751(00)00033-0.
  4. ^ Rosenthal, Steven (April 1980). "Foreigners and Municipal Reform in Istanbul: 1855–1865". International Journal of Middle East Studies. 11 (2): 227–245. doi:10.1017/S0020743800054404.
  5. ^ Uluçay, Dilek Melike; Melek, Gizem (28 November 2021). "Self-presentation strategies and the visual framing of political leaders on Instagram: evidence from the eventful 2019 Istanbul mayoral elections". Visual Communication: 147035722110575. doi:10.1177/14703572211057595.
  6. ^ Rosenthal, Steven (May 1980). "Urban elites and the foundation of municipalities in Alexandria and Istanbul". Middle Eastern Studies. 16 (2): 125–133. doi:10.1080/00263208008700439.
WP:SNOW close. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the large amount of significant coverage, if the coverage is this extensive in English I can't imagine how extensive it must bw in Turkish. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Bhandarkar[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sunny Bhandarkar (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 enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yorobase camp[edit]

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

Notability 0%. No sources. Mozzcircuit (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 03:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Carlos Valencia[edit]

Deborah Carlos Valencia (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 think the redirect to Melissa Network a newly-created page by the same author would be great. Here we see lack of reliable references and possible promotion or at least promotional tone of voice. Mozzcircuit (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

as the Melissa Network was drafted then I consider this page be drafted too. If possible Mozzcircuit (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Zee[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Queen Zee (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)

UPE/COI editing of article which was deleted in 2021. Same issues still exist. Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 11:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep due to significant coverage (and award, not a notable award yet, but could be); significant coverage (includes quotes from her Facebook, but seems independent); significant coverage (short article, but about her). Weak because they are not the most renowned sources and my understanding of the South Sudan media landscape is low, and the third article is short. CT55555(talk) 14:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Note that there is a British rock group also called Queen Zee, as seen here: [26]. As for this Queen Zee, see #8 at WP:NMUSICIAN, which says that an act can be notable if they won a major award. The South Sudan Music Award is unlikely to qualify because it is a largely self-promoting ceremony and the honor of winning does not generate reliable and significant media coverage in that country or elsewhere. Queen Zee also got some minor coverage for an arrest, but that is not significant enough for WP:PERP either. And finally, her music is still largely confined to all the typical streaming services and sites that reprint promotional blurbs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't appear to meet the requirements stated by WP:GNG, not seen or found any reliable sources as yet. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 01:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above comments; the article does not currently pass WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination and in the comments above. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Ainaga[edit]

Gustav Ainaga (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)

Despite playing his part in 4 games of football ten years ago, I can't find any evidence of meeting WP:SPORTBASIC. I did an Indonesian source search but it only yielded stats database sites and Wikipedia mirrors. I used alternative spellings in line with Liga Indonesia but still couldn't find the multiple sources showing significant coverage that would be required. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I Putu Dian Ananta[edit]

I Putu Dian Ananta (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)

Searches, including an Indonesian source search, did not yield any coverage towards WP:SPORTBASIC. Article is currently a stats stub with no assertion of notability. Best sources that I could find were Bolasport, Bali Post and Liputan6, all of which were trivial mentions and contained no detail about this footballer that we could build a meaningful biography from. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Deliberately not a merge result - there is nothing I can see that is sufficiently independently-sourced to merge to the main article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy (Artemis Fowl)[edit]

Fairy (Artemis Fowl) (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)

Was prodded by Piotrus, then deprodded without improvement or rationale. I couldn't say it any better than they did in their prod, "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." Onel5969 TT me 10:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fancruft to the extreme— most fancrufting stops at “X apears in Y” on X’s article or even just “list of Xs in Y”, but this actually goes out of the way to make an entire article about a wholly obscure and non-notable appearance of a common trope in a moderately popular fiction series. Dronebogus (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noda Gakuen[edit]

Noda Gakuen (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 has no content and cites no sources, topic seems not to be notable Medarduss (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Thomas (diplomat)[edit]

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

Sources here are primary and therefore weak. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. Uhooep (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kimveka (Mahabharata)[edit]

Kimveka (Mahabharata) (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 admits to being unverifiable and failing WP:V when it says According to legend, of Ved Vyasa, she is mentioned unnamed in some of the epics of Mahabharata. If she is unnamed I don't see any reason why we are then giving her a name... If we don't know the answer, it's never appropriate to just make the answer up.

Further issue is that the article has been copied and pasted completely from Bharatpedia, which is user-generated and unreliable. The only mention I can find of Kimveka is Bhagavan Bhakthi but this source considers itself to be a personal blog and is therefore unreliable per WP:BLOG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not encyclopaedia, zero sources. WP:NOTESSAY, WP:OR, and WP:NOTMIRROR all seem relevant. CT55555(talk) 13:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: Per nomination --- 👑Misterrrrr👑 (talk) 06:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the nomination and above comments; the article is not encyclopaedic and there are no reliable sources to establish any notability. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - onemore in a series of fictional or legendary persons not sourced in historical or religious texts. Bearian (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- If she was actually named in Mahabharata, I might have suggested keeping or redirecting to a relative. However she seems to come from some kind of peripheral material that is almost certainly a species of ancient original research. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Bucknell[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carradine family[edit]

