Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 16 January 18 >

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 Speedy keep; no realistic prospect of deletions. Additionally, I'm going to remove the "oldest person in the world" part from WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES, as we've had three successive such biographies survive AfD (hence, it can't really be described as a common outcome) and there's a general recognition that the oldest person in the world should, generally, pass GNG (non-admin closure). Sceptre (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

María Branyas Morera[edit]

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

Only known for being the world's oldest living person. If she were to die today, I don't think it would survive an AfD. Interstellarity (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Interstellarity (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That is a very notable property. We must watch this article as long as she's alive. Georgia guy (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Georgia guy: I understand your viewpoint regarding being notable for being the oldest living person in the world. As an encyclopedia, we should be aiming towards long term usage. There will likely be a new oldest living person in the years ahead. We don't have an article for everyone who has held the title of oldest living person and there is a reasonable chance it would not survive a future AfD even if this article does survive AfD. I think we should wait until she lives to a certain age before recreating the article. Interstellarity (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We always give the confirmed oldest person in the world it's own article. I don't see why it should not be the case here. DrKilleMoff (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unless it's proven someone else is the oldest person, she deserves her article. Sir Jack Hopkins (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that being the oldest living person gives the subject enough notoriety to warrant a Wikipedia article. Many other people who are notable almost entirely for their longevity also have their own Wikipedia page. If the subject did die today, being the oldest living person for less than a day is surely very notable and exceptional in and of itself! I do agree that the the page requires expansion and an overhaul as I’m concerned that some of the little information within the article is inaccurate. JackTaylor6464 (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is the oldest, and even if she dies, we should still keep the article in her honor, as we do with other supercentenarians. Taiwanexplorer36051 (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
The closest in history according to oldest people is four days, unless proven otherwise.
Other hand; Keep Although some previous longest living people in the list don't have articles, the last few Kane Tanaka, Lucile Randon, Nabi Tajima had either a page or a redirect. And I think I saw an article about María Branyas Morera that was recent, following the passing of Lucile Randon. We can also use the GRG as a source for some basic info, like birthdate confirmation, age, so on, just to be safe. The article appears to be decent now that I don't think it can be straight up deleted with the sources found now.

TheCorriynial (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Found the article: https://www.catalannews.com/society-science/item/catalonias-maria-branyas-becomes-oldest-living-person-on-earth-at-115. Its got some info and it even mentioned a interview done in 2019. That, plus anything else, could be enough.

Comment Now, i'm not just gonna go ahead and say "Oh, she's the oldest living person in the world. That means she must have an article" even though I do agree. After all, she would still need some coverage from reliable sources and have to follow the WP:GNG guidelines. What I feel must happen is that we need to wait first. She just became the oldest living person today. Extensive coverage will hopefully come throughout the week as people start to look into her after she becomes the oldest living person. Plus, " If she were to die today, I don't think it would survive an AfD." is not a convincing argument. You have no idea is she will die today or if she will live for another 8 months like Lucile Randon. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has been reported on by many reliable sources. Partofthemachine (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She's covered in articles talking about the French nun that died, that was the next oldest person. She lives in Spain and survived COVID. Beyond that, well, she's old. There's nothing notable about any one of these things. Oaktree b (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For all those that claim that "being the oldest living person is notable" note that three such women failed Afd and and the articles were redirected to a list, and of those only one had sufficient information for a mini bio. Unless the article reaches the stage where it passes WP:NOPAGE/WP:PERMASTUB then a stand-alone article is not justified. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per those above. Wide coverage of the subject shows notability and thus meets WP:GNG. As an aside, the subject also is one of the oldest people to survive COVID. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As time goes by, only more information and notoriety will increase. Being the world's oldest verified living person should justify her own article. --Benjamin.P.L (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oldest person in the world, so should have an article by right, as every previous holder of the record has had a Wikipedia profile, so why should María be any different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.102.139 (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WRONG! Not only is there no such precedent for "oldest person" having an article by right, 3 recent oldest people do NOT have articles (as well as many earlier such persons). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 06:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding this argument, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Peaceray (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not actually the point. The IP (and others) have argued that being the oldest should automatically qualify someone for an article, which is incorrect as being the oldest does NOT automatically pass WP:N. For a stand-alone article to be justified for someone who is the oldest person there needs to be sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG and sufficient content in the article to pass WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB. Most of this is included in WP:LONGEVITY (which some contributors here may not have read). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a before search shows a lot of sources so the subject passes WP:GNG. One such source is [1]. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 08:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 10:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Multiple other "oldest living persons" have their own articles, this is a long established form of notability. --Zerbey (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I compare it to being a political figure. You aren't always in office, but the fact that you were in office at one point makes you notable. 2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:EC4B:413:D10F:95C6 (talk) 11:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Standard Wikipedia policy appears to be that the world's oldest living person is intrinsically notable. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I honestly fail to see how being the world's oldest person can be considered non-notable. • Huferpad talk 12:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being the world’s oldest person is a clear claim to notability. Velociraptor888 12:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional merge to List of the oldest living people: As a guideline rule of thumb, oldest-living people explicitly fail WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES:

Articles about people known only for being the oldest person in the world, in a country, etc., at any given time are normally redirected or merged to a list of oldest people.

The article currently has nothing to say about Branyas Morera except for her being the oldest person in the world: there's nothing about her career, her personal life, etc.. Unless more sources can be found to say anything more substantial that merits an article in its own right rather than a few sentences in that list (though I suspect such sources exist), merge per WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES. _MB190417_ (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: I agree with @DerbyCountyinNZ per WP:PERMASTUB (effectively, my comment above is to merge if WP:PERMASTUB is met). But, as per @Onegreatjoke, we should probably hold off such assessment for now as we can expect more coverage over the coming days.
Additionally, I find it bizarre how many editors in this discussion have assumed notability is inherent/precedented here, when WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES is very clear that it is not. _MB190417_ (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“This page is not a policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones,” - WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES. It is important to read what you cite thoroughly. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I meant 'guideline' in the informal sense of 'rule of thumb'. The 'normally' of course precludes any definitive recommendation anyway, and Wikipedia doesn't work on precedent. But my point in citing WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES was to show the precedent/assumed notability that other editors cite simply doesn't exist, and a merge is common for such articles if they are short. I didn't appreciate the suggestion that I don't read thoroughly. _MB190417_ (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (change of recommendation). The article now exceeds the few sentences it did at the time of the AfD nomination, and includes significant coverage in the popular press of Branyas Morera's life (some of which predates today). In time the article may well be nominated again for deletion as WP:RECENTISM, but for now, notability and significant coverage are both established. I have struck through my original recommendation, but kept the note of WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES, which I stand by. _MB190417_ (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
There's a parallel with a problem in set theory, which runs: 'in the set of uninteresting whole numbers, one number will be the smallest. It therefore becomes interesting as it is the smallest uninteresting number.'
  • Comment: I saw that the previous record holder died, I went to the page of the next one, and saw that it was afd. This is something people want to know... I would assume that this is one of the fundamental purposes of an encyclopedia. 2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:EC4B:413:D10F:95C6 (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if she were to die today it would not alter the fact that she was once the oldest living human being, which is a good enough reason to establish notability IMO. Keivan.fTalk 18:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has the required notability as she became the oldest living person yesterday. Ardije (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just being the oldest living person means she now meets WP:BASIC. Even WP:SINGLEEVENT states that If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Perhaps it is time to drop the stick & realize the snow ball clause applies to any notion of deletion. Peaceray (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oldest person alive merits their own wiki article. --38.106.246.197 (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is plenty of coverage of her and her longevity to warrant her own article. Any given "world's oldest person" gets coverage and attention for such a circumstance from reputable sources, regardless of if they are independently notable; this is especially true when the world's previous verified oldest person dies. The exceptional qualities from a longevity standpoint of a person who becomes the world's oldest living individual is guaranteed to be given attention, speculation, and interest from many vantages. Therefore, for any given person who has been verified as the world's oldest living person at any given time, I do not see any reason to delete such pages unless if interest and coverage wanes and the "world's oldest living person" title loses its curiosity to become irrelevant. And such a possibility is not relevant to the circumstances of María Branyas Morena, whose article I cannot justify nor conceive as something to be deleted from Wikipedia. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and change the common outcomes to exclude world's oldest person -- oldest person in a country, oldest person to do X, etc. are likely redirect candidates, but as far as I can remember, everyone who was once the world's oldest person got obits in major news outlets. The news outlets considered the person notable enough and they provide enough verified information to write an article. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'd be happy to draftify this on request if anyone actually wants to work on it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Latina stereotypes in hip hop[edit]

