Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 05 February 07 >

Purge server cache

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

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

Disappearance of Nicola Bulley[edit]

Disappearance of Nicola Bulley (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 is a clear example of an event involving one person. Regardless of how many news items are cited, the event (the disappearance of one person) does not rise to notability. See WP:1E. David notMD (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:LASTING. A significant number of people go missing every year. This particular disappearance has not demonstrated that it will have any lasting impact other than to her family and friends. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Lasting also says "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." JeffUK 19:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most people who go missing do not spark such dominance of the media. They're just a footnote at most. This is not the case here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not meeting WP:NEVENT. The sad incident lacks enduring significance or widespread impact. (Edited to add: This is a great candidate for WikiNews, which doesn't have anything on the story.) Schazjmd (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I'm in two minds so I'll put everything here and maybe it'll help both the closing admin and other editors to see my concern about both outcomes. I understand and accept WP: NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. This is a tragic and, thus far, unresolved disappearance, and a massive news story locally and nationally. However, that's all it is, a very well covered news story. We can't WP: CRYSTAL our way into assuming this story will become a notable event. My mind is torn because of how unusual this story is, particularly with the sheer lack of any substantial clue as to where Nicola could possibly be; the size of the search for her *and* the size of the news coverage is notable. One day, if this story develops into something very significant, of course there should be an article, and I wonder how close we are to that today. But Wikipedia isn't a news ticker, and WP: RECENT looms large. I honestly don't know which side of me is speaking the most convincing: delete until proven notable; or retain because it's not merely "woman goes missing". I'll leave this for your consideration! doktorb wordsdeeds 00:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete they figure she fell in the river? Unless there's some crime that happened, this is likely an accident and not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b: please can you identify the policy or guideline which makes a crime more notable than an accident. Thanks. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It has to be covered in sources, so that's GNG. At the time of that comment, there were five lines of text. It appears to have been expanded since then. Oaktree b (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b: that does not even try to answer my question. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    CRIME or GNG, I don't know what the answer is. Oaktree b (talk) 02:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oaktree b: Your latest reply seems to acknowledge that there is in fact no basis in policy or guideline for your assertion that Unless there's some crime that happened, this is likely an accident and not notable.
    If that is the case, it would be helpful for you to withdraw that assertion, by striking it.
    On the other hand, if you do stand by that assertion, then please identify the policy or guideline which makes a crime more notable than an accident. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While this does not directly discuss an accident, the WP:NCRIME section of the WP:EVENT guideline includes, The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, and media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources. At present, it appears that this is a disappearance, with law enforcement agencies deeming it unlikely to have been caused by criminal conduct, so the use of the shorthand "accident" for this event seems supported by the available reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not that interested, I !voted a while ago and have moved on. Oaktree b (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this was Southeast Asia, Australia or Sub-Saharan Africa it would be blamed on a crocodile. David notMD (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable news event, plenty of news coverage and well sourced. Also the article brings attention to the case. Moondragon21 (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Events, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More than enough sourcing to satisfy GNG. Regarding NOTNEWS/NEVENT, two separate grounds, either of which is sufficient to establish notability: (a) Sustained national news coverage: the sources used in the article span 8 days, which is a lifetime in news (and do bear in mind that there's an upper limit of 12 days, if I've got my maths right, since that was the day of the disappearance); this duration and the intensity of the coverage means that it is not a run-of-the-mill, one-and-done story. (b) Unusualness: today's BBC article has an expert calling it the most unusual that he's seen in 20 years (which is already in the article). Polyphemus Goode (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That expert was hired by family members, and according to Superintendent Sally Riley, "isn’t included within all the investigation detail any more than the members of the public are". (Independent.ie, Feb. 7, 2023). Beccaynr (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:1E helps us decide between a biographical article and an event one and which ever editor(s) started this, made the right choice. There is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG and it's too early to know if coverage is sustained, we'll know that in a year, but until then, there is no rush to delete. CT55555(talk) 14:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If her body is found in the river (authorities current best guess), then this becomes a relative non-mystery, and not article worthy. David notMD (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How dare people say this is not noteworthy! The whole of the United Kingdom was/is invested as to what happened to this typical women. I cannot believe some people say that this was a 'accident' as it is so unkind. Two girls lost a mother and they do not understand where she is, can you imagine being those girls right now? I think not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purrrrxx (talk • contribs) 16:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the authorities said it dude, I just looked at what they said. Oaktree b (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG, as to the objections: The nomination refers only to WP:1E, as this article is not about Nicola Bulley, but about the event of her disappearance, this article is in line with the spirit and letter of WP:1E. Per WP:NEVENT it's not failing WP:ROUTINE because missing persons do not routinely get this level of attention, it's not failing WP:SENSATIONAL because it's being reported across the board. NEVENT also refererences the Runaway_bride_case, whilst there was suggestion of wrongdoing in that case, it's a great example that given enough media attention a 'simple case of one person going missing' can indeed raise to the level of notability JeffUK 19:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was previously neutral, but now lean towards "Keep" for two reasons. Firstly the sustained news coverage in the UK for over a week in many reliable sources makes this case different, in my view, from many other routine missing persons. Secondly, there's a BBC News reference in the article in which Peter Faulding, the man who is leading a team of underwater experts searching the River Wyre, said the case was "so unusual", stating: "I would expect to find Nicola in the water right in front of the bench where she went down. This is so strange. In my 20-odd years of doing this, I have worked on hundreds of cases [and] I have never seen anything so unusual." The words of Mr Faulding appears to indicate this is different from most other missing persons cases. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neutral per WP:N, which is more than whether a subject has WP:GNG coverage, and includes whether a subject should be excluded per WP:NOT. For this event article, the WP:EVENT guideline helps assess coverage and how this relates to WP:NOTNEWS. In my review of coverage, according to the inclusion criteria, there do not appear to be indications of a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance, and the current burst of national coverage is not by itself sufficient to support notability. There also does not appear to be the kind of WP:INDEPTH coverage needed to help support notability, and we are still in the midst of the immediate burst of news which does not automatically support notability. I think the WP:SENSATIONAL section of the guideline should be seriously considered, including because there is e.g. "wild speculation on social media" (Guardian Feb 7, 2023), and the expert (Peter Faulding) hired by family members seems to be contributing to the sensational coverage in multiple outlets (e.g. Yahoo, Feb. 7, 2023 offers a summary), even though, as noted above, he is not privy to nonpublic information from the police investigation (Independent.ie). There also is a lot of tabloid coverage in WP:DAILYMAIL, WP:THESUN, WP:DAILYSTAR, WP:METRO, and WP:DAILYMIRROR, as well as news outlets uncritically reporting speculation by Faulding, but the sensationalized coverage does not support encyclopedic notability. Beccaynr (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This Wikipedia article is not original reporting, nor is it written as a news report, nor is it a "who's who" page, nor is it a gossip/diary page. As such, WP:NOTNEWS does not advise deleting this article. Mainstream quality press newspapers are giving this extended coverage; while tabloids are covering the issue, we do not cite four of the five sources you call out as "tabloid coverage". And the sole one we do use, the Daily Mirror, is used in an extremely limited way: to support the claim that Members of the public have helped with the search—hardly a contentious fact. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    According to RS, Nicola Bulley: police urge public not to ‘take law into their own hands’ in search (Guardian), Police ‘will not tolerate’ people breaking into houses looking for missing mother Nicola Bulley (Independent.ie), so relying on a tabloid seems problematic, but WP:NOTNEWS considers the enduring notability of persons and events, and relates to the WP:EVENT guideline, which does warn per WP:RAPID, Deletion discussions while events are still hot news items rarely result in consensus to delete, so I have struck my !vote. Beccaynr (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable. --Bduke (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For now. If the case turns out to be an unexplained disappearance then it will be sufficiently notable to merit an article. If and when Nicola's body is found in the river then it simply becomes a misadventure which although tragic for her family is not of wider interest. The article should then be deleted. This repeats the point that David notMD makes above. Izzy (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Those who want to delete are annoying me. Stop being so opinionated! It's not as if we're using paper to publish these Wikipedia articles. It might not meet your values, but for other people it does. New Thought (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A case that has dominated the British media and social media for a week so far. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely agree. In addition the widespread use of social media, especially given her facebook page is open, has resulted in thousands of comments. This is a clear example of the public voicing opinion and theories about an ongoing case in a significant way. 83.100.179.3 (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm in agreement with the above - If it turns out she had fell in to the river then per WP:1E this should be deleted however as of writing this it's still being treated as an unexplained disappearance and so if nothing does come to light then the article should stay,