Carradine family (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 that the family itself is notable. All refs are about individual members of the family and not about the family as an entity. Even the refs themselves are very poor mostly sourced to IMDB. Interesting though the relationships maybe, those that are significant can be (and are) included on the articles of the individual notable members of the family. The rest is just run-of-the-mill family history stuff which Wikipedia doesn't do per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   09:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The page can be simplified, with the Beverly Carradine section merely repeating informatioon already on his page. However the John Carradine section is more significant and is worth keeping to explain the relationships between various actors over 3 generations and how they often worked together in various combinations.Cjc13 (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't understand the nomination. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian - apologies if the nomination was unclear. My argument is that simply because a family has several prominent and notable members, doesn't make the family itself notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. To give another example, Julian Lloyd Webber, Andrew Lloyd Webber and their father William Lloyd Webber are all notable,but that doesn't mean that the Lloyd Webber family as an entity is notable. Indeed we do not have an article about that family . I believe the same to be true here. Several members of the family are notable and have articles, but no reliable sources discuss the family as an entity.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Poison Ivy[edit]

The Real Poison Ivy (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)

Moved by creator from draft, clearly fails WP:GNG and is largely nonsense. Theroadislong (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Searches did not find anything that suggested notability. CT55555(talk) 13:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article is complete nonsense, sources aren't WP:RS, can't establish notability through searching. Medarduss (talk) 14:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Whoa, WTF? A woman with such Gifts From God should use her powers to hire a writer who knows basic grammar. These apocalyptic revelations can remain on her personal site and social media feeds. She has achieved no notice in any sort of reliable media, neither for music nor fashion nor the community of people who think they're divine. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Until reliable sources can be found. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 22:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article is poorly written with little hope for rescue. BhamBoi (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above comments; the article fails WP:GNG and the sources seem to be unreliable. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Kiers[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 08:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply being present as a competitor in an international sports competition is not in and of itself an "inherent" notability freebie that would exempt a person from having to pass WP:GNG on his sourcing — but it doesn't help that this is still written to portray a competition that happened two full years ago as "upcoming", implying that there simply hasn't been any noteworthy coverage to improve the article with. And indeed he did not win any medals at the Biathlon World Championships 2021 (or any other event recorded in his self-published directory entry at the IBU), meaning there's just no basis on which to even try for an "inherently notable despite the lack of sourcing" claim. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat; article does not pass WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Griffiths (British local politician)[edit]

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

This article was intially referenced by citations to sources directly connected to him or that did not even mention him. An internet search reveals him to be not-notable. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. AllyD (talk) 08:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Common Councillors are not notable. Mccapra (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The City of London Corporation is rather unusual, but we seem to have extraordinary detail on its current composition, 2022 City of London Corporation election, 2017 City of London Corporation election, Castle_Baynard#Politics, etc. I don't see the subject's membership there as sufficient for WP:NPOL. AllyD (talk) 11:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Common council is not an "inherently" notable role that would secure an instant free pass over WP:NPOL. I imagine that it might be possible for a person at that level of office to have sufficient WP:RS coverage to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability, but there's no evidence of that being shown here, and it's certainly not a role where just verifying his existence via the city's own self-published website about itself would be sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Being a councillor, even a common councillor on the City of London Corporation, does not make a subject automatically notable enough to have an article. As far as I can see there is nothing else in the article to suggest other reasons for notability. Dunarc (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - John Griffiths is not just a typical staid City Common Councilman, but a progressive social reformer. Primm1234 — Preceding undated comment added 23:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. and I do not see one emerging with yet another relist when the last brought on zero input. It appears that a smaller grouping might bring about a clearer decision, and the standard waiting period does not apply at the close of this AfD. Star Mississippi 23:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

K04QR-D[edit]

K04QR-D (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 AfD contains 142 articles. The lead article has been selected in alphanumeric order.

Full list of articles

Innovate Corp., also known as HC2 Holdings, is a major owner of low-power TV stations in the United States. Its stations primarily broadcast lower-tier national digital multicast television networks, infomercials, and in some larger markets channels leased to independent programmers. However, many of the individual low-power stations lack notability. K25NG-D was deleted and turned into a redirect to a new list, List of stations owned by Innovate Corp., and Nathan Obral and I propose the same fate for 142 more individual low-power TV stations across the United States (35 states and Puerto Rico).

Many HC2 stations were built in the last 12 years and have never had any local presence or programming sufficient to meet the WP:GNG. Others were around since the 1980s, 1990s, and/or 2000s, but with non-notable histories such as rebroadcasting national religious programming or with no mentions in the local press. We scouted the entire list of current and former HC2 stations with articles and determined that 143 (including K25NG-D) were not notable, 21 might be notable (requiring further research and/or article remediation), and 15 returned sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass the GNG.

List articles are sufficient to hold the subchannel information, which merits being displayed in a company or by-state list. These are valid redirect targets. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie, for an AFD this ambitious, you need a lot of solid participation from experienced editors to reach a conclusive decision if you are considering deleting this many articles. I think a notification on a relevant WikiProject talk page would help garner more eyes for considering your proposal. Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz I already notified the Television stations task force and WikiProject Television itself. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for notability and agree that a list would be appropriate. I prefer a single company list, but the second proposal of by-state lists would be fine too. DJ Cane (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for most of these, but after an evaluation, I noticed that there are some that should be put under further evaluation. These include:

K07AAD-D, It itself has a decent amount of sources for it to stand up on.