Latina stereotypes in hip hop (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)

Mostly exists as an argumentative essay with no real enyclopaedic substance. I'm mostly citing WP:TNT for this. AtlasDuane (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Seems like a wonderful essay but does not establish this as a singularly notable subject for Wikipedia's purposes. QuietHere (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Latin America. QuietHere (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've been at WP for a long time and I'm still shaking my head over that "WikiEd" project that someone thought was a good idea back in the mid-2010s. Students learned how to do research and write online articles, only to have most of their works deleted for breaking the rules (WP:OR, WP:NOTESSAY, WP:GNG) of the very same site that invited them to participate. And we're still cleaning up the mess years later. The nominator and previous voters are correct on how this one does not qualify for WP. Sorry, kids. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I don't understand that one either. If you want to do it, teach them how to properly source and article we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - call me contrarian, but I don't think that it's irredeemable. In fact, there are plenty of reliable sources that show significant coverage. The style is poorly worded, to be charitable, and parts of the article are synthesis. Overall, I don't see problems that can't be fixed by ordinary editing systems. 15:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)
  • While this may be true, I would at least like to note that the best way of going about recreating the article would be to WP:BLOWITUP so it may as well be deleted anyway as the first step to that. QuietHere (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that the article is in bad shape and there are issues in tone, sourcing, and neutrality. I also agree with User:Bearian regarding the article's redeemability and the notability of the subject matter. What do we think of Draftifying it? Additionally, we have Stereotypes of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States, although I don't think there's enough proper material in the nominated article for a merge. Mooonswimmer 14:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever is fine as long as it gets out of mainspace. I doubt someone would want to work on it, though. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When recommending to Draftify, we have to consider who would improve the article after that is done. The creator and early contributors to this article were part of a special school project 7 years ago and have long since moved on, and the article's history since then consists mostly of minor cosmetic changes and typo fixes. Having an article sit in the Draft system with no progress in sight isn't really much better than just deleting the whole thing. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:13, 17 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! 22:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is a bunch of things mashed together to form an "article", nothing cohesive. I guess we could save parts of it, but, it's not worth it. Oaktree b (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the parts that are actually of value could be covered elsewhere most likely WesSirius (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is unanimous consent that some reviews of the albums is insufficient to pass Wikipedia:Notability (music) criteria, and having looked at the criteria listed on that page, the arguments are persuasive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grey Daturas[edit]

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

Fails GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (music). The only thing I can find was lyrics, song reviews and band reviews. Nothing on wikipedia library or search engines. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 22:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 22:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nomination. Current refs are all primary. No wikipedia appropriate sources I could find on google to support this article hanging around here. - GA Melbourne (talk) 08:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I will point out that they got a couple of album reviews at AllMusic ([2], [3]), but not the crucial biography article. Otherwise, they released a lot of stuff and got gigs, but I can find nothing useful beyond their own publicity announcements, self-upload sites, record company directories, and the like. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is an odd situation: AllMusic has articles on the LPs but not the band. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B.O.M.B. Fest[edit]

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

Fails GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (events). Searching up the fest on a search engine only shows the wikipedia page. Nothing on the internet that is reliable and the person who created this article might be related to this subject. Also mentioning that this article has had an notability tag issue since June 2010. `~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 22:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. BusterD (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Raina[edit]

Priyanka Raina (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 notability as director, critic, actor or writer. There is coverage in social media, promotional pieces, interviews, etc., but no independent in depth coverage. The article may have been created and majorly contributed by the subject (and sock), however I have cleaned up the sources for better analysis. Bringing it here as a contested PROD. Jay 💬 20:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I think it needs more work before it gets deleted. There need to be more sources. JRed176 (talk) 22:02, 11 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! 21:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a woman with the same name married to a famous cricket player, not sure if it's the same person. Lots of tabloid coverage, they had a baby, and the like. I don't think any of it is GNG. Delete Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I feel like I must repeat myself: first, substantively, she's just not notable; short film producers are dime a dozen. Secondly, I am strongly opposed to autobiographies on Wikipedia. In 2007, that could have been excused, but in 2022, it's untenable to try to sneak in a social media page masquerading as an encyclopedia article, as everyone knows what Wikipedia is and is not. To be blunt, it's theft of our services and gaslighting. Tagging DGG. As a matter of good corporate governance, and to deter such actions against all non-governmental organizations, I would always delete autobiographies of which the only substantial content has been added by the subject themselves. When they become notable, then another person can re-create the article. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BusterD (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of FIFA World Cup broadcasters[edit]

List of FIFA World Cup broadcasters (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)

Sprawling list of broadcasters for the World Cup that is mostly unreferenced. Broadcasters for an individual WC may be notable and discussed but not as a whole. We already have articles for individual World Cups: 2006, 2014, 2022, etc . This article seems like excessive information that is not encyclopedic for Wikipedia. Natg 19 (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I questioned this article before, it's trivial and unencyclopaedic. Govvy (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How can individual WC broadcasters be notable but not as a whole? Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Broadcasters are undue. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete covered adequately in each year's separate articles, and intersecting all the broadcasters for all of the FIFA World Cup events just makes a WP:NOTDIRECTORY mess, which is what this article is. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:10, 15 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! 21:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since the Cup's broadcasters are amply covered in each article about the World Cup, such a list is superflous. TH1980 (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Category:Indian Institutes of Management alumni. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IIM Alumni[edit]

IIM Alumni (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)

What not to make a disambiguation page for. No articles to navigate to. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. BusterD (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandar Petrovic (extreme athlete)[edit]

Aleksandar Petrovic (extreme athlete) (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 created by a blocked sock; I find no coverage for this individual and I'm thinking the "awards" won are not notable. There is a similar person that's head of the basketball federation in Serbia, who isn't this person. Oaktree b (talk) 17:05, 3 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! 16:38, 10 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! 21:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No SIGCOV in any quality RS outside of niche blogs. Definitely also a paid-for article. This will need SALT I suspect. 31.187.2.233 (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources on google, most results are stats.`~HelpingWorld~` (👽🛸) 05:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2021 WUFA World Series: Surrey Stage[edit]

2021 WUFA World Series: Surrey Stage (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 minor tournament by a new organisation of "unaffiliated" "country" football teams, comparable to CONIFA but much smaller so far. The event got no attention, the documentary got no attention either. Fram (talk) 14:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as deletion is contested on the article talk page. Soft deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete clearly fails WP:GNG. Not surprising as it's one part of a seemingly non-notable parent competition. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on 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! 06:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Wilson (minister)[edit]

Graham Wilson (minister) (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 on a leadership consultant and inter-faith minister is poorly referenced and I do not think the person meets WP:GNG. It is a difficult name to search for but WP:BEFORE found a profile on the Churchill Fellowship site, which I have added. There are no other footnotes and the other external links are to Wilson's own websites (both deadlinks) and to the Institute of Directors, India, where I found some posts by Wilson but no independent coverage of him. Tacyarg (talk) 12:12, 10 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! 21:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails NBIO/GNG by the looks of it.-KH-1 (talk) 06:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Understanding[edit]

Supreme Understanding (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)

NN author. Self-published references only. Sabih omar 20:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number of urban areas by country[edit]

Number of urban areas by country (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 entire article is dedicated to a single source. More verification is not possible because the entire premise of the article is based on what Demographia deems important.

The single source is a private company that appears to be the output of a single person. There's no evidence of peer review, or any kind of editorial oversight that makes a good secondary source. This is basically using wikipedia as a blog. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be original research. Ajf773 (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I like the idea of this page, but it's entirely based on what looks like a single person's personal website? [8] doesn't instill confidence in it's authenticity. If there was an alternative source like the UN then I would say keep. In fact, I would say demographia shouldn't be used on wikipedia at all, but I don't know how to ask that. Mattximus (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree with you on that, and it's unfortunately proliferated throughout wikipedia. For example, the same Demographia source is cited in the lede for New York City (and there's currently a talk page discussion about whether or not to remove that). Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will participate there. Someone's blog does not really belong on wikipedia, especially when the US census produces excellent data. Mattximus (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed, this does look like original research and unreliable. Equine-man (talk) 07:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Republican Party (United States)#LGBT issues. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Pride Coalition[edit]

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

Coverage is routine. Article reads promotional. 22 Google results and scarcely any results in any other sources. Sources used may not be reliable. Not sure this merits its own article. Andre🚐 17:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Republican Leader Backtracks on LGBTQ+ Outreach After Backlash". www.advocate.com. 18 November 2021.
  2. ^ White, Griffin (16 November 2021). "Republican Party of Texas Condemns RNC Pride Coalition". Texas Scorecard.
  3. ^ Riley, John (17 November 2021). "Republican Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel apologizes for poor communication regarding gay outreach initiative". Metro Weekly.
  4. ^ Moran, Charles T. (June 23, 2022). "Gays have a place in Trump's Republican Party no matter what Texas GOP calls 'abnormal'". USA TODAY.
  5. ^ "Marjorie Taylor Greene Slams RNC Chair for Embracing LGBT Voters". Newsweek. 20 November 2021.
Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SK#3. As the nominator has correctly observed, this page is a disambiguation page. No rationale for deleting it has been given. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Peterson[edit]

Alan Peterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AFD | :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a disambiguation of containing the names, Alan Peterson in it, with one having a page that is a stub.