(Also my sincere condolences to anyone related reading this however this is how Wikipedia works - normal everyday accidents = non notable = deletion, Unexplained disappearances is obviously not seen as an every day thing and given the fact this has been in the news for the past week or so it would mean there's some notability here). –Davey2010Talk 14:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I do not feel the this article yet satisfies WP:GNG, but I agree with Izzy that since it is now there we should wait to see if it is sufficiently notable in due course. If it turns out to be an accidental drowning then the extensive coverage, which reflects present (at the time of writing) ambiguity about what happened, does not of itself confer notability. It should then be revisited through the AfD process. Peter Faulding's claim that this case is unusual could, at this point, simply reflect the frustration of someone in the public eye having not yet achieved the task they've set themselves; it doesn't mean the disappearance will necessary turn out to have actually been unusual in any way. The primary weakness of this article is the very fact that it has been written as a contemporary news article and so too many key variables remain unknown. Emmentalist (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Nicola Bulley – latest: Dog walker ‘could be out to sea by now’ as friends hit out at grief tourists (Independent, Feb. 8, 2023), "Peter Faulding of Specialist Group International told The Times that the distance and river’s course meant the 45-year-old’s body could have reached the sea by now, as Lancashire Police said: “Clearly as time goes on, the open sea becomes much more of a possibility.” [...] A family friend of Nicola Bulley has said speculation about her disappearance was hard for the family to bear..."; Vile speculation hurtful to Nicola Bulley's family, friend says (BBC News). Based on the coverage overall, it also seems important to consider WP:BLP policy, e.g. it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This is a tragic case, but most newsworthy events are not included in this encyclopedia, for a variety of policy-based reasons. Beccaynr (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets WP:GNG. Although any number of people go missing each year, very few vanish completely without trace, and very few generate the media attention and public interest of this case. It is also unusual for the police to be so certain about the fate of a missing person who has vanished without trace so early after their disappearance. This is Paul (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly notable, been dominating British media for nearly two weeks straight. Agree with previous comments that if she just fell in the river, then delete, but as it is, at present, a completely unexplained disappearance it is noteworth enough to stay. ollyhinge11 (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : It is very clear that her disappearance is notable. BBC News covered her multiple times, as seen in here, here, and here. If her disappearance is not notable, BBC wouldn't provide in-depth coverage about her three times. Furthermore, her case has appeared in New Zealand, United States, Ireland, Spain, Indonesia and Singapore news. In my opinion, it is not a WP:1E case. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 17:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not a WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E situation, as this is not a biography. Appeals to those standards as reasons for deletion are completely erroneous, and have no basis in WP:DEL-REASON#8 (deletion for failure to meet the relevant notability guideline). Instead, this should be evaluated under WP:NEVENT. And, when looking through that lens, we have WP:INDEPTH coverage from a WP:DIVERSE group of sources that demonstrate coverage beyond a single, short news cycle. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it's nigh impossible to make a call on WP:LASTING less than a fortnight after the disappearance occurred, but the fact that we can't make a call on it does not provide an affirmative argument to delete the article at this time. Meanwhile, WP:GEOSCOPE is satisfied inasmuch as this appears to have become an event of national importance in the United Kingdom, thereby making the event attain significant impact over a wide region. On balance, this appears to pass WP:NEVENT#2, and the article should be presumed notable. As no arguments for deletion aside from dubious claims that this lacks notability have been made, this article should be kept at this time. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Huge story being covered by multiple main stream news media sites. And with new information coming to light this doesn’t seem like a case of someone just falling into a river. RossButsy (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, covered by many British media. Alex-h (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, widely covered by British media so far, especially the more major companies such as Sky and the BBC. Why even bother deleting it when it's been widely covered? e (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this missing person case may well be similar to how Libby Squire went missing though likely different cause of how Nicola went missing and more new vital information could develop during this discussion. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 19:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm with those who believe more time should be given to see how the case develops. It almost reminds me of the unusual level of initial coverage & public interest seen in the disapearence of Sarah Everard. Most missing persons cases sadly get very little cverage, this case has sustained coverage in reliable, quality sources.--DSQ (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nicola Bulley is not a significant figure so there's no reason why a page should be dedicated to this investigation. Grandtubetrains (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per WP:1E as above and WP:NOTNEWS, while this has attracted significant news coverage hundreds of thousands of people go missing each year. 208.127.199.125 (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now I think we need to await the outcome. Similar articles exist such as this one Disappearance of Claudia Lawrence --Vince (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia has scores of disappearance articles (List of people who disappeared mysteriously: 1990–present) so this is not unusual. David notMD (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - Keep for now, and if it comes to be anything bigger, keep permanently. Right now, we don't know the long-term significance. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is one event (WP:1E) about a non-notable person (WP:GNG) who is currently missing (WP:NOTNEWS). Thousands of people go missing each year in England. It's not notable. I hope all missing people are found alive and well, I just don't think that they warrant a Wikipedia article. This is an encyclopedia. 143.159.1.148 (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, partly per @Red-tailed hawk. For two weeks now, this case has been the subject of exceptionally wide and deep news coverage throughout the UK and even in Ireland: see e.g. the streams of reports in The Irish Times, on RTÉ News, in The Irish Examiner, and in The Irish Independent.
The intense reporting has not just been in tabloids. The reputable news media (BBC, broadsheet newspapers etc) have also covered the story repeatedly and in depth.
As others have noted, a significant number of people go missing every year, and most disappearances get little or no media coverage. This is one of the cases which does get a lot of coverage, and while it's easy to be cynical about the type of case which fills headlines (a media frenzy is much more likely if, as in this case, the missing person is blonde, female, white, middle class), it is not for Wiki editors to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by deciding that the focus on this other particular case is undeserved. Whatever the strength of those observations of missing white woman syndrome, Wikipedia is a tertiary publication which reports the world as reliable sources see it per WP:WEIGHT, not as Wikipedia editors might like to see it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:26, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage ResonantDistortion 07:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reliable sources on the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with SunDawn on this one. I also agree with all of those that state that this should be based on event notability rather than biographical. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per significant coverage. HarrySONofBARRY (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly has enough WP:SIGCOV by reliable independent sources to meet WP:GNG as well as notability guidelines for other topics such as WP:NEVENT. Shawn Teller (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Has plenty of coverage that warrants a keep. Davidgoodheart (talk) 04:16, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Silversmith Capital Partners[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS and WP:DEL14. No indication of being notable. Refs are routine coverage. scope_creepTalk 23:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Salvio giuliano 22:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of reservoirs in England and Wales by volume[edit]