KAHC-LD, Same could be said for KAHC-LD, but after doing a slightly further dive, I think they could be deleted.

KBGU-LD, They have an actual source,and some filler ones that could help them stand up to the test.

KBTU-LD, They certainly have the requirements to pass GNG, and the 1st one which I think should have already been safe in the 1st place.

KEHO-LD, 1st one who has their ident on YouTube. KEHO-LD's sources are decent, but not good enough to be an instant pass.

KHPK-LD, At this point I'm just going to begin mentioning.

KNAV-LD,KPMF-LD,KQDF-LD,KTVP-LD,KUGB-CD,KUSE-LD,KUVM-LD.

And now, to the W-Calls! (Merge W20EJ-D to WOST instead of a simple redirect),WCTZ-LD is good enough for instant pass,Same with WCZU-LD. WKUT-LD for needs further evaluation,Also includes WKUW-LD,WQAW-LD,WUDL-LD,WUDZ-LD, and WYGA-CD.

However most of these sources are from FCC, I suppose they could be allowed. Extending the list soon. Danubeball (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Danubeball: I think it's worth me clarifying a point about the GNG. "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The FCC is not a secondary source that can be used to demonstrate notability, though it is a reliable source that can be used. It's useful in conjunction with them, but when the topic itself lacks the local and trade news significant coverage to pass the GNG, then we can't have an article on it.
      I will admit that KBTU-LD might actually be worth keeping; it honestly belonged in the "Maybe" column. I did put WTSJ-LD, which is similar, in that boat.
Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After taking out the sources, so far there are still some stations that still maintain the 5-sources, Including KUSE-LD, KMPF-LD, WCZU-LD, WCTZ-LD, WKUW-LD. (Why 5? Because 4 and 3 felt like too little.) Funnily enough, there’s 5 stations here. What happens to them? They all seem good enough to be in further evaluation. For statistic purposes, that’s 142 stations down to 23, further down to just 5. That’s roughly ~3.5% of stations here remaining.Danubeball (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let me analyze these five station pages, excluding the FCC and RabbitEars.
  • KUSE has a now-dead page that looks like it was a personal blog hosted by a Canadian; a mention of its sale as part of 60 Equity stations; what must be the new version of the personal blog page; and an article about a never-completed large LPTV sale.
  • The KPMF article has a mention about KAIT's CW subchannel, which is not this station, and several affiliate lists.
  • The citations in WCZU-LD are mostly cable lineups, a now-dead forum link, two similar (but dead link) articles on cable carriage, and two blogs.
  • The WCTZ-LD citations are mostly press releases and FCC system mirrors.
  • WKUW-LD is mostly the same.
I don't see the significant coverage of the station itself that justifies notability. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, when I was sorting through on which ones should be thrown out and which ones should still remain, Appearently the FCC thing could still be used as a source, but only once* *Since you mentioned it could be used, but not to establish notability, I figured it made sense for all sources to just only count as one. So I re-evaluated some of these (With the pages) and There’s some which should’ve still been left standing.
These include: KQDF-LD,KUGB-CD,WKUT-LD,WQAW-LD, and WYGA-CD.(However, due to discovering that the source used for KMPF-LD in the CW didn’t even mention them at all, Disqualified.)

So here’s the All-New list! KUSE-LD KCZU-LD KCTZ-LD WKUW-LD KQDF-LD KUGB-CD WKUT-LD WQAW-LD WYGA-CD Danubeball (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and also, you missed a station. WZCK-LD, and also W23BW-D Danubeball (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Danubeball WZCK is in the "Maybe" column, and I have substantial newspaper sourcing on W23BW-D when it was W54BH "WSSM-TV", making it one of the 15 definite keeps. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Think I found an extra. KPTN-LD. Couldn’t find sources with a Google search. Danubeball (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Danubeball That's on the "Maybe" list, as there is some 1990s material out of St. Louis on that station. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would prefer to see a separate discussion or WP:PROD for each station. Blanket statements made as justification for deletion may apply to the stations but not to the articles. ~Kvng (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This was a source of debate between Sammi Brie and I... is it better to put these AfDs all at once, or individually? I sided with her on doing them as a collective group as the reasoning would be largely the same for them all, plus IMO doing 140 individual AfDs could have resulted in a WP:CLUSTERFUCK in its own right. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 17:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now that editors are carving out exceptions for some of the candidates for deletion and advocating individual articles get redirected, this discussion needs further debate. If nominator believes that the AFD list should be reduced, doing so would greatly aid whoever takes on the closure of this discussion. It would also benefit a closer to know what the specific redirect targets for these pages are. And thank you for notifying the relevant WikiProjects about this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Too many here and the articles are not identical. Pages can be redirected without use of the deletion process. Peter James (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They may not be identical per se but share the same common problems (lack of sourcing outside primary sources, notability issues and an overall lack of visibility in their general markets). Vjmlhds, who wrote the article on WEKA-LD, is indifferent on its deletion as “…those stations are (perhaps literally) a dime a dozen.” Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 00:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nathan Obral is right. I did create the article shortly after the station came on the air, and I do update it when the situation dictates, but at the end on the day, it really is just a (very) cheap low power station whose channels are all paid programming (infomercials, home shopping, religious) that can be found on multiple other channels in town, plus it has ZERO press or publicity (you REALLY have to dig to find references), so if the plug were to get pulled, I wouldn't raise a stink - believe me, I've fought for other articles not to be deleted, and I've helped rescue some. This article ain't one of those. Vjmlhds (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've opted to remove KBTU-LD from the discussion, but I still fundamentally agree about the other 141. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the primary sourcing is troubling but there are enough on this list that could be worth keeping that it doesn't make sense to delete them all. I think a more careful nomination of just the ones without any hope of immediate expansion would likely get a Delete !vote from me. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see prior relisting comment. Rather than a No consensus close, I'd like to see some agreement on how to move forward with this nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Lindo[edit]