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sal2100 (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Alliance of Libertarian Parties[edit]

International Alliance of Libertarian Parties (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:ORG and WP:GNG. All the given sources are WP:PRIMARY or non-WP:RS-compliant. My WP:BEFORE search on multiple search engines found no RS-based significant coverage of this organization. Sal2100 (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • After reviewing the comments of Goldsztajn and the sources they provided, I have determined that the subject passes at least the bare-minimum requirements of GNG. I am therefore withdrawing the nomination and closing as speedy keep. Sal2100 (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism, Organizations, and Politics. Sal2100 (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Essentially a members list which satisfies WP:NLIST.[1][2][3] Purely for verifying membership of the Alliance (a non-interpretative action), per WP:PRIMARY, sourcing to the organisation itself is acceptable.

References

  1. ^ Nimsgern, Jean-François (12 March 2015). "Fondation de l'Alliance Internationale des Partis Libertariens". Contrepoints (in French).
  2. ^ Schoenenberger, Michael (13 March 2015). "Liberale gründen internationale Allianz" (in Swiss German). Neu Züricher Zeitung.
  3. ^ Matuszek, Krzysztof (2016). "Polityka zagraniczna w programach europejskich partii libertariańskich". Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis. Studia Politologica (in Polish). 16 (213): 156–169. ISSN 2081-3333. This article concerns the assumptions of foreign policy included in political programs of European libertarian parties, which are belonging to International Alliance of Libertarian Parties (IALP).
Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question still remains as to whether or not the Alliance itself is independently notable. While most of its members may be notable parties, after combing through multiple search engines (google news/newspapers/books/scholar/JSTOR, proquest, newsbank, etc.) I have not found RS-compliant significant coverage of the organization itself. Sal2100 (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The three reliable sources cited above discuss the members of the IALP as a class, WP:NLIST: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". The NZZ piece I cannot see in full as it is behind a paywall, but the Contrepoint piece and article by Matuszek are clearly SIGCOV, so there's a pass of the GNG for the list topic. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One pole positions by Lewis Hamilton[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:LISTN and at odds with WP:DUP and WP:CFORK. Tvx1 17:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also nomination the following articles for the same reasons:

List of Formula One pole positions by Michael Schumacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Formula One pole positions by Ayrton Senna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Formula One pole positions by Sebastian Vettel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tvx1 17:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE; per nomination. --Falcadore (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all – 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) 02:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above. Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and others. Needless statscruft and lists do not meet WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: all. Fails WP:NLIST and is therefore also a violation of WP:NOSTATS SSSB (talk) 18:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the above. Doesn't provide any encyclopedic content, just data. A7V2 (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as unnecessary WP:CFORKs. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Fernando Alonso. Clear consensus below not to retain the article as a standalone. No real consensus on whether to merge or not. Hence, I am closing as 'redirect', and any interested editor can rescue the content of the article from behind the redirect and go through normal editorial processes if they wish to merge some/all of the content. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Motor racing career of Fernando Alonso[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Motor racing career of Fernando Alonso (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 just a content fork of his own article. Tvx1 17:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Tvx1 17:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Spain. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Fernando Alonso – While this article does offer more detail, I agree with the nomination that this is an innapropriate content fork. The racing record sections are a direct duplication, the fork merely expands on his career. I will note that the main article is only 36k characters, and the fork is 49k. Since a lot of the fork (lead and results tables) can be discarded, and the remainder would replace the bulk of the main article anyway, the final product should still be within the acceptable size range described in the WP:SIZERULE. 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing to merge that isn't already covered in the parent article, except for useless, bloated WP:FANCRUFT which shouldn't be merged anyway such as lines like "Alonso visited the team's factory in Enstone during pre-season for a seat fitting to feel comfortable in the R25.[43] He felt the more powerful and driveable car was more constant over a long period of time and that it had improved braking and stability.[44] The media considered Renault the pre-season favourites to win the championship and predicted a closely fought duel between Alonso and his teammate Giancarlo Fisichella.[45] Alonso said he entered the year in a positive mood and push hard and enjoy racing.[46]" - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 13:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • First preference is to keep and then completely gut the relevant sections from the parent article instead leaving just the link to this article. I think that Alonso's article is long enough as it is. Second preference is to merge most of the non-formula 1 content, in particular Endurance racing career, IndyCar Series and Off-road racing which aren't covered in enough detail in the main article (I tend to agree with the above that some of the F1 coverage of this article needs to be trimmed). A7V2 (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The IndyCar section also contains excessively detailed WP:FANCRUFT that should not be merged, such as "Alonso was mentored by the 2003 Indianapolis 500 winner Gil de Ferran,[216] and Michael Andretti was his strategist.[217] He visited Andretti Autosport's headquarters in Indianapolis on 24 April for a seat fitting. Alonso was acquainted with his race engineer and Andretti Autosports technical director Eric Bretzman and the crew chief Dave Popielarz.[218] He then spent time in Honda Performance Development's oval simulator under the supervision of De Ferran to prepare for the race.[217]" - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 14:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge of any DUE content, delete the rest. JoelleJay (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested by several editors here. There's plenty of room in the subject article for a detailing of his career, which is the reason he's notable in the first place. BusterD (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alan P. Peterson[edit]

Alan P. Peterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I first saw this article when I was googling Alan C. Peterson, which I thought he had a Wikipedia page, since I saw the name, Alan Peterson in it, only to see a disambiguation of the page. Among the highlighted ones is a page about an American ornithologist and taxonomist who happens to have the same name, which I clicked, only to find it a stub.

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 17. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 17:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being a stub is not a valid deletion rationale but the stub makes no case for notability so we will have to look elsewhere for that. Google Scholar search for his name (skipping off-topic articles likely by others with similar names) found six publications, two of which have single-digit citations and the rest of which have none. Searching for "zoonomen" worked better but still found a max of 22 citations, the rest single-digit. That is far below WP:PROF#C1 levels even in a very low citation field. Web searching finds him responsible for a web taxonomy resource, but otherwise an amateur. Being an amateur is not in any way a bad thing but it means none of the other avenues for PROF notability are open. That leaves GNG, but I couldn't find enough coverage for notability for his web site, let along enough for inherited notability for him. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per David Eppstein. The claim to fame is Zoonomen, and a listing of Peterson and Zoonomen in ITIS, mainly due to Zoonomen being linked in " Other Source(s): " for some entries really is not enough for notability. I don't see how NPROF or GNG are met. --Mvqr (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on 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! 16:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interflex Datensysteme[edit]

Interflex Datensysteme (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)

Highly promotional tone, an almost exact duplicate of Draft:Interflex Datensysteme (a COI tagged draft) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not suitable for mainspace in its current form. Editors can work on the draft and submit a rewritten version for review through AfC if they wish. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History 101 (novel)[edit]