List of reservoirs in England and Wales by volume (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD |
  • Delete due to there being no verifiable citation for vast majority of the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titus Gold (talk • contribs) 22:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, England, and Wales. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 6. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 22:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All the things listed have their own article, a list is more useful than a category since it allows more information, and all information can be found in the article linked to. No need to have a reference to every item on a list when its found in the articles its linking to. Dream Focus 22:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the information is cited and, however poor the citation may be, AfD isn't the route to improve this. In fact this nomination appears to be a retaliation/reaction to this AfD nomination. Sionk (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No WP:BEFORE. Very clear that sources exist for all of the content, and deletion is not for cleanup. Moreover, this is proposed on the back of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of reservoirs in Wales, the nom's POVFORK, which is not a good look. Not sure if that qualifies for a speedy keep, but in any case it is a very clear keep. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the citation may not be ideal, but it is still a citation. I also note the nominator raised this after their previous draftification of this article, for the same reason, was objected to and reversed. Llwyld (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have attempted to find the original citation but cannot seem to find the data. Titus Gold (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is that the Environment Agency are no longer curators of this data - the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology are. I believe that this is the third time in various discussions that I have made this point. Please don't ask me to make it again.  Velella  Velella Talk   06:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep - this is a long established article which was subject to a deal of constructive discussion between several experienced editors in its gestation. The latest data set lists all the current content, and each table line is also wikilinked to its own article wherein are further references. There are some significant omissions such as Bala Lake , but omissions can easily be rectified. I can't believe any editor with any experience would assert that the list lacks notability. Thus the request for deletion fails.  Velella  Velella Talk   06:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bala Lake is a natural lake not a reservoir (man-made) Bs0u10e01 (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets LISTN Bruxton (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable. --Bduke (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully agree that the article is notable but don't agree that the citation is sufficient. Titus Gold (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bala lake is classed as a large raised reservoir by Natural resources Wales. This confusion shows that this article is not properly cited. Titus Gold (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? How do you work that out. Llyn Tegid is on the NRW list, and it is on the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology's list, so where is the debate? It is simply an omission from this article (and there may be others). When this debate is done we need to agree a clear definition of what constitutes a reservoir in the context of this article and, having done that, ensure that the article is as complete as we can make it.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:BEFORE would have turned up a number of reliable independent sources to establish notability to justify keeping this list. This arguably qualifies for speedy keep. Shawn Teller (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Corin Robertson[edit]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 22:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret J. Schneider[edit]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of reservoirs in Wales[edit]

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

There is already a page, Reservoirs of Wales. This page duplicates that, and although the creator is taking it to a different presentation of the material, that is a classic WP:POVFORK. There has been no discussion about it on the existing reservoirs page, and the information should not be duplicated in two places. Moreover there is an existing List of reservoirs in England and Wales by volume with an ongoing discussion on its talk page about splitting into England and Wales, and re-arrangement of the material there. Editor consensus appears to be favouring not splitting, but the discussion is ongoing. This page pre-empts that discussion, a split by fait accomplis. Just prior to creation of this page, the creator unilaterally moved the existing England and Wales list article to draft space (Draft:List of reservoirs in England and Wales by volume), despite that ongoing discussion regarding a split, and despite having been warned not to [1]. This POVFORK should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Jim Clark[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Metallica 2021–2022 Tour[edit]

Metallica 2021–2022 Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have vastly improved this and added more content and new citations, replacing some of the primary ones. @HorrorLover555:please consider withdrawing this nomination based on my improvements.Threevian (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's just wait and see what others' opinions are on the article. I am still leaving the options on the table from what was mentioned in my reasons for adding it to AFD. HorrorLover555 (talk) 07:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closer: Threevian was blocked due to undisclosed paid editing — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:11, 6 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! 19:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

GoFLUENT[edit]

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

A previous draft was rejected at AfC and subsequently deleted. This instance, also by the WP:SPA connected contributor, has been moved into mainspace so it seems appropriate to seek a consensus about whether the company is notable. Aside from routine listings, the article is referenced by a product award from Human Resource Executive in 2020 and announcement coverage of a deal to provide Amazon (company) training. Searches find occasional announcement-based coverage of financials transactions and partnership deals, but these again are trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH, just indicating a company going about its business; I am not seeing the in-depth coverage needed to demonstrate notability here. AllyD (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, Software, and Switzerland. AllyD (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete PR press releases and brief company profiles are a long way from GNG for here; it's great that they provide software to Amazon, but that's what software companies do; I'm sure they aren't the only ones that deal with Amazon, so that's not notable. Winning an HR award from an HR magazine is not more notable. The fact that this was already rejected after AfC should tell them it's not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete strongly in favor of deleting this article, as it lacks significant coverage and thus fails WP:COMPANY Ppt91 (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Aside from the press releases, the sources present in the article and that i could find online are precisely the type of sources that are trivial coverage of the subject. - Aoidh (talk) 00:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant coverage. Fails WP:COMPANY.--იაკობ მახარაძე (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per non etc --Devokewater 11:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 12:32, 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. There is some support for Keeping this article despite questions about the subject's notabiity. I encourage editors to follow the suggestions in the discussion to look for Arabic sources under both names proposed here. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gawdat al-Malt[edit]