Elias Lindo (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 does not meet GNG or NBIO. No indication of notability. Sources are not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  02:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator has nominated ten articles for various members of the Jamaican branch of the Lindo family with identical or near identical nomination rationales. The articles appear to range in sourcing quality from unsourced to well sourced. Question for nominator: have you checked offline sources such as The Lindo Legacy (cited in several of the articles)? Presumably a book specifically covering this branch of the family would contain significant coverage for many of these articles. Jfire (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jfire, the review of that book that you point to here states that a family descendant commissioned the book. While I suppose that the book could be used as a source of facts, having been commissioned greatly reduces it as a proof of notability. Lamona (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural Keep The nominator nominated 8 articles of members on the Lindo family in a 10 minute span and used the exact word-for-word deletion rationale for all of them. Of the subjects with "No indication of notability", least 3 were members of Jamaican Parliament and one was the Governor of Dominica for seven years. If the nominator would provide an article-specific rationale I will consider changing my vote but currently this looks like a mass-AfD with little WP:BEFORE research or even reading of the articles that are being nominated. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article adds nothing to what one could discover on ancestry.com. If the article told a story, that would satisfy me. Who's your uncle does not confer notability. Rhadow (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Regardless of what other articles have been nominated, please assess the quality of this article based on its own merits and sourcing (either in the article or ones you have shared in this discussion).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. But it's borderline, in my opinion. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Bulletin board system. Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hermes (BBS)[edit]

Hermes (BBS) (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 article about an BBS software which does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 03:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't been able to find any reliable source. What a shame. Pretty nice article. DFlhb (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of BBS software or Bulletin board system - I was unable to find significant coverage. The deepest information on the Hermes software appears to be this page, maintained by Michael Alyn Miller. I emailed the author to see if sources are available with that history. Hermes is notably not listed in the index of "Internet BBSs" (Mark 1996). Other stuff I've found: A passing mention in a paragraph about a technology system.[1] Passing mention as a public BBS system in a 2005 sweep of exposed systems.[2] Note: there is another project from around the same time called the "Project Hermes" that appeared to be an attempt to make US Supreme Court decisions available electronically. Suriname0 (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support merge, which would allow the contents to remain in this article's history, so that it could be potentially brought back if more substantial sourcing is found in the future. DFlhb (talk) 09:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In an email, Michael Alyn Miller says: "I cobbled that history page together from various records on Olympus (the "official" Hermes support BBS) and maybe some web searching, I can’t remember exactly. I also have many years of FidoNet archives stashed away somewhere and I wouldn’t be surprised if I grabbed some of these dates from there. I am sure that there are (physical) records out there putting dates on some of this stuff. The early Mac “BBS” scene manifested itself in a few conferences like Mactivity (ca. 1995) that *maybe* the Hermes folks would have exhibited at? I thought I still had my handouts from those conferences, but they didn’t turn up in a quick scan of my office." I'm still in correspondence. Suriname0 (talk) 02:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reasonable source identified by Michael Alyn Miller.[3] Suriname0 (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Found a few more: [27][28], [29] (his name is William "Frank" Price, that's not a typo).
    There's also relatively brief mention, about a half paragraph, in the 1992 "Dr. Macintosh's Guide to to the On-line Universe", page 225; part of it says "it's not as solid or as feature-laden as the alternatives", but is "fine for learning how a BBS works". Not linking but it's easy to find online. DFlhb (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ MODIN, JÖRGEN (June 1995). "COOCOM: New ways of using Information Technology for buildings design and management" (PDF). Project SBUF 2087. Some BBS systems can communicate with each other and with Internet. FidoNet is a world-wide BBS system based on hierarchically arranged nodes of BBS's communicating over phone lines. The BBS system chosen was Hermes (Price F & Yount Ralph, 1991), a character-based popular billboard system running on the Mac, but accessible from any computer system with VT100 terminal emulation. Test drives between KBS-media Lab and Skanska Software showed the user interface too difficult to use for business.
  2. ^ Shipley, Peter, and Simson L. Garfinkel. "An analysis of dial-up modems and vulnerabilities." Copyright Spring (2001).
  3. ^ Gram-Reefer, Bill (January 1994). "Macintosh BBS News". Boardwatch Magazine. Since acquiring the venerable Hermes Macintosh BBS program last Spring, new owner Lloyd Woodall of Computer Classifieds has developed a major upgrade package. Programmer Robert Rebbun has added over 70 new features and enhancements to this widely used program that now supports color ANSI graphic menus in addition to ASCII menus.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There seems to be a consensus that this article should be Merged with another existing article but I'd like to see more input on which target article it should be. Otherwise it's a matter of my picking one over another which gets us into the dreaded "supervote" realm.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - what little can/should be merged to Bulletin board system. It seems to have some relevance to the history of the concept of the BBS which would give it some relevance there. List of BBS software's lede specifically notes that the list is "a list of notable bulletin board system (BBS) software packages" which if it's being merged due to lack of notability, wouldn't belong there. - Aoidh (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron shamoba[edit]