History 101 (novel) (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:NBOOK. Mooonswimmer 14:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - The Contiuum and Interzone reviews found below appear to allow this to at least meet the bare minimum of WP:NBOOK. I have changed my recommendation accordingly. Rorshacma (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • That first source from Contiuum is definitely an in-depth review of the book. I am hesitant to change my recommendation per WP:NBOOK without someone having access to the Interzone article, though, to ensure it is actually a full-length review, and not something more akin to the BBC source you also added to the article, which is more of a short blurb describing the premise rather than an actual review. Nice work on that first source, for sure, though. Rorshacma (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, and there is also a review from Sci-fi Online, which appears focused on reviews. Beccaynr (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rorshacma Found it in IA. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Eighth Doctor Adventures. The Continuum review is good, but I'm not convinced that sci-fi online is a reliable source. OliveYouBean (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is some reliability as a genre-specific website, because Sci-fi Online says it includes writers with experience as reviewers at Dreamwatch, including the author of what seems to be a non-trivial review of the book. So when combined with a scholarly review and the currently-undetermined level of review from Interzone, the book seems to have notability at least weakly supported per WP:NBOOK. Beccaynr (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my !vote to weak keep because of the new source found. OliveYouBean (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Contiuum + Intetrzone reviews (the latter is four paragraphs long and can be accessed through IA, see the link above) meet the minimum required for multiple reliable, independent sources, IMHO. The Sci-fi Online review looks very amateurish (could be just formatting, I didn't read it) and I'd hesitate to accept it as reliable at face value (does the site has any editorial controls?). If that site can be shown to be reliable, it would strengthen the keep arguments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. There are two WP:SIGCOV (or non-trivial per the requirements of WP:NBOOK criteria 1) meeting reliable, independent reviews from Contiuum (a reliable peer-reviewed journal) and Interzone (an established sci-fi magazine). The latter is available on Page 58 and is covered in three paragraphs, so meets the significant coverage requirement. Overall this topic satisfies WP:NBOOK#1 and borderline passes WP:GNG. VickKiang (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the reviews in multiple reliable sources such as Contiumm and Interzone, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

The other two articles listed are not deleted as they were not tagged to be part of a bundled AFD discussion nor the article creator notified that they were being considered for deletion. They can be nominated in another AFD if you are still considering them for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 16:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of ASTM International standards (D4001–5000)[edit]

List of ASTM International standards (D4001–5000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The main "List of ASTM International standards" article was deleted over a year ago (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ASTM International standards), and the reasons for deleting it no doubt apply to this one (and others listed below) as well. I take it this article and the others were overlooked when the previous delete discussion happened, as it looks like all the other subarticles were deleted at the same time (including the main list for the "D" standards).

Also including:

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taraf TV[edit]

Taraf TV (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 clear evidence exists that this subject is notable. It fails WP:ORG. Shoerack (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion as a contested PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:03, 10 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 13:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't find any sort of sourcing we can use. The FR and RO wiki articles are just as bare. Social media sites and the like, which don't contribute to GNG here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by Hum TV. I'am re-closing this AfD per WP:BADNAC, as set out in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 January 25. I agree with JoelleJay's assessment there: "2 out of the 3 keep !votes are unsigned comments by Pakistan IPs with total article overlap and should have been discounted entirely as obvious socking. The sole other keep !vote (from an editor who has made the exact same types of edits to the exact same page the IPs edited...) vaguely claims to have added refs that were "not merely passing mentions or brief paragraphs" but does not explain how they count towards GNG and did not address the comments demonstrating several of the sources they added were not RS. Meanwhile, the delete/redirect !votes made P&G-based arguments and actively engaged with specific sources." Sandstein 06:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Badnaseeb[edit]

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

Semi-procedural nomination, previously brought to AfD and soft-deleted following minimal participation a few months ago. Since recreation, one substantive additional source has been cited: The Brown Identity, which has decent analysis, although its About Us doesn't inspire confidence. Even if accepted as reliable (and I'm somewhat inclined to do so), we still seem to fall short of GNG as a whole. The other additional sources just mention the series in passing while discussing the careers of actors involved in it. I attempted to search for more sources in English and Urdu online, but am limited by my minimal proficiency in the latter. signed, Rosguill talk 22:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. signed, Rosguill talk 22:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, added more references which are not merely passing mentions or brief paragraphs, taking the total count of references in an article to 13. The serial received coverage from both English and Urdu sites, making it a notable serial aired on television. Lillyput4455 (talk) 03 January 2023, 19:01 (UTC).
    I've looked at the additional sources added since the AfD was opened and don't think they do much to change the situation. signed, Rosguill talk 18:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A couple of scraper / database pages used as sources, multiple sources that have a passing mention at best for the show, WP:ROUTINE pre-release publicity pieces. Lillyput4455, what do you feel are the top three sources in the article that have significant coverage of the show and are not interview pieces? Ravensfire (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- undoubtedly, it has been improved since nominated last time for deletion. I have witnessed some new sources, which covers the show in detail in local language. It does fulfil WP:SIGCOV criteria, doesn't seems like there's any reason to delete the article. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.13.245 (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC) — 182.182.13.245 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Sources don't establish WP:N, for WP:GNG or WP:SNG.  // Timothy :: talk  21:17, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Hum TV as a possible WP:ATD or delete per nom's analysis. Refs are non-WP:SIGCOV routine announcements, interviews, or non-reliable sources with little editorial policies demonstrating a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is substantial and meets significant coverage, but its about us simply suggests The Brown Identity is a space for everyone to talk about what they like, don’t like, what they wish they could talk about without worrying about fitting into pigeonholes. We feature guest content, tv reviews, interviews, everything under one big brown sky! and clearly lacks editorial policies, subject-matter-expertise, or sufficient WP:USEBYOTHERS to qualify as a reliable source. VickKiang (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as per articles history, new sources from local published articles have been added. It does cover the article and its cast without any ambiguity fulfiling criteria of a TV series to be on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.88.41.199 (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC) — 111.88.41.199 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Could you identify precisely which sources you believe add up to meeting GNG? Nothing has changed since the last time I looked at this. signed, Rosguill talk 17:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What criteria are you referring to? VickKiang (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone has expressed their point of view over the issue, why does it have to be always as per your analysis? Clearly I've added sources to the show you can confirm it from the page history. Moreover , since it's in local language you might not understand the depth and crux of the sources which covers everything related to the show. Rosguill talk Are you sure nothing is added since you nominated it for deletion? Lillyput4455 (talk) 18 January 2023, 18:44 (UTC)
Rosguill just expressed that nothing has changed due to sources being insufficient, which is a distinctively different argument. You added Trending In Social, a blog that highlights trending topics in the world of social media. self-published sources are generally unreliable unless you can demonstrate that there is clear editorial processes or that the staff are subject-matter experts. Inevitably, you will disagree with my statement, but it will obviously be stronger if you could refute the central point instead of stating that since it's in local language you might not understand the depth and crux of the sources which covers everything related to the show. It would be desirable if you refer to policies and guidelines instead of casting doubt on that others might not understand the depth and crux of the sources, which will not really advance your case. Additionally, this for me which could not be opened due to a 502 error. You mention that there are 13 references, which is laudable, but as you sure know it's never about the quantity but the quality of the sourcing. Thank you. VickKiang (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 15:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Languages of European leaders[edit]

Languages of European leaders (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)

Mainly WP:OR for a topic which has received little or no attention as a group. The "no"s are unreferenced and often incorrect (De Croo speaks German, Macron speaks some German) and in many cases a simple yes/no is insufficient (people may be able to read or understand a language, but not comfortable or fluent enough to speak it publicly). Fram (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Language, and Europe. Fram (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment somwhat conflicted here - grounds for TNT, no doubt there is abundant OR. However, mistakes can be rectified (Aliyev speaks Russian; why no Putin? who's fluent in German). There's is sourcing to cover the issue of world leaders and second languages (eg [9] [10]) so there's an argument that NLIST can be satisfied...possibly a selective merge to List of multilingual world leaders? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Putin speaks English and German. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think List of multilingual world leaders might work better, actually. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while what's here may be actual facts I just don't see the utility of this article. The information could be added to the articles for these people. Lamona (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A conglomerate of sources, none of which deal with the subject, is synthesis which is original research. -- Otr500 (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, not only is this WP:SYN, it's also basically unverifiable, as your average Englishman and Belgian are likely to have very different working definitions of "can speak" which is exacerbated by collating self-published proclamations of individuals' abilities. Charles III claiming to speak Welsh just because he did a speech at a castle half a century ago is a very different "fact" from Alexander de Croo claiming not to speak German (if indeed he does claim that). With that in mind the list is misleading and not particularly informative. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adrano Calcio 1922[edit]

Adrano Calcio 1922 (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)

Disbanded amateur football club with nothing more than a single Serie D season more than ten years ago. No successor club currently present in the Italian football pyramid. Fails WP:SIGCOV due to lack of any reliable independent sources covering the subject in full detail. Angelo (talk) 10:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Seems as though with the nomination being withdrawn, the new sources being found, and the additional keep !votes following relisting, it's safe to close this discussion. (non-admin closure) LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 06:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darla (dog)[edit]

Darla (dog) (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)