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

Non-notable auditor. Only "claim to fame" was being mistakenly named in a Reuters story, which was quickly corrected. Never held an WP:NPOL-conferring office, and a WP:BEFORE search did not return any WP:SIGCOV. Curbon7 (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • Delete unfortunately, I don't see much improvement in the content of the article in recent days and notability is still questionable. Moreover, article formatting still doesn't follow WP:STYLE.
Ppt91 (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NPOL says Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. The article says he is "former head of the State Council (Administrative Court) and former chairman of the top public finance and anti-corruption watchdog, the Central Audit Organization". These look like national offices of note. Bondegezou (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unable to find what "State Council" even refers to, and simply being a government bureaucrat is not sufficient for WP:NPOL. Curbon7 (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being a government bureaucrat is not sufficient, but being head of an important national body is. Bondegezou (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hesitant keep. I don't see how this is an ordinary bureaucrat; the article suggests he held a post accountable only to the President, in a country of considerable size, something confirmed by other sources [5], [6]. Holding such a position, for over a decade, should be more than enough for notability. To be clear, I'm not offering the links above as examples of SIGCOV, and I'm unsure of their reliability, but presumably the fact that he held the position is no longer in doubt. There are clearly transliteration issues here; these sources, when translated, render his name as "Jawdat Al-Mallat". I suggest stubifying this and asking for assistance from editors able to search arabic sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This is numerically even, but the arguments to delete are substantively stronger: if SIGCOV has not been demonstrated, evidence of meeting a different criterion, or an IAR argument, are needed to keep an article. The "keep" arguments as written essentially strengthen the case for deletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Blackburne[edit]

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

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

Comment. The deletion rationale should relate to the specific article. Leaning speedy keep due to lack of deletion rationale. CT55555(talk) 20:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Despite the guidance "if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided." at WP:TALK#REVISE, the nominator has retroactively changed their deletion rationale after my comment was written. CT55555(talk) 21:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete routine coverage rather than indepth of this individual. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very cautiously because I am generally in favor of keeping ambassador pages if possible and they are helpful in expanding the network of diplomacy-related articles more broadly, but only if the article is expanded promptly to include content from reliable sources
Ppt91 (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so far the article has 2 sources, 1 being primary. What are the additional sources? We need more to satisfy WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having done the searches and added content that I found, I think she passes WP:BASIC notability, meaning there isn't any sources that give significant coverage, but there is enough that we can piece together from shorter writing about her. CT55555(talk) 03:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even with the added content, it all looks like trivial coverage. Despite her distinguished career I don't think this meets BASIC. JohnmgKing (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per the sources in the article. NYC Guru (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails to satisfy WP:BIO criteria. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see multiple independent sources focussed mainly on her, or any indication she has been involved in major events. As someone in the diplomatic service, there are going to be good sources that testify to her existence and position, but that's not enough in my view.OsFish (talk) 08:23, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Thomas (diplomat)[edit]

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

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

Comment. The deletion rationale should relate to the specific article. Leaning speedy keep due to lack of deletion rationale. CT55555(talk) 21:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Despite the guidance "if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided." at WP:TALK#REVISE, the nominator has retroactively changed their deletion rationale after my comment was written. CT55555(talk) 21:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no significant coverage. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just the routine diplomatic coverage, which doesn't satisfy notability guidelines. JohnmgKing (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , Not enough coverage to satisfy notability. Alex-h (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

List of UEFA European Championship goalscorers[edit]

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of FIFA World Cup goalscorers, this article fails WP:NOTSTATS, as simply a database / directory of goal scorers. Natg 19 (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling in the following articles for the same reason:

List of UEFA Nations League Finals goalscorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of FIFA Club World Cup goalscorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per World Cup consensus. GiantSnowman 20:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per previous discussion, we do not need a directory of every single person to ever score a goal in an international tournament Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all for the same reasons as the WC list. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 22:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rampling[edit]

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

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

Comment. The deletion rationale should relate to the specific article. Leaning speedy keep due to lack of deletion rationale. CT55555(talk) 21:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Despite the guidance "if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided." at WP:TALK#REVISE, the nominator has retroactively changed their deletion rationale after my comment was written. CT55555(talk) 21:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Routine coverage only, nothing indepth. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 22:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Music Ltd[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:CORP; article created by an employee; tagged for notability since 2010. 2018 proposed deletion contested with rationale "has some rs" but that's not true: three of the cited sources are non-independent and the fourth is not significant. Jfire (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 22:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Shorter[edit]

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

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

Comment. The deletion rationale should relate to the specific article. Leaning speedy keep due to lack of deletion rationale. CT55555(talk) 21:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Despite the guidance "if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided." at WP:TALK#REVISE, the nominator has retroactively changed their deletion rationale after my comment was written. CT55555(talk) 21:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Routine coverage of him making announcements on behalf of the government. Nothing indepth. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salvio giuliano 22:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Stanton[edit]

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

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

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

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

Babu Shiv Bahadur Singh[edit]

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

I basically want to echo what User:Velella said in the previous AfD, which resulted in soft deletion. There is no improvement in this article and a WP:BEFORE yields nothing useful. Nothing in Google Books or ProQuest. Coverage in Indian Rajputs is insufficient on its own. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Dreams Never Die. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can't You See (Tiffany song)[edit]

Can't You See (Tiffany song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very minimal coverage in reliable sources. Multiple attempts to redirect have been reverted without WP:BURDEN. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Dreams Never Die. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Love Is Blind[edit]

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

Very minimal coverage in reliable sources. Multiple attempts to redirect have been reverted without WP:BURDEN. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fausto Klinger (footballer, born 1976)[edit]

Fausto Klinger (footballer, born 1976) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about non-notable journeyman former footballer. This humorous recap of his MetroStars career isn't in depth, nor is any other online coverage. This just drops his name as a goal-scorer in a Rough Riders semi-final match, while his career in Costa Rica only consists of match reports like this. Note that Klinger's father Fausto was notable (an Ecuador international), so be careful not to consider coverage of that Fausto Klinger. Overall, the article comprehensively fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Russi Assumpção[edit]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Bohan[edit]