Aaron shamoba (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 seem to be notable to me. Could pass an A7. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo programming[edit]

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

Relies heavily on one source and fewer than 100 Google results. Probably not sufficiently notable or well-attested in RS to have its own article. Andre🚐 05:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fiona Compton[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Fiona Compton (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)

Coverage lacks depth or is interview-based articles, therefore WP:NBIO isn't met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Beyond what's in the article, I'm seeing other coverage about her and her work over years at various Carnival events even with just a cursory search, along with details about her life. Some major UK coverage and coverage from a variety of Caribbean news sources and local ones.
Anyone who wants to do a deeper dive can probably find a lot more sources out there. SilverserenC 06:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable, I'm especially influenced by: https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200826-the-street-party-that-revolutionised-britain CT55555(talk) 13:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability requirements. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 22:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Joyous! | Talk 04:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evage[edit]

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

Promotional article, lacks coverage meeting the WP:CORPDEPTH threshold. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Joyous! | Talk 04:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neville J Bilimoria[edit]

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

Non-notable philanthropist or Entrepreneur. References also seems to be Non-RS Misterrrrr (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE - Beccaynr (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-The subject is notable according to article WP:BASIC and clause 1 of article WP: ANYBIO. The sources are national newspapers and agencies of India, and they are reliable sources for India. Sethfarce (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 15). I was considering closing this as Keep but most of those advocating Keep are saying Weak Keep so I'm closing this a Merge which will preserve the content. Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Dubois[edit]

Irene Dubois (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 Wikipedia:ONEEVENT and arguably WP:GNG. Article appears to have been stacked (Wikipedia:Refbomb) with articles regarding the subjects appearance on a tv program. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment argh, interviews in both Entertainment Weekly and Billboard [30] and [31]. Screen Rant is a marginally useful source [32] and an interview on MTV [33]. These are RS but interviews. I'm thinking it's a weak keep. Oaktree b (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Very brief bio in Out magazine [34]. I'm willing to give this a pass, it helps gender diversity on wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews are primary sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable reality show contestant. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep per Oaktree b. I think it does more good to keep it than it does to delete it. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (disclaimer: page creator) per GNG. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/request: If the article is not kept, please just redirect the page instead of deleting altogether. The article history should be preserved and the bio is likely to be expanded in the future (like most other RPDR contestants). ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of RuPaul's Drag Race Contestants (or similar page e.g. the season's page). If you remove Duboi's appearance on Drag Race, there's nothing of notability. Passing mentions about an appearance in theatre, or appearing at a bar. This does not pass WP:SIGCOV and therefore fails WP:ONEEVENT. GNG does not mean multiple mentions of an individual's appearances on a particular TV show. Please remember notability is not inherited. WP:NSUSTAINED applies too. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete per Lil-unique1. BogLogs (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Lil-unique1's proposal. DJ Cane (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I see a discussion divided between those advocating Keep and those who want a Merge. I don't see much policy-based arguments, just opinions on whether or not editors believe this subject warrants, or doesn't warrant an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to List of Drag Race contestants or RuPaul's Drag Race (season 15). I came here because my boyfriend was surprised that the first person eliminated this season had an article, but unlike other queens who have done other stuff, it doesn't appear Irene has any other claim to notability. June Jambalaya (the first queen from the previous season) doesn't have an article, but Kahmora Hall (the first queen eliminated from season 14) does, as she appeared in Hocus Pocus 2. Being the drag sister to Bosco also doesn't count for much either, as Irene doesn't appear in Bosco's article, and that still doesn't prove any independent notability. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia eligibility is based on secondary coverage and has nothing to do with order of elimination on Drag Race. I've added mention of Irene Dubois to Bosco's article, thanks! I've also updated Irene Dubois's entry to note roots in Houston, a bit of theatre work, and attendance at Southern Methodist University. There's more to add about the subject's time in Texas and theatre work. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. Not-notable reality show contestant. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't it be better to at least merge or redirect the page than just deleting it? Historyday01 (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup! No point in deleting the article history, especially since the article's likely to be recreated in the near future. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 18:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maine Jazz Camp[edit]

Maine Jazz Camp (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 notability. Sources are mostly run-of-the-mill coverage and don't seem to establish actual notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I don't see any outside coverage that indicates actual notability of this music camp. Joyous! | Talk 06:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Henry Parke Airey. Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Airey[edit]