Darla the dog has received insufficient coverage to merit a standalone article. Only claim to notability is having starred in a few high profile films, and Notability is not inherited. Sources are questionable; consisting only of a blog, a Facebook page, and an apparently self-published source. The only other substantive source found in a WP:BEFORE was this Screenrant article, which appears to primarily regurgitate the information in the subject's Wikipedia article. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 09:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Suonii180. Screenrant is a reliable source per this discussion Have added the reference mentioned above to the article. [Edit: Plus see Atsme's new findings below]. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all kinds of articles about any old random dog found, nothing for this one. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree, notability is not inherited or determined by cuteness. Dronebogus (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dronebogus: Are you sure about that? BD2412 T 22:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, many canine actors have pages on Wikipedia, nothing unusual about it. This dog is well known to the point of its role and name as Precious in Silence of the Lambs being familiar to millions of film "buffs" and her page actually mentions her status as "a cult icon" (for more sources see this and other search engine links). The rational for this move that an actor's "notability is not inherited" from their starring roles in films would remove thousands of actor's pages from Wikipedia! Randy Kryn (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep - we know that notability is not temporary. There are plenty of sources online, so instead of wasting everyone's time with this AfD, I'm of the mind that the delete editors could have been far more productive had they engaged in WP:BEFORE. Here are a few that I found rather quickly: People Magazine, Gizmodo, and CBS News. Those are 3 major mainstream sources, hardly insufficient coverage. Atsme 💬 📧 14:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding additional list of sources that I quickly found today alone:
  • I still do not believe that these sources show sufficient notability for a standalone article. These are all relatively trivial mentions in lists of dogs, which do not address the subject directly and in detail, thus failing WP:SIGCOV. While these sources do seem reliable, I feel that they justify a merge to List of animal actors (or a similar page) and not a standalone article.
    As for the argument that many dog actors have pages on Wikipedia, and that many actors would be removed if we were to apply and accept my nomination argument elsewhere- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It seems likely to me that many of those articles, like many articles on Wikipedia that have gone overlooked or unnoticed, should indeed be deleted, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 17:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are raising my concerns because you still do not (and you bolded "not" ???) believe these sources are sufficient. I looked at your AfD stats, and they confirm my concerns in light of the fact that you are still on the wrong side of this argument. I've been finding sources quite easily, in addition to the ones I've already mentioned, and that are cited in the article. Per GNG: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Also per WP:N - There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. It easily passes significant coverage, and it is detailed coverage. Five sources are already cited in the article, and I just provided another 4 or 5.
  1. People Magazine published a full article titled There's Nothing Scary About the 'Precious' and Talented Canine Star of 'Clarice' : 'She's Great';
  2. Filmsite.org movie review - uses the scene with the dog in detail;
  3. Vox demonstrates the cultural impact: "The sheer cultural dominance of Silence of the Lambs over the years is hard to quantify; .... — from the fava beans to the lotion in the basket to Precious the dog."
  4. Vulture, uses the name "Darla", shows a clip of her performance, but the author used "the dog" in lieu of "Darla" which may be why the search did not show much;
  • As I mentioned earlier, before you nom an article for AfD, you need to do a much better WP:BEFORE. I am trying to help you here because it appears that you are misunderstanding WP:GNG and WP:N, or maybe the issue involves locating sources, I don't know. This little dog was not a one time wonder. She acted in several highly notable films, one of which "grossed over $270 million worldwide, and won the "Big Five" at the Academy Awards. She was also credited as the "Pink Poodle" in Tim Burton's Pee-wee's Big Adventure in 1985. Keep in mind that a dog's average lifespan is about 12 years, so let's use some common sense here. The dog skyrocketed to fame, had a prominent role in major motion pictures, such as Silence of the Lambs which was seen by millions of people. Darla became a cult in her little lifetime with her own FB fan page, and is still being talked about today. The article easily passes WP:10YT. The cited sources themselves tell us the dog is notable - you just have to read them. That article could even be expanded because there are plenty of sources to cite. Atsme 💬 📧 22:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't find any of those sources, because search engines didn't yield any of them. That's not my fault. I guess Darla is in fact notable, and Google didn't give any useful results about her when I searched for "darla dog," and I didn't know about her fame because all of these films came out around a decade before I was born at the latest. I apologize.
    I would now close this discussion, had two other editors not voted "delete," but since it's not eligible for me to withdraw it I'll be leaving it to the AfD process. I'll be absconding from this discussion with no further comment. Sorry again for wasting everyone's time. silvia (User:BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 00:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4, that's cool. You opened this nom in good faith, and that's the bottom line at Wikipedia - assume good faith. What it did was put some attention on the page and improve it, so nothing wrong with the result. Thanks for withdrawing it, this is rarer than it should be, some nomming editors hold on to the leaky raft, which are also good faith actions. What you bring up is a concern at Wikipedia, that as decades go by some of these important pages won't have people defending them (one reason I should campaign for a ceiling on deletion noms per page, three even seem too many to me if spaced out over a few years) because they aren't known. Atsme did a great job here, I'm glad the page was saved. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per those above. A dog actor with roles more notable than some human actors, and sufficient coverage in sources to merit inclusion. BD2412 T 17:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nomination has been withdrawn. Please evaluate the new sources found since the AFD opened.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. BusterD (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Wyatt[edit]

Ruben Wyatt (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 found of notability, no independent indepth reliable sources about the player (just database entries) Fram (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Fram (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find any significant coverage so he fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft Move to draft space, the whole point of draft space is a place to start articles like these. Should have been done instead of going to AfD. Govvy (talk) 10:35, 11 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! 08:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify as an WP:ATD - subject not yet notable, might be notable in the future Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Draftifying implies SIGCOV exists or will exist in the near future, and I don't see evidence for presuming all EFL2 players receive SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BusterD (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ayo Lekuti[edit]

Ayo Lekuti (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 found of any notability, just databases and sources which aren't independent (e.g. from the team) Fram (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Fram (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft Move to draft space, the whole point of draft space is a place to start articles like these. Should have been done instead of going to AfD. Govvy (talk) 10:34, 11 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! 08:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify as an WP:ATD - subject not yet notable, might be notable in the future Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No traces of GNG coverage. Why would we expect him to be notable in the near future? JoelleJay (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quite often, young players that debut are on an upward trajectory. There are, of course, plenty that play a game or two then disappear, as we both know. If the subject does become notable in the near future, it would be easier to update the draft than to create something from scratch or ask the deleting admin to restore to user space or equivalent. I'm not too fussed either way as I accept that the subject isn't notable so deletion is not unreasonable. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BusterD (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Smith-Howes[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability, only independent source is one line in a local newspaper, and nothing better (or much at all) found online. Fram (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Fram (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. Google News just has match reports from his club. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft Move to draft space, the whole point of draft space is a place to start articles like these. Should have been done instead of going to AfD. Govvy (talk) 10:34, 11 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! 08:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify as an WP:ATD - subject not yet notable, might be notable in the future Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If SIGCOV eventually appears, the article can be recreated; it's not like this stub is more than an easily-copyable template anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sydle[edit]

Sydle (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)

"Best Companies" lists in Brazil and a series of press releases are the only available references. Fails WP:NCORP. Prior contested G11. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Brazil. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, their LinkedIn page says they have under 200 employees, so not a large company. More telling, I tried searching for Sydle+Zamagna (company name + CEO/founder name), and came up with close to nothing. Lacks significant coverage. --Mvqr (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. If the company was listed as one of the best in the country, there is notoriety. The fact that the sources are only in the references and not included in the article, by itself, is not a valid reason for deletion. In this regard, I quote the policy WP:PRESERVE: "Wikipedia is a work in progress and perfection is not required. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three core content policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research." ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 13:06, 10 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! 08:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Being recognized as one of the top 20 best company to work for in Brazil for the last 6 years by the Great Place to Work Institute is not an indication of notability in any way, and in fact being in those types of lists is specifically listed as an example of trivial coverage. As part of Wikipedia:Editing policy, WP:PRESERVE is about retaining content within an article, not about the article itself being deleted. Lack of notability isn't something that editing can fix. - Aoidh (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chowdhury Abu Torab Khan[edit]

Chowdhury Abu Torab Khan (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:Sigcov and WP:Notability. Maliner (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Presumptive Keep unless nominator affirms that they have reviewed the offline sources and those in Bengali and explains why they don't represent significant coverage or are not reliable. Otherwise I see no reason to doubt what looks like an adequately sourced article about a notable historic figure. Jfire (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment added some online links to the references.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:35, 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! 08:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Historical individual who governed one of the largest islands in Bangladesh.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Kola[edit]