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

This article about a businessperson has been tagged with notability concerns since 2014. I have looked for additional coverage and not found any from reliable sources. There are some press releases and this interview, which I have not added as I am not clear that it is a reliable source. The coverage reads run of the mill. Although he has received two awards, I do not think they are notable. Tacyarg (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, United States of America, and Texas. Tacyarg (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. a few mentions of him in regards to the planning commission, but not notable as an HR firm employee/businessman. No at-length sources that discuss his career or much of anything about him. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I concur with the nominator; sources are routine at best for BLP and sadly I can't see how notability can be convincingly argued here. Ppt91 (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with the above. --Bduke (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Leading broodmare sire in Japan[edit]

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


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

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

Eh. I managed to overlook that there already was a bunch of these articles. Yes, I would think that none of these makes a suitable article on its own, and that one combination article would be preferable. That presumably should be a merge discussion though. Withdrawing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Joyous! | Talk 17:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actor Aamir Rafiq[edit]

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

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

  • Delete this. Block evasion tells you it's not notable. Salt liberally. Same as last time, no sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Belfield[edit]

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Radio, Crime, and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. All but one of the sources were published before the previous AfD. That new source is from a local publisher, not one that demonstrates any kind of lasting or widespread notability. It's certainly not the kind of top-tier sources we should be using for BLP claims. Woodroar (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More than enough continued coverage [7], this [8] Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This, seems semi-RS [9], Sky News [10]. Tons of coverage in the BBC, I suppose because he worked there. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also coverage in the Guardian, which is a RS. [11] and in Deadline [12]. He's been convicted of a crime, this is either PERPETRATOR or CRIME. Oaktree b (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject meets WP:PERPETRATOR, a factor that was not considered in the previous AfDs. - GA Melbourne (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - indeed meets WP:PERPETRATOR. Editor Oaktree is right above about continued coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:PERP with sources presented by Oaktree. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Every single source above is about his trial - WP:BLP1E. He was previously deleted as non-notable (because he was) and the only thing that's happened since is he's gone to jail. As the very least, should be moved to Trial of Alex Belfield. Black Kite (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do agree that before the trial, this was an iffy notability case of simply being a journalist. During and after the trial, it's become notable for what he's said and done during the trial, and how his actions affected others. Oaktree b (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

It might be only one event, but he's a famous journalist in the UK and was harassing other public figures; it's not some guy stalking other nobodies, this is a person that was in the spotlight before getting charged/arrested/sentenced, there are also some right-wing ideologies at play, not far-removed from the Trump kerfuffle/media circus that happens in the US. This clearly documents how the right-wing camp has taken hold in the UK, even echoing some of the same lamentations in the trial you'd hear in the USA if it was a journalist there. There isn't much else happening as of this moment, but I'd be very surprised of this individual doesn't get themselves back in the news again for doing some other thing along these lines. The fact that they were chastised by the judge during the trial tells me they'll use that to fuel their narrative in the future. Oaktree b (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's also basically told people "I'll be back" after the jail sentence, so this isn't likely the end of story. There is nothing happening at the moment, I suppose because he's incarcerated. He is in the news as recently as four days ago, his appeal was refused, but he can try again. There is sustained coverage about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except he wasn't a famous journalist before he got arrested. Black Kite (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: (from AN) This is not WP:BLP1E because it doesn't meet criteria #3 of BLP1E. Meets GNG. The article probably should be moved to "Trial of...", but that should be discussed in an RM rather than at AFD. Levivich (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The trial meets GNG - he doesn't (certainly before his arrest, which is why his article kept getting deleted, quite apart from the fact he wrote most of it himself). Black Kite (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is not a WP:BLP1E situation for failure to meet the third criterion. Even if BLP1E were invoked, that's rarely a reason for outright deletion, as redirecting/merging is generally what happens there so long as the person is mentioned in the article. That being said, I'm not able find anything outside of the context of the trial (well, there's this, but that's a blog and this is a living person). WP:BIO1E is instructive in that When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified (internal links omitted), and that's the relevant notability criterion here even if BLP1E is not relevant. A merge discussion might be warranted at some point, but I'm not sure which way that ought go. Most affirmatively here, I'm opposed to outright deletion, and I do think that either a merge or keep would be consistent with policy, but I'm not able to discern which way we should lean here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to satisfy WP:PERP. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Lima[edit]

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

Article about former footballer who played in various Brazilian state leagues, but which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. The only online coverage available are entries in statistical databases and routine mentions in match reports and injury news. Article was previously kept at AfD despite failing the GNG long before WP:NSPORTS2022, but it's clear now that the GNG must be met. Jogurney (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hidayat ur Rehman Baloch[edit]

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

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

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

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

  • Delete per WP:BIO1E. Involved and became famous during a public protest, the subject doesn't seem to have any long-lasting notability. Insight 3 (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The !votes are about equally divided between keep, delete, and merge, so I am closing this as "no consensus". A possible merge can be decided on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GXO (company)[edit]

GXO (company) (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 this is a notable organization with significant, in depth sourcing. Has gone back and forth in main/draft space so moving it here for discussion. There's a minor walled garden situation going on, but creator has disclosed their COI, so that's mostly not an issue and they're editing in good faith. Star Mississippi 13:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The WP:CORPDEPTH-grade coverage in this sources is non-zero, it is still on the thin side and more focused on the predecessor company. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORPDEPTH, in-depth coverage required in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with XPO, Inc. which is the company it got spun off from. On it's on the coverage is not sufficient. Threevian (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closer: This user is blocked for undisclosed paid editing — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into XPO, Inc. The coverage cited above largely relates to XPO and GXO being spun off from it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:CORP --Devokewater 20:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with XPO, Inc. I found a few more WSJ articles, but they tend to be more focused on XPO. I think a section on the XPO page might be better for right now.
    Sneakerheadguy (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since passes WP:NCORP. gidonb (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do not merge with XPO, Inc. they are now seperate companies, they will go in different directions i.e. it was GXO who acquired Clipper Logistics not XPO. GXO will make further acquisitions these aquired companies have nothing to do with XPO. Both GXO + XPO are quoted on the stock exchange as seperate entities. Regards Devokewater 15:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this collection of press releases and company-published materials WP:CORPDEPTH. If an adventurous author wants to comply with WP:ORGCRIT and find some foundational references with all four attributes: (1) significant coverage, (2) independent, (3) reliable, and (4) secondary source, fine. They should title it GXO Logistics or GXO Logistics Inc. and add NYSE:GXO to the lede. Rhadow (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In agreement with the rename recommendation! gidonb (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Numerous independent, significant coverage research reports can be found on this major U.S. public company with a simple WP:BEFORE. We normally have the stand-alone article just before or soon after a spinoff, see Constellation Energy, GE HealthCare, Organon & Co. many other examples. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Merge with XPO, Inc.. The split is very recent. GXO may well become independently notable in the future, but based on the sources provided that has not yet happened. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Dhowre Elba[edit]