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

There is precisely one subject named "Henry Airey", the other being a different spelling, "Henry Airay"; any confusion can be resolved in a hatnote. BD2412 T 03:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Henry Parke Airey, per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see why there should be a redirect to one person listed over the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Because the other person, Henry Airay, is spelled differently. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Anthem Christmas tree. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outlets at Anthem[edit]

Outlets at Anthem (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 outlets are only notable because of the tree. This article should be redirected to Anthem Christmas tree. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 03:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 07:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TAFISA[edit]

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

Non-notable organization; it's a COI creation, and it has been tagged for years now. It's been at AfD before, where it undoubtedly would have been deleted had it had more eyes on it. One or two weak mentions came up in the last AfD but not enough for passing the GNG. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for WP:ORGCRIT. There are no foundation references that met all (1) significant coverage, (2) independent, (3) reliable, and (4) secondary source. Eight of thirteen references are self-published on the organization's own website. The independent ones talk about the athletes and results, not the organizer. Rhadow (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Germany. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ethnosport as a WP:ATD, largely per User:Rhadow. The references present do not provide significant, independent coverage as required by WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The page was originally created as a split from Ethnosport and the organization could be a reasonable search term, so redirect rather than deletion seems most appropriate. I disagree with COI claims as the article was created almost a decade ago and has a large list of editors. Frank Anchor 19:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection with a delete close as opposed to a redirect close based on below arguments. I merely suggested the redirect target as this article was created as a WP:SPINOFF from it several years ago. Frank Anchor 19:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get some feedback on the Redirect suggestion. I was going to go with that option but I don't see Ethnosport mentioned on the article under discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as doesn't pass WP:GNG. Redirect is not suitable as not mentioned at target, and doesn't appear to be a benefit to bloating that article by adding information about this non-notable organisation. A redirect wuld fail the redirect guidelines, as not mentioned at target. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't meet criteria to merit an article. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 22:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find reliable secondary sources on this organization. There are online mentions of people or organizations participating in these events, but I haven't found any reliable secondary sources about the organization itself. Edits have been made which dispute who is in charge of the organization and where it is headquartered. There are no sources for those changes outside of organizational websites. I'm not certain the organization actually exists, or if it does, where it is based and who is in charge. It's also possible that there are two organizations which share the name, or there is disagreement inside the organization. SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 18:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Yatauro[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Diane Yatauro (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)

Previously kept in the yonder-years of 2009. However, our notability threshold has stiffened since then. New York county legislators are not an WP:NPOL-awarding position. While there is some coverage on newspapers.com, it is entirely run-of-the-mill coverage from local news (example) with no indication of any broader WP:SIGCOV, so this does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and New York. Curbon7 (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree, local politicians aren't notable unless they have substantial coverage. I don't see anything extra beyond mentions as explained, in local newspapers. Oaktree b (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is about the only mention in non-local news, and it's trivial coverage [35] in the New York Times. Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, previously at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks any significant coverage, until anything more substantial can be found, should be deleted until then. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 01:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado#District 3. I know this closure will make some editors dissatisfied. But I am persuaded that, despite the close election in 2022, Frisch should not at this time have a stand-alone article. A redirect preserves the content of the article should circumstances change in the 2024 election. Feel free to Merge any relevant content to the Redirect target. Liz Read! Talk! 01:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Frisch[edit]

Adam Frisch (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)