Lady Kola (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 Draft:Lady Kola that is in better shape than this version, which says the subject was born in Eritrea and/or South Sudan and otherwise consists of publicity blurbs stitched together. Definitely not ready for mainspace. I think it should either go to draft or be deleted and redirected to the existing draft. Mccapra (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Africa. Mccapra (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Looks like cut-and-paste copyvio from Profileability.com. (Also, some sentences aren't even complete.) Cielquiparle (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This version definitely has to go. As the nominator said, a different draft version is actually in better shape, and the creators of that draft can work on better sources if they arise in the future. Overall, this singer repeats the pattern that we see with a lot of new African acts: the management gets them into a lot of unreliable gossip blogs and shameless promo sites that merely reprint publicity announcements, and those are then used as "evidence" of notability in an equally messy WP article. The exact same thing happens with the awards shows, such as the South Sudan Music Awards for this singer. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The only consensus I see here is that this article is a mess and needs a lot of work. But there is also the opinion that some of the content here is salvageable. So, good luck to the editors who want to take on this "refocusing" project! Liz Read! Talk! 04:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of MUTCD-influenced traffic signs[edit]

Comparison of MUTCD-influenced traffic signs (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 stands or falls on the central premise that the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices has influenced the sign design of other countries. While I am sure that it has in some cases, the premise is unsourced and is resulting in original research as applied to several countries. Rschen7754 17:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rschen7754 17:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article is in any case a real mess. The lead includes sentences that are logically meaningless ("They, along with the US Virgin Islands, are also the only countries listed here which drive on the left—with the exception of Liberia and the Philippines (though partial), both of which drive on the right."). The table is horrendously unhelpfully laid-out; on my fairly average laptop, the horizontal scroll-bar can't fit on the screen at the same time as the column-headings, which means scrolling is a process of moving randomly for a bit, then going back up to see where we've reached. This has happened in part because someone wrote the table the wrong way round (it only needed 6 columns if it had been done as a vertical table), and partly because it's had to include a list of all secondary languages used in each country, which takes up a huge amount of screen-space without being particularly relevant to the subject. We shouldn't inflict this sort of disaster on our readers. But I suspect the article exists as a complementary article to Vienna_Convention_on_Road_Signs_and_Signals. If it were re-worked in that spirit, and shorn of speculation and meaningless waffle, it might be good. Elemimele (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The chart comparing the various street signs is interesting, but the article is largely unsourced, appears to be OR. Not sure we could draftify at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the content is to be salvaged I would suggest refactoring it by an objective criterion like a region i.e. North America, though I will confess that I am a bit skeptical of that sort of article too. --Rschen7754 01:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This clearly needs a lot of work, as there is notable encyclopaedic information here, the question is whether the best way to achieve this is via heavy editing or TNT. I don't support draftifcation as that's more than likely just going to end up quietly being deleted under G13 in 6 or so months having failed to attract anybody's attention; likewise deletion will make it harder for people to extract the notable information from this article - the tables need reformatting (the first needs rotating 90°, the second needs splitting (possibly by continent) as it's too large) but there was a lot of work involved in creating them that would be a shame to throw away rather than reuse. So ultimately, I arrive at keep but refocus and improve. Thryduulf (talk) 10:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a tool or script for rotating tables? Otherwise it's a nightmare of a job! Elemimele (talk) 12:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A roundabout way would be to copy the table markup, convert that to CSV, import the CSV into a spreadsheet, cut that to the clipboard, use paste special to transpose it. Then copy that output and convert it to a MediaWiki table and paste it into the article. This would probably take about 2 minutes, but it's quite likely there is a better way that I don't know about! Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 3 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! 23:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm conflicted about this page. Parts of it are a useful, but it is a mess, and its also almost entirely WP:OR, with most of the remaining WP:SYNTH. I'd lean Keep, but this might be a burn it down and someone can start over if they want situation.  // Timothy :: talk  16:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Cambodian genocide. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Autogenocide[edit]

Autogenocide (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 niche term that can easily be folded into the Cambodian Genocide article with no loss in information. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 05:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Google Books results show scholarly attention and critical debate over the term in its own right. For example: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. The term is not used exclusively in relation to Cambodian genocide, so a separate article is appropriate. Jfire (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Term sees plenty of use in academia and is being used WRT Cambodia, Armenia, China, ... [17] --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually have to walk that back. All the publications I had in mind using this for other nations turn out, on deeper reading, to restrict the term to Cambodia, and use plain "genocide" or other terms for other cases. Looks like it is pretty much Cambodia-specific. Hence, merge as suggested may be more suitable. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Cambodian Genocide, noting that the concept and the term should be discussed in that article. The content is encyclopedic, but does not require a stand-alone article. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on 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! 03:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nabil Naïli[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Nadjib Khiar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William L Howatt[edit]

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

Does not meet wp:gng, I´m afraid. I´m sorry. Also, it seems there is some copyvio as some phrases in the article are copied from the one source. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tarek Ammoura[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

System Syn[edit]

System Syn (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 WP:BAND, only sources are mostly interviews or reviews from non-notable blogs and can't find much sources that prove criteria for inclusion elsewhere Second Skin (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:BAND they meet #5 ("Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels") with at least 6 full length releases on Metropolis Records, which counts as a significant indie; Note that Chain DLK, Side-line, and Brutal Resonance are indie publications, Side-line in particular having been in existence since the early 1990s when it was print only, and there are unrefed articles on Regen Magazine that could be added. But, agree that coverage is sparse. Found evidence of a track making the iTunes Charts, but I'm not sure that notability criteria have caught up with the digital age. They've also toured nationally, which could cover WP:BAND #4 if sufficiently referenced. -- t_kiehne (talk) 19:47, 13 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! 03:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I did some WP:BEFORE searches for both their first release on Metropolis and their most recent release. Found nothing for the former, and only two reviews for the latter [18] [19], both of which appear to be user-generated content (WP:UGC). Jfire (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Imo there's not much coverage or instance for notability. That's not even to mention that the article itself fails to compile almost any information besides just listing members. The group may have went on a few weekend tours, but I can't find much on them besides some fan reviews..almost feels like I was looking up a local band. 148.170.66.14 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia State Route 665[edit]