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

Virtually all the coverage of her is about her being his wife, or the relationship between the two, which would not have been covered if it weren't for his stardom. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The only in-depth piece on her is the Cosmo puff piece written about her because, you guessed it, she is Idris' wife. Fails WP:GNG on her own. Onel5969 TT me 13:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the refs given in the article, she's always mentioned in an article about Idris, nothing about her. Only article about her is when she confirms to CNN that Idris tested positive for Covid, hardly GNG worthy. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:NOTINHERITED links to an essay...about arguments to avoid at AFD. Nobody has that argument that her notability is inherited, so I think this is an unhelpful way to frame the discussion. It is natural that articles mention her more famous partner, but we should not be swayed by that, we should just focus if there is significant coverage about her. Most sources about Brandon Lee also mention his father, but that doesn't make him not notable. I need to assess future but she is known for more than being someone's wife. She is a model, an actor, a UN Goodwill Ambassador, the co-founder of a cosmetics company, and the co-executive producer of an upcoming Anime series.
CT55555(talk) 17:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the argument that should not be used, as per the link, is the affirmative argument, "Notability is inherited". Reading down through the section it states, "The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." This clearly states that guideline that when someone is only famous for who they are married to (with the exception of certain classes of folks, e.g. "First Ladies"), then the person must pass GNG on their own. Onel5969 TT me 18:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point is: nobody has argued that she is notable for her husband. This is a straw man argument. I think we agree that WP:GNG is what matters here, not that essay. CT55555(talk) 18:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And my point was I wasn't refuting that argument, merely stating that the only sourcing is because of who she's married to. Not a straw man argument at all. Onel5969 TT me 20:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree B. 2001:569:74E3:4000:45BE:8C5F:EE1B:95E3 (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per users above. Her whole notability seems tied directly to her marriage. But she is already covered in her husband's page. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward M. Flint[edit]

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

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

Delete Nothing found for this person. Other being on the museum committee, rest is routine soldierly stuff. Even the museum gig isn't terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kairali We[edit]

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

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

Delete, notability not established. Silikonz💬 18:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Niko Omilana[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted and was then re-created in January 2023. Half of the article refers to a non-serious and unsuccessful political candidacy; fails WP:NPOL. The other half largely refers to a single YouTube stunt, with no demonstration of lasting significance or in depth coverage of Omilana himself. Looking at WP:YTN, most YouTubers with this number of subscriptions get deleted. Bondegezou (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 14:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Undertale (disambiguation)[edit]

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

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

Delete ah, yes, I’m going to look up “Undertale” looking for Deltarune. Dronebogus (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: Tagging it for CSD G14 as an unnecessary disamb page. "Undertale 2" is not a common term. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Rosebud Kurwijila[edit]

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

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

Not notable under any criteria as far as I can see. Uhooep (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. African Union Commissioner. Uhooep (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Mortimer[edit]

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

I created this article, however Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event." I consequently no longer believe that there is anything noteworthy about the subject's diplomatic career to necessitate its own article. Uhooep (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


The result was keep. There is no reasonable possibility of further time for discussion leading to a consensus for deletion at this point. BD2412 T 04:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UFO-Memorial Ängelholm[edit]

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the Angleholm article, it's a thing, but not really notable alone. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. OK article, and nominator doesn't much explain why it wouldn't be. The entity exists and at the specified location, and nominator hasn't claimed that that that isn't so. We have lots of articles on individual sculptures and markers, I've written a couple-few myself. Yeah they're obscure, but the're just going to be more obscure if we delete the articles on them, and how does that help our remit of taking info out of the darkness of obscurity and organizing and presenting here in order to help make the internet not suck as much. Yes the sources are obscure, but they're reliable for our purposes here; if we were using them support us saying that the memorialized event actually occurred, they would not be reliable, but we're not saying that, we're just explaining why such an entity was made. For much the same reason, fringeness doesn't much matter. And obscure yes, but certainly giving significant coverage, I mean there's an entire book about the subject, for starters (obscure, granted; but very in-depth, and reliable for our purposes of demonstrating why the entity exists).
It's on OK article, four short paragraphs, nice photo, refs, fits in Category:UFO culture for people looking thru that. Why destroy it. Daily page views is 25, I don't know why its that high, but that's a lot for an article like this. Participants here should consider the statement "Those 25 readers a day will be better served when they search on the term if they get a 404, or at any rate a redirect to a couple sentences, rather than this article, because _______". What goes in the blank? Tell me. If its compelling I'll change my mind. Can you do that? I doubt the article quality is much below our average. Article is marginal to even be brought to AfD. Keep. Herostratus (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Herostratus "The entity exists" - but you know existence is not sufficient threshold to be in Wikipedia. What makes this monument notable? As for "there's an entire book about the subject" - which book, and is it about this monument, or about the UFO incident? I have an inkling that the UFO incident may be notable, and the monument could be mentioned in such an article, but I am not seeing what makes the monument notable and deserving a stand-alone article at present. I'll note that the monument is mentioned, without sources, in Ängelholm, so yes, a merge seems an option too (and gets my vote for now as a WP:ATD). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with the article, it's just that you feel it's too obscure to bother writing about. But somebody has bothered. I get that you wouldn't and would consider it a waste of your time, but we can't control other people and what's done is done. So... " "Those 25 readers a day will be better served when they search on the term if they get a 404, or at any rate a redirect to a couple sentences, rather than this article, because _______". Fill in the blank with something compelling and I'll change my mind. Otherwise, I won't. Herostratus (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and replaced the outdated 2008 photo with two improved 2021 ones from the Swedish article. 5Q5|✉ 12:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep. The memorial is "listed as a heritage site by the Swedish National Heritage Board site number RAÄ Strövelstrop 47:1" Anders Högberg, Cornelius Holtorf, Cultural Heritage and the Future. (2020). United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis. CT55555(talk) 02:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When put up for deletion these were the sources:
  • Crone, Billy (23 March 2018). UFO's: The Great Last Days Deception. ISBN 9781948766012.
  • "Contactee Wayne Aho and the October 1965 Swedish "sky train"" (PDF). (187 KiB), Clas Svahn, Archives for UFO Research Foundation Newsletter, Issue 48, Page 2.
  • Childress, David Hatcher (1991). Vimana Aircraft of Ancient India & Atlantis. ISBN 9780932813121.
  • "FAQ - Svar på vanliga frågor om UFO och UFO-Sverige". <www.ufo.se> (in Swedish). UFO-Sweden. Archived from the original on 2008-04-25. Retrieved 2008-05-06. "Några övertygande bevis för att händelsen gått till som Gösta Carlsson beskrev den finns inte"
These are the current sources:
  • Carlsson, Bo; Backman, Jyri; Stark, Tobias (June 2022). "The hegemonic impact of the NHL and the 'Americanization' of Swedish ice hockey and resistance: Rögle BK as 'hockey culture'". Sport in Society. 25 (6): 1125–1141. ISSN 1743-0437. Retrieved 2023-01-29. "Gösta Carlsson, in addition to his influence and legacy for Rögle BK, is locally well-known for his self-proclaimed UFO experiences, allegedly having been in close contact with aliens."
  • "Världens första monument över "flygande tefat"". Arbetet. 29 September 1972.
  • Dick Harrison (28 April 2017). "UFO i Skåne?". Svenska Dagbladet.
  • RAÄ-nummer Strövelstorp 47:1
  • "FAQ - Svar på vanliga frågor om UFO och UFO-Sverige". <www.ufo.se> (in Swedish). UFO-Sweden. Archived from the original on 2008-04-25. Retrieved 2008-05-06. "Några övertygande bevis för att händelsen gått till som Gösta Carlsson beskrev den finns inte"
  • Oscarsson, Mattias (18 December 2022). "Finns sanningen om utomjordingarna i ett arkiv i Norrköping?". Sydsvenskan (in Swedish). Retrieved 16 January 2023.
  • Anders Högberg, Cornelius Holtorf, Cultural Heritage and the Future. (2020). United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis
  • Gunnarsson, Evelina (20 July 2015). "Nu röjs det kring ufot". Helsingborgs Dagblad (in Swedish). Retrieved 16 January 2023.
  • Niklasson, Anette (11 July 2022). "Guidade turer vid ufo-monumentet". Helsingborgs Dagblad (in Swedish). Retrieved 16 January 2023
Red sources were removed, green sources were added, and the one source in black remains. Perhaps we should ping earlier commenters or the Fringe board to get updates on the current state? Additionally is there a good way/place to reach out to Swedish/English editors? Rjjiii (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Li Sheng (artist)[edit]