Only notability is as an unsuccessful candidate for office (and that is what all the media coverage of him focuses on); should be redirected to 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado#District 3 (I did this and got reverted by Stopasianhate, so I am taking this to AfD). Elli (talk | contribs) 00:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "A Cook PVI" means nothing to the average reader. Sourcing is primary (from their website) or a rehash of polls. Seems promotional for the election with technical info from campaigns. Elected to Aspen City Council and chairing Pitkin County's financial review committee are not notable, not seeing GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak redirect/merge, essentially WP:BLP1E, possible to merge some content to the noted election district page. Andre🚐 00:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I see that in these edits by deletion nominator at 2022 US HR elections in Colorado page, about Adam Frisch, that they merely delinked Adam Frisch. They did not attempt to make any merge of material, it was just a complete dismissal with edit summary saying non-notable. And at the Adam Frisch page, they merely redirected. That was either wrong to do without discussion, or a Bold action, and I am glad that User:Stopasianhate restored that. I will now restore the link at 2022 US HR elections page. User:Elli, did you remove any other inbound links to the article? Since the article does exist (again), I would like to see that any such inbound links are restored now. Thanks.--Doncram (talk,contribs) 02:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not just any failed candidate in just any failed race. The election was extremely narrow, it was too close to call for many days (weeks?) after polls closed, and it was a race against extremely prominent Lauren Boebert who had made very brash statements, and who is one of the prominent election deniers in American politics of today. It was an extremely close vote in an extremely close year, and it seems likely to be re-run as a race in 2024. It was major news, nationally and probably also internationally, that Boebert was in trouble in the race and about who is Frisch. I am sure, yes, that most coverage about Adam Frisch did have to do with this election which I personally think suffices, but also he did previously hold local office, and there's more known about him (including some negative-seeming stuff that was apparently saved up for release and coverage just before the election, which I think is not adequately covered in the current article). I may comment more about specific sources, but in general it does not matter that he lost, what matters is coverage existing, and as I stated he was in national and I think international news far more than any average US rep candidate. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 02:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado#District 3. If he runs for another office and wins, the page an be restored. Novemberjazz 03:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These national and/or international reliable sources are just a few of sources available beyond the 18 citations already in the article. Some indicating continuing acts towards a 2024 race, not covered in the article.
--Doncram (talk,contribs) 03:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree per Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability with specific focus on the section "don't create an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers." These are all largely the same news story. Mpen320 (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rhadow, but there is substantial story here, valid by wp:GNG. Which is not covered at all in that article, and is too much to merge into the 2022 US HR Colorado elections article. Honestly asking here: where should this GNG be covered in Wikipedia? Also, much of the coverage is about Adam Frisch, personally, and also their unusual strategy/style in running against one of the prominent fire-brand-type Republicans, not merely polling or appearances or whatever that is stuff of "mere" election coverage (which can have merit too). I will look into wp:NPOL, but wp:GNG trumps that and all other shortcut guidelines on notability in various topic areas. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 04:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I agree with you that there notable story (your words). It seems best to me to include it in this article, but where do you want the notable story covered, instead? Your "redirect" vote is for deletion of all material. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 04:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any relevant material can be included at the article on the election. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my assertion that Frisch fails WP:NPOL. Consider a similar discussion at Rahul Chimanbhai Mehta. My words "notable story" apply to the election, not Frisch's biography, which is not uncommon for people who live in Aspen. His campaign should be copied and pasted before redirect. If it is the sense of the majority that Frisch meets WP:GNG, then I will abide without rancor. Rhadow (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying. To be clear about your position, could you please change your !vote to "Merge" rather than "Redirect". In words, u r saying that is what you want. Labelling it as "Redirect" is different, and the difference matters. Sticking with "Redirect" suggests doubling down, that u really mean there is nothing material to support anything (contrary to your words here). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize you can add that content to the election article now, right? There's no need for a whole thorough merge process, just add what is worth adding. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer "Keep", in part because i think shoehorning everything about Frisch before, during, and since the election into just the election article will not really work. And, it will be better for the election article if extra stuff is not shoehorned in, including because partisan editors might fairly object it ends up covering more about Frisch than Boebert (because Boebert has a separate article and stuff about her won't be awkwardly forced into the wrong place). --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:NPOL says, Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. He satisfies WP:SIGCOV with state, national (NYT, AP, WaPO) and international (BBC) coverage by major media outlets. I've deleted primary sources and added more secondary sources to the article. Victoria (tk) 04:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • RedirectMerge and redirect to 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado. All non-local coverage relates to his candidacy, which is not presumed notable and also covered in 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado. Outside of that, Adam Frisch is a local officeholder for whom GNG is not met.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my reply to another "Redirect" !voter above. To any closer, i submit that these "redirect" !votes seem unreasonable and should be dismissed, as it seems possible these !votes represent gaming in which participants overstate a position. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed my vote to merge/redirect in light of your above comments to preserve the content that has been collected. I also think the gaming accusation is uncalled for just because we disagree on the subject. Mpen320 (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Mpen320 for responding and reconsidering your !vote. My wording could have been better, but about gaming I stated that it was a possibility. The gaming strategy would be for a rabid deletionist (not saying you are one) to state "Delete" even though they knew "merge" was better, to more totally ensure that "redirect" or "merge" would occur. Note if the overall consensus was to "Merge", that I think there's some reasonable chance it would be retained in fact as a separate article as if "Keep" was the decision, because when some unfortunate person goes to try to implement a difficult merge, they could reasonably try and fail and decide to keep it separate. I happen to have noticed recently that a number of "merge" AFD decisions in which i participated were later implemented as either "keep" or as "redirect" (which i wasn't happy about seeing, but technically at least sometimes it is reasonable for an implementer to do that). I admit that I did say "please dismiss" as if I was judging your !vote definitely was gaming, though, unfairly, and I apologize for that and for offending you. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On the surface, this should be an easy merge and redirect to to 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado. All discussion about how close the election was in 2022, the strategies and tactics, should be covered in the page about the election. That said, we must note that it is possible that the subject could be notable about his service on the city council in Aspen and as a business owner (meeting GNG independent of the subject's candidaacy). The question is, then, could we write an reliably sourced article about his tenure on the council, focused on the subject's votes and positions taken on the council. I am not sold, but the subject is mentioned in Jenny Stuber's book, Aspen and the American Dream: How One Town Manages Inequality in the Era of Supergentrification, which overlaps with the subject's tenure in office, and there are several (pre-2019) articles in the Aspen Times, which are interesting, but the subject is not featured in any national or international coverage before the congressional campaign. --Enos733 (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for coming in with the source and the reasonable comment. Are the Stuber source and the others available online? They do sound relevant. You're not saying it outright, but if the subject was "nearly" Wikipedia-notable beforehand, then I think it is reasonable to say that the election coverage tips it over to being notable. Also, not covered in the article or much mentioned here is some additional coverage since the election, not properly covered in the election article, e.g. about the person's activity since the election and their filing relating to 2024 election and recent statements of what they're doing towards possibly running in 2024. Post-election activity, perhaps not properly covered in the election article, also includes their perhaps-unusual-nowadays conciliatory approach to the election recount process, in which they chose to concede far before others would have. Honestly I think it would be hard to shoehorn everything into the election article alone, so I personally think "Keep" is a better outcome here already. And if the decision here is "Merge", I personally expect there will be additional drips of info coming out, any one of which could justify someone restoring the article and expanding it with the one more drip. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this guy meets GNG. He's not just a typical failed congressional candidate. Iamreallygoodatcheckerst@lk 04:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect All coverage is in the context of the election. While the race being close and his opponent being prominent gave him more attention, there is not lasting significant as a local councilmember that warrants a standalone article at this time. That may change if he runs again. Reywas92Talk 22:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I see all opinions expressed here, Redirect, Merge, Keep and Delete. That usually results in a No Consensus which makes no one happy so I'm choosing to relist this discussion a week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect with the CO3 race - race deserves more elaboration than any old congressional race article, as the race he was involved in was notable for being so close, and the resulting media attention surrounding him justifies an expansion of the article. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, here is some of that coverage of 2/14/2013 etc., and one post-election piece of 11/9/2022:
1) 2/14 announcement, press release type info reported in numerous outlets: Fox 31 (Denver?), CNN, by Shania Shelton (but not much more than press release info); I am not linking CBS, NBC, other Colorado or national examples.
2) More substantial articles of 2/14 & successive days include:
One of those reported he carries over $365k from 2022 campaign, more than Boebert carries over.
3) 2/15 Pueblo Chieftan reports on first campaign event, Frisch reports more than $250,000 raised in first 24 hrs. [Also about $: "Campaign finance records show that Frisch received more than $4.4 million in contributions from individuals in 2022." ]
4) A post-election article, of November 9, Colorado Sun article David Krause, Nov 9, 2022 "Meet Adam Frisch, the candidate who shocked Lauren Boebert and his fellow Democrats" includes so-far-unused biographic details and more:
  • "The former Aspen city councilman logged more than 23,000 miles and attended hundreds of community events in the 3rd Congressional District"
  • His being close to 3 terrorism incidents: "He was on the 100th floor of the World Trade Center during the terrorist bombing in 1993, and was working in midtown Manhattan during the 2001 attack. (He also finished the 2013 Boston Marathon about 20 minutes before the bomb went off near the finish line.)"
  • other possibly useable bio details ... he was bussed to a predominantly black school in high school, e.g.
--Doncram (talk,contribs) 23:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Milkwater, Arizona[edit]