Virginia State Route 665 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is an indiscriminate list of information that likely lacks any sources other than the provided transportation department sources. None of the listed routes are likely notable individually, and the set of all Virginia state secondary highways can be summarized in an article about the state's secondary highway system. VC 02:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are over a hundred similar pages... so, nominate them all, don't cherry pick. Famartin (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bundling multiple articles usually leads to a WP:TRAINWRECK. It's fine to AfD this one to see what the consensus is. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK I guess. To be honest, I think ALL articles on Virginia secondary highways should be permanently deleted as non-notable. Secondary routes in Virginia are county-level roads, and that level highway is generally considered non-notable in Wikipedia. Someone not familiar with the Virginia system might see the SR's and think they are important, but generally none of them are and none of them deserve articles. So, if we favor deleting this one, I strongly favor deleting every last one, including the individual ones some individuals have made for county-specific roads, like Virginia State Route 609 (Fairfax County). That having been said, if articles like this List of county routes in Monmouth County, New Jersey are ok, then I see nothing wrong with the article debated here. Famartin (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This type of Virginia secondary route list has a different scope than a list of county routes. Rather than a list of 95 county routes in one county, this article is a list of 95 routes in 95 counties, one per county. If we eventually delete all of these Virginia secondary route lists, the precedent will not apply to the lists of county routes; those lists will need to go through a separate AfD. This precedent would also not apply to articles about individual secondary routes like the SR 609 in Fairfax County. Some of the individual routes might actually be notable and have independent sources, so they need to be evaluated case by case. VC 20:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Virginia SR’s are just as notable (or non-notable) as, say, 600 series county routes in NJ. They are signed, and in Virginia, many date to the 1930s (which is longer than many CR’s have existed). The general public likely uses (or ignores) them just as much as CR’s in NJ. They are shown on many maps. The reason I decided to list them by number instead of individually by county is because of VA’s odd system and the way it is signed… internally, they are by county, but externally to the public, Sr 600 is signed exactly the same in every county. Also, the only reason some SR’s got individual pages is because they are in urban areas where some have more traffic. But traffic has never been used to denote notability on state routes… they all get mention, like in MD. Famartin (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Virginia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (all). No indication of notability with sinificant sources or otherwise for secondary route. When one state has 200-some such Category:Secondary state highways in Virginia, there is no basis for a presumption of notability. It's not Wikipedia's place to use primary source maps to merely list the short segments that are shown on them without further substantive discussion or coverage. Moreover, all the pages in the category are essentially set lists of non-notable short segments that happen to share a number rather a potentially more notable long continuous road. Reywas92Talk 15:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Road articles have got away with this sort of thing for far too long. They just get churned out in their thousands. Most of them are no more interesting to read than a map index. SpinningSpark 23:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn’t realize the purpose of Wikipedia was to be interesting, thought it was educational. My mistake Famartin (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Easy mistake to make. I share the same misapprehension. Acad Ronin (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTDIRECTORY exists because directories are not interesting. A table of road segments is just that (both a directory and not interesting). Wikipedia articles are meant to tell the reader something encyclopaedic (ie, interesting). The reason for that is, duh, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia – it says so right there in the first pillar of Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 16:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But then a few sentences later it says that it contains aspects of a gazetteer. --Rschen7754 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, some aspects. It does not say those aspects selected for their overwhelming dullness. Or those aspects that lend themselves to lazy mass production of non-articles. SpinningSpark 16:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These are bordering as attacks on the entire roads subject area and rather than derail the AFD further I would refer you to User:Rschen7754/FAQ. --Rschen7754 02:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As an additional note, I will point out that OpenStreetMap is using these articles to further their own project. --Rschen7754 05:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parking as Neutral for now. I think that Wikipedia should say something about Virginia State Route 665. I do not think that the lengthy table that doesn't really tell me much is the way to go about it. --Rschen7754 01:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as possible options, maybe 1) a paragraph that gets merged to an article on the system, or 2) all these similar routes get condensed to one lengthy table rather than several different articles with similar tables. They do have pros and cons however. --Rschen7754 01:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Per WP:GEOROAD, state highways are notable. However, secondary state highways like SR 665 in Virginia are better suited to be covered in lists rather than have separate articles as they function more like county highways despite being maintained by the state, and GEOROAD says notability may vary for those types of roads. This list isn’t the best way to present the information about SR 665 as it lumps together routes with the same number in separate counties. If we were to have these lists, I would prefer them to be by county similar to the county route lists in New Jersey. However, it may just be a better idea to discuss the secondary road system in a capstone article titled Virginia Secondary Roads System that describes the signage and numbering patterns, incorporating information from the Byrd Road Act article that created the system. I should note that currently we have these list articles for secondary state routes in the 600s and 700s, however, these secondary state routes go into the 800s and beyond in many counties. In some of the more populated counties in Northern Virginia like Fairfax County, there are secondary state highways that are four and five digits and they consist of nearly every road in the county down to neighborhood streets in residential subdivisions. Based on that, having a complete listing of EVERY secondary state highway in Virginia would be overkill as it would include many roads that are definitely not notable for coverage in an article or even a list. With that being said, it may be best to either limit which secondary state highways get list coverage or to just have a capstone article describing the system. Dough4872 01:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not an indiscriminate list. It is, in fact, very discriminate—it is all highways maintained by a particular government that have been assigned the number 665 by that government. A list such as this is a useful geographic reference tool, should one come across a reference to SR 665 in another document and desire additional context as to where the location being discussed is. I would agree that these roads are too minor to justify a standalone article on each of them, but that's not what's being done here. Having a table giving the location and length of each is sufficient, and that's what this page does. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus right now. There is a lot of discussion about whether or not Wikipedia should have articles on secondary highways but few comments on the merits of this particular article and whether or not it should be kept. Of course, another closer is always free to come along and close this discussion if they see a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Per WP:GEOROAD: International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable. This state highway is no exception. The premise of the nomination, however, was that the list is indiscriminate. As Scott5114 points out, the opposite is true. The conclusion is that there is no case for this AfD. gidonb (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Libcub (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There were clearly editors here making an argument to Keep this article but I judge the consensus is to Delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sona Patel[edit]

Sona Patel (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)

Insufficient notability based on what is essentially a single event. Fails WP:BIO in general and WP:GNG. Geoff | Who, me? 01:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so her claim to fame is as a pot doctor? For all of the six lines this article is... Oaktree b (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does she write for the New York Times? That's all I find for a person with her name. Oaktree b (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT writer is someone else....and a lot more notableMedGME (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Medicine, and California. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. She was making news in 2007 and I've updated the article to make that clearer. She was also previously an actor, although only primary sources confirm this. Pinging Oaktree b as my update to the article answers's their question, I hope. CT55555(talk) 19:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reviewed the sources, the Cosmo magazine article mentions her in one paragraph in passing, so it's not a good source (helps establish notability, but only to confirm her name and website). The Los Angeles Times article is solid, the LA Weekly is a few paragraphs, better than the Cosmo one. I can't open the rest of them. If you had one other source with the same quality as the LA Times, it would be a keep. It's almost there. Oaktree b (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this in Jezebel [20] but it rehashes what the LA Times article is about. Seems ok, not extensive coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The ABC investigation into her work, I find significant, because it's anything but PROMO.
    See:
    1. https://abc7news.com/archive/5831969/
    2. https://web.archive.org/web/20170202044725/https://iteamblog.abc7news.com/2007/11/doc-420-the-med.html
    CT55555(talk) 23:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Barely notable. She was in the news once 15 years ago.MedGME (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak keep with the new sourcing/explanation, I think it's just barely GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - In its present state, the article does not speak for itself and does not indicate why the subject is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For the reasons offered by the nominator and by Robert. This person received about 5 minutes of fame for a single event, and it just fizzled out as nobody took an interest. I'm sure the subject thought it was cool to have their own Wikipedia article at first, but as their report at DNR suggests, I'm sure they've had time to rethink that. There is nothing good about having your own Wikipedia article and we're not doing anybody any service by keeping mediocre articles like this that will never be anything more than a stub. It leaves room for all kinds of nasty things and BLP vios to be put there when nobody is looking. (I wouldn't wish a Wikipedia article on my worst enemy.) There is no indication that this person is notable beyond that 5 minutes of fame. Zaereth (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. Not notable. Agree with the above. MedGME (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR, is WP:BLP1E for the marijuana/prescribing, and is just a doctor. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Following the excellent edits by Beccaynr, I need to modify the rationale, but not the !vote. This is now a simple WP:BIO failure alongside WP:NACTOR, but the BLP1E has been excised. I disagree with the suggestion to speedy made by MedGME. This AfD should run its course, the more so since there are three voices for retention so far. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 20:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Although article is in pretty bad shape. But we can't deny this person is qualifying GNG. As per WP:GNG 2 sources are required to claim a person notability. I have founded these 2 reputed sources Los Angeles Times, Cosmopolitan including which make this person qualify for WP:BASIC. Iffyhuber (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cosmopolitan is marginally reliable, and also it doesn't really cover Sona Patel significantly, though it does quote here a good bit. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 08:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I removed the 2007 ABC7 News source used to support text accusing her of possible state law violations per WP:BLPCRIME, and ABC7 sources that did not support referenced content. The 2015 Cosmopolitan source states at the top, "We may earn commission from links on this page, but we only recommend products we love. Promise", and includes a link to her website. While she is quoted several times as an expert, the promotional disclaimer at the top undermines support for notability per WP:PROMO. The 2009 Los Angeles Times source is mostly based on her statements about her biography, the development of her career, and current practice, as well as what appears to be a reference to the 2007 reports, although this is not clearly identified by the LAT, so there is limited independent and secondary coverage. The 2014 LA Weekly source refers to her business as a "prescription mill" and notes "Patel tells us that she supports Senate Bill 1262, even though it would “effectuate an end to my business.”" WP:JEZEBEL is considered generally unsuitable for contentious claims about living people, and the brief 2009 post refers to the ABC7 investigation and substantially quotes the LAT report. The 2011 Hollywood Weekly (pp. 8-9) source is substantially based on her statements and concludes with what appears to be an advertisement. Her use of billboards to advertise her business seems to help demonstrate she has had a history of high-profile activity, so this is probably not WP:BLP1E, but the initial 2007 ABC7 reporting raises BLP policy issues, the 2009 LAT reporting substantially lacks independence, Jezebel regurgitates previous reports, LA Weekly similarly refers to the LAT and Hollywood Weekly sources and offers limited secondary commentary, while Cosmo and Hollywood Weekly appear to be WP:PROMO. The available sources do not appear to support WP:BASIC notability due to the limited secondary coverage in independent and reliable sources, as well as BLP and PROMO issues. Beccaynr (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggest speedy deletion. The article as-it-is now is just a glamorous picture and a couple of claims that were sourced from interviewing her. MedGME (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed for all the above-stated reasons; please delete or let me know if you'd like me to do so. Thank you. Mlundheim (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please be aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iffyhuber 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 15:00, 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! 03:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - For the reasons offered by the nominator. Fails WP:BIO, WP:GN.MedGME (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: MedGME (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
    Agreed for all the above-stated reasons; please delete or let me know if you'd like me to do so. Thank you. Mlundheim (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Basically per nom and Timtrent. Not notable per GNG or other notability possibility, coverage is essentially completely from an insignificant single event. Bestagon ⬡ 19:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'll issue some protection for this page title. Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damola Ayegbayo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Damola Ayegbayo (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)