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

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

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Hiromitsu, Ogawa (1996). "The Continuity of Spatial Composition in Sung and Yüan Landscape Painting". In Hearn, Maxwell K.; Smith, Judith G. (eds.). Arts of the Sung and Yüan: Papers Prepared for an International Symposium Organized by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in Conjunction with the Exhibition Splendors of Imperial China: Treasures from the National Palace Museum, Taipei. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. p. 352. ISBN 0-87099-806-4. Retrieved 2023-01-30 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Li Sheng's Parting at Lake Tien, dated 1346, in the Shanghai Museum, roughly contemporary to T'ang Ti's Fishermen Returning and Returning Fishermen, adopts the same spatial plan in the main peak and lower half of the surrounding area. Li Sheng's work should be thought of in connection to the Li-Kuo painters of the Yüan, as following the same models: the landscape paintings of the Hua-pei school. Li Sheng adopted this for part of his handscroll; the present painting adapts the coloring technique of the Chiang-nan school to a large format."

    2. Cahill, James (1980). An Index of Early Chinese Painters and Paintings: Tʻang, Sung, and Yüan, Volume 1. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. p. 301. ISBN 0-520-03576-3. Retrieved 2023-01-30.

      The book notes: "Li Sheng 李升 t. Tzu-yün 子雲, h. Tzu-yün-sheng 紫質生. From Hao-liang. Active at the end of the Yüan dynasty. Painted bamboo, rocks, and landscapes. H, 5. M. p 197."

      The book lists works of Li Sheng at Shanghai Museum; Taipei, Palace Museum; National Museum, Stockholm; and Mr. and Mrs. A. Dean Perry, Cleveland.

    3. "Seeing Off a Friend by the Dian Lake, handscroll". Shanghai Museum. Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30.

      The article notes: "Li Sheng, a painter in the Yuan dynasty, was good at painting landscape and bamboo. This piece of work is one of the few authentic works of Li Sheng handed down. ... As recorded, Li Sheng lived a secular life at the Dianshan Lake side and built a Dianshan Cottage."

    4. Wang, Jie (2021-10-18). "A treasure trove of ancient Chinese culture and art". Shanghai Daily. Archived from the original on 2023-01-30. Retrieved 2023-01-30.

      The article notes: "However, a painting titled "Seeing Off a Friend by the Dian Lake" created by Li Sheng from the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368) shows a rare ancient landscape of Shanghai. Stretching in front of the viewers are the extended mountains lined with trees and hills. A small river zigzags in between. It is hardly convincing that what's in the painting is the Dianshan Lake in today's Qingpu District, because the landscape is so different from the existing vast lake scene."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Li Sheng (Chinese: 李升) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I added a citation and tweaked the article a bit for wikification. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep: I previous held of from a keep/delete opinion, as I was wondering whether if there was a single surviving work in a museum it might be better served by consolidating the artist and the work in a single article. However with the identification of further sources, and further works in Taipei, Stockholm and Cleveland, I think there is enough for WP:NARTIST #4. AllyD (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nabab Nandini (TV series)[edit]

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

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

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

    • Delete There are no proper sources which describes about the show perfectly not notable show. 49.32.162.175 (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - coverage doesn't indicate notability; just routine announcements of an upcoming show Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Although I encourage interested editors to ensure that the article reflects the view that this is very likely a hoax. Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whole stuffed camel[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Keep as per arguments laid out by JMWt. Bondegezou (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia covers notable hoaxes and urban legends. BD2412 T 19:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 19:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Koinonia of West Georgia[edit]

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

This article cites no sources and is an orphan. Additionally, the topic of this article refers to a small private school that no longer exists and has made no notable impact worth noting on a Wikipedia article. This is after a failed WP:PROD objected by User:Gumlau who did not provide an explanation as to objection. EmperorKen (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by population in 1907[edit]

List of countries by population in 1907 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on 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! 08:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Goffredo[edit]

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

This extremely short and minimally-sourced article might have BLP problems, but for the fact that some unreliable sources suggest that the subject died several years ago in a garbage truck accident.[18] [19] As a result, it seems like this person is most notable for being a relative of someone who isn't notable enough to have his own page either (redlink: Mauro Goffredo). There is one plausible source that's not in the article ([20]) but that article is more about yet another guy who also doesn't have his own page (redlink: Joe Ligambi). Overall fails WP:Basic in that there are not multiple independent in-depth sources even after his death, and it now seems unlikely that there will ever be more. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on 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! 07:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonam Tshong[edit]