Milkwater, Arizona (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 label appears on the maps after someone digs a tank (i.e. a pond) in the 1960s/'70s. Before that, there's nothing. I could find nothing else out about this spot but have no evidence it was ever a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible delete: Cannot find any reliable sources as yet, unless any can be found, I'd suggest deletion, if any are found post-deletion, it can be un-deleted after prior discussion by an administrator. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 01:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: I don't think Milkwater is a real city in Arizona nor in the U.S., at all. Why does that article even exist. I couldn't even find that town on Google Maps myself. Get it off! Darrion "Beans" Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 22:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence of a notable settlement here. Google Maps shows a "Milk Water Family Center" nearby, but I couldn't find any significant coverage of the place. –dlthewave ☎ 17:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:GEOLAND given the lack of reliable sources to confirm the subject exists. The "Milk Water Family Center" seems to be a church, and I found some mentions of people being buried there (e.g. [36]) but it would be original research to use this to conclude there's a settlement. Hut 8.5 19:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above: there are no reliable sources which suggest that this is notable or exists. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 01:04, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Lee Stum[edit]

Tracy Lee Stum (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 around for a while but does not include any reliable sources that significantly discuss the subject, and I am unable to find any. Google search brings up fewer than 100 results. Having a Guinness world record is not in and of itself an indicator of notability. ... discospinster talk 21:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I had a lot more success searching than the nom and made significant improvements to the article. As someone who opened two museums and was identified by CNN as a world leader in her field, as someone who won a world record, she seems clearly notable to me, and despite some of the sources I added being primary, I think she still gets a clear pass at WP:BASIC CT55555(talk) 00:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete The CNN story linked is a series of 12 photos with small captions, non-extensive sourcing. I don't find any critical discussion of her work, or much of anything we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is some brief critical analysis at least. I hope to add more soon. https://publish.illinois.edu/8tocreate/2019/01/23/featured-artist-tracy-lee-stum/ CT55555(talk) 00:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's promotional copy lifted directly from her website. Jfire (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, thanks for pointing that out. My bad. CT55555(talk) 16:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources aren't enough to establish notability. They are all either non-independent (reproducing marketing copy from her website, promoting a tourist attraction showing her work) or non-significant (brief mentions of Stum as one street artist among many). I don't see much better sources available either. Jfire (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to keep -- Beccaynr did much better than I did at finding sources and I think has found enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Thanks for the thorough search. Jfire (talk) 04:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after improvements to the article and sources presented in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note @Liz one delete switched to keep after this was relisted. CT55555(talk) 05:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for drawing my attention to that change, CT55555. Liz Read! Talk! 06:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_February_11&oldid=1140281463"