Still looks NN and promotional. UtherSRG (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Nigeria. UtherSRG (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Come coverage in the Nigerian Tribune about an exhibit, seems RS. I don't find anything else about him, he's not in the Getty ULAN or other databases. Oaktree b (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails for same reasons this article was deleted in Dec 2022. Citations are mostly promotional press releases, interviews, and user populated sites. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt since creator appears unwilling to accept the results of the AfD. Given near verbatim source and formatting (although agree, not a G4) from some deleted history at the Draft, wonder if we're not also dealing with some laundry. Star Mississippi 02:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reply:Star MississippiPlease my previous argument should not be used as a benchmark to this. Is not as if I refused to see reasons but did that on personal conviction which I now understand is wrong. I am sorry for that if that looks not good. I created this after I found some other references and felt it should be able to meet WP Artist ( because his works are in museums and private collections) or WP basic. Please kindly look closely at this[[21]], [[22]][[23]][[24]][[25]] On Saatchi it an art exhibition catalog publish by Issuu kindly see this[[26]].it not anyone (Artist) that gets into the catalog. Once again I am sorry if my comments on previous AFD wasn't pleasant.Bernice2019 (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I find it problematic that the notable collections, like MoMA, the Yemisi Shyllon Museum of Art and others simply don't check out with the museums' collection search tools. Saachi Art is not a collection, it is a online service where any artist can upload their work. This is very different than being in Charles Saachi's collection! It seems like a lot of the content was fabricated by a PR agency. Also a heads up that there is a draft of this same article [27] waiting in the wings once this one is deleted, so I agree that salting is a good option. Delete as PROMO, and failure of WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh, thanks for flagging @Netherzone. Between that and the alternate under which this was created before @UtherSRG moved it, there's definitely some deception afoot. I don't think there's enough yet for SPI but I have some concerns about Princek2019 and Bernice2019. I've declined the draft with some stern words. Star Mississippi 03:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Possible UPE... Netherzone (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Pinging @Liz who blocked 2409:4050:DC1:D9B2:9577:DEC6:5D56:D4C7 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and may have a pointer for us. Star Mississippi 03:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't believe I blocked that IP range for so long, that is really not the way I usually handle things. I must have had suspicions which I can't recall now. The first AFD was just last month and it's already back into main space again? I'm surprised that it didn't fit CSD G4. I don't know anything about the two editors you name but we have had persistent problems at AFD for the past few months with new sockpuppets showing up to vote, sometimes on their first day as an editor. AFD seems to be a magnet for these new editors. Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Liz. It was different enough that it wasn't a G4, although the draft @Netherzone is almost verbatim.
    I've just filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheGrandSon as there's some blatant disruption around Ayegbayo and Fela Akinse. I won't be surprised if it's meat, but my sock radar is going off given the dusted off accounts. Star Mississippi 04:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Princek2019 and the involved editors are blocked. This isn't a G5 but may keep us out of SALT. Star Mississippi 02:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtesy ping @Scope creep: who seemed to think there was promise. Star Mississippi 04:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see it recreated yesterday after being sent to draft Draft:Damola Victor Ayegbayo. Cool artist. I was hoping to find some of the pieces in a museum somewhere but unfortunately not. I don't think it is a UPE, it was mum I think, although it could be for this article right enough. I think it is probably WP:TOOSOON. The work is steller, these type of statement pieces, so I think its only a matter of time. scope_creepTalk 12:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the 3rd article that has been created in this series. I think the first one was the mum, these are definently UPE. scope_creepTalk 14:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment based on the discussion above, we'd need to SALT. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reply:Star MississippiPlease my previous argument should not be used as a benchmark to this. Is not as if I refused to see reasons but did that on personal conviction which I now understand is wrong. I am sorry for that if that looks not good. I created this after I found some other references and felt it should be able to meet WP Artist ( because his works are in museums and private collections) or WP basic. Please kindly look closely at this[[28]], [[29]][[30]][[31]][[32]] On Saatchi it an art exhibition catalog publish by Issuu kindly see this[[33]].it not anyone (Artist) that gets into the catalog. Once again I am sorry if my comments on previous AFD wasn't pleasant.Bernice2019 (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, but you have not addressed why you're creating multiple versions under different titles in both main and draft space, or why the links you provide can't be verified with the museums collections. Star Mississippi 20:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Bernice2019, I know it's disappointing when an article we create is up for deletion, however the encyclopedia has specific standards for notability. To further explain, only two of the alleged collections are notable museums, but neither of these can be verified with the museums themselves. Verifiability is one of the key policies of Wikipedia, see WP:V. Anyone can make a claim about themselves or another person; what is needed for our purposes is verification from the museums that he is in their collections. But both come up cold with no results for his name. So even if collections are listed in an artist's resume or CV, but don't check out with the museums, they don't count towards notability. Regarding Saachi Art, this is an online service that any artist anywhere in the world can submit their work to their online registry; this is not the same as a museum collection at all - (we used to call these slide registries back in the day). Saachi Art is different than showing at the Saachi Gallery or being in the Charles Saachi Collection (both of which are notable), and is very, very different than Saachi Art which is not notable at all. It seems that perhaps at some point a PR person, or agent, or paid editor, or maybe the artist themself made the claim that they were in the two notable museum collections and the publications picked up on that assuming it was fact. The press coverage seems like native advertising or PR placement, and the interviews do not count towards notability, because it is him talking about himself. The Thames Art Center in NYC is a "pop-up gallery" in a party space that artists can pay to show their work; this and the other galleries/collections are not notable. Sorry for the length of this reply; I hope this helps to clarify and alleviate some of your disappointment. Netherzone (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment replyNetherzone I dig deep and I found this see [[34]] it show he has his Art works with Oyasaf ( the largest private arts collection in Nigeria) and parts of the artworks that was donated by the collector and owner ( Yemisi Adedoyin Shyllon ) to his privately funded Yemisi Shyllon Museum of Art Damola Ayegbayo works was included. Invariably it shows this publications[[35]][36]] is not far from the truth that his artworks maybe their. Either way his artworks in Oyasaf or the museum going by the link shared ought to make him notable to pass WP Artist.Epcc12345 (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Epcc12345, firstly, thank you for declaring your conflict of interest with the subject of this article, Damola Ayegbayo. Regarding your note above I indeed was able to verify that his work is in a large private foundation collection, which is progress. But it does not prove that his work was among those donated to the Yemeni Shyllon Museum. The Y.S. Museum website or collection search engine does not mention him at all, so that remains unverifiable. It's still not enough to pass notability criteria #4 for WP:NARTIST which states that he needs to be in represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. What is normally considered a notable gallery is a national gallery, such as those found here List of national galleries (not a commercial gallery). I respect the fact that you are familiar with the artists work, and think he may be notable within his community, but he's not yet ready for Wikipedia which has its own set of guidelines that were developed by consensus over a period of many years. It seems to be WP:TOOSOON at this time. Perhaps in a few years. Hope that helps. Netherzone (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Netherzone your explanation is clear but looking at other measures of notability like Wp basic, WP Any bio or even WP Artist #1 don't you still some possibilities of the subjects been notable. I will still dig deep though because one of his artworks was acquired by the State government, I Hope if I find that publications it will make him pass also ? Epcc12345 (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Netherzone I dig deep I was able to see this 6 months publications See[[37]] with that he should be able to pass WP artist the person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument #4 or WP basic People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. or WP Anybio The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field I believe either way he should be able to pass in any of the stated cateria.Epcc12345 (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Chanda Nagar. Liz Read! Talk! 01:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chandanagar, Ranga Reddy district[edit]

Chandanagar, Ranga Reddy district (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)

Duplication. Article refers to the same place as Chanda Nagar. Merge is unnecessary as there is no information to merge. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_January_17&oldid=1135637279"