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

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

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

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

Judith Farnworth[edit]

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

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

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

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

Richard Clarke (diplomat)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Soehardjono Sastromihardjo[edit]

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Politics, and Indonesia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Secondary sources in Indonesian, such as Tempo and Kompas do exist to corroborate the individuals diplomatic postings, but the depth of coverage is very shallow and does not go beyond mentions of such postings. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 15:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage limited to routine announcements. No significant indepth coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Diamond (artist)[edit]

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

No sources to suggest notability, and notability is not inherited. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • Probably keep - whilst acknowledging its status as a guideline which explicitly says that meeting stated criteria should not be taken to mean that the page must be kept, it appears to me that the subject of this page meets criteria 1 at WP:COMPOSER. I have no experience in assessing music pages, but together with the resounding silence from those who are interested in those topics, I think it's a keep. JMWt (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A clear pass at WP:ANYBIO C1 having been nominated for a Grammy twice https://www.grammy.com/artists/steve-diamond/1503 CT55555(talk)
    • ANYBIO C1 says nominated for such an award several times–several means more than two. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for saying that. This feels like something I should have known before today! Anyway, he also won an Emmy and other awards, so I'll stand by my conclusion, even if the initial reasoning was flawed. CT55555(talk) 02:39, 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) 10:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo–Myanmar relations[edit]

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

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

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

  • Keep The articles have been created because WP:ARTICLESIZE is currently an issue International recognition of Kosovo, at around 65 KB of readable prose size. The policy establishes that long articles should be split into smaller ones, and since their creation, content has been trimmed in the main one, meaning that the text is not merely duplicated, not to mention that the articles have sufficient coverage per WP:GNG. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The specific Kosovo-Myanmar relations article has little chance of expansion and contains the exact same text as Myanmar's table entry in International recognition of Kosovo. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete all Revisiting this after relisting and looking at other articles, some may meet GNG. However, for bilateral relations articles, there should be more to say than just recognition. I believe, all should be deleted and the original International recognition of Kosovo article be reworked to reduce WP:ARTICLESIZE.
    Based on quick google searches, Kosovo-Myanmar and Kosovo-Mauritius had no articles, and only had travel/visa/database-type pages. Kosovo-Mexico has a few sources, including some about Serbia-Mexico regarding Kosovo. But all are primary sources. Kosovo-Moldova has, outside the two already used, only articles about football matches (routine coverage, not WP:GNG). EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 21:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Not seeing evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent, non-primary sources. Yilloslime (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • Delete Kosovo–Myanmar relations – Nobody has shown that the article meets WP:GNG. There is only one reference, while WP:GNG requires multiple reliable, independent sources. I also can't immediately tell whether the website cited actually meets WP:RS. Regarding WP:SIZERULE, I don't think we can create articles that lack notability just to get around another article being long; the editors at that page will have to find some other solution. As for the other three, I'm less sure. They have two sources each but in none of the three cases were both sources clearly WP:RS (Moldova seems closest). Gazelle55 Let's talk! 10:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcegraph[edit]

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the sources offered are appropriate for establishing that the company meets WP:ORG. 331dot (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like the opportunity to rescue my efforts here. (Also, newb, so learning as I go.) First, I feel the UPE tag should be removed given I have addressed the issue on my user page and the other user who may have a UPE issue seems to have disappeared (and didn't make any substantial edits, as far as I can see). Second, I've prepared a source assessment table, which I will include below. I hope this will contribute to the discussion about sources. If the article passes muster on those two counts, even if only just, the remaining tags can be addressed so that the content is improved. Worktheclock (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Weak delete. The source review table is nice, but most is from Venture Beat. Multiple, different RS would push this over into notability territory. This Ars Technica one seems ok [21] Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
but as with the Wired article, it's really only partially about the company. I'd like one more strong article about the company before changing the !vote Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. GNG does not supercede NCORP, they're the same thing, just NCORP provides examples and better guidance on how to apply in the context of companies and products. It can't pass GNG and fail NCORP and vice versa. If you think it does, then you're not applying GNG correctly. HighKing++ 18:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the assessment above, as routine funding announcements are very specifically trivial coverage; the subject does not meet WP:GNG. - Aoidh (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have reworked the article so that it is about the *product* and written from the standpoint of the product, not the company. I believe there are sufficient sources that meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Unless it gets reverted I believe a Keep !vote is now appropriate. HighKing++ 18:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ramon Jacinto#Compilations and other albums. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎🙃 07:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muli (Ramon Jacinto album)[edit]

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

Topic created last 2015 and a user moved this to draft last month, violates WP:DRAFTIFY. Also, this fails WP:NALBUM, a WP:BEFORE shows nothing that can pass this policy. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ramon_Jacinto#Compilations_and_other_albums: found no additional coverage and the article relies solely an an Amazon page. QuietHere (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ramon_Jacinto#Compilations_and_other_albums. Fails notability tests. No PARI gold/platinum status, no awards and no charts found. --Lenticel (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After 3 relists still minor participation and no apparent consensus. No prejudice to a re-nomination in 1 or 2 months time if no improvement is forthcoming. Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irpin Declaration[edit]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • Keep. Seems like a notable thing if you search for it in using the local language "Ірпінська декларація" CT55555(talk) 01:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Any sort of notability it seems to have is as a news event, though. Not every news event is worthy of an article, and it seems like this information would be much better suited as a sentence or two as a part of the history section on the articles about the individual groups which either signed or were alleged to have signed the declaration. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 01:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Mumuni Bawumia. Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mariama Bawumia[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Watson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wong Wai Hung[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

struck out duplicate !vote. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sorry thought i had a new vote 13:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC) WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All Bengal Students' Association[edit]

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

Currently has no in-depth coverage, and searches did not turn up any. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 19:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on 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! 19:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ile-de-France Region Waste Management Observatory[edit]

Ile-de-France Region Waste Management Observatory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Organization that cites no sources and fails WP:GNG. No additional (non-wiki) sources could be found with a WP:BEFORE search TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 20:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete No references in fourteen years for this apparently self-published page? Rhadow (talk) 09:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gylles Mitchel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on 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! 03:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Joseph[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lobi Manzoki[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per GiantSnowman. I also found 5 among many many more English, French, Chinese, and Swahili sources. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources linked by GS meet requirements. We only need 2 RS showing non-trivial coverage and we have that here. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, lazy nom with no BEFORE.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy backon[edit]

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

BLP of an elected local councillor. Does not pass WP NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_February_6&oldid=1139195779"