Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 02 July 04 >

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 ‎ merge & redirect to Nights into Dreams. NYC Guru (talk) 07:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nights (character)[edit]

Nights (character) (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 fails notability for decade. WP:BEFORE shows nothing and what the currently has is the pdf source at reception. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I like Nights, I have to agree to the fact that he is not passing Notability right now. I can't find any sources and the current sourcing state is bare. Thus, I have to go with Delete on this. There's just not much worth keeping in this article, there's not even any plot summary or anything. Unless some sources suddenly spring up, it's best to just get rid of this article. Pokelego999 (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Nights into Dreams as the subject doesn't have independent notability apart from it. Knox490 (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Nights into Dreams - The reception section being based entirely on the fact that the character was a runner up in gaming magazine's "Best of" list is bit of a red flag. Searching for sources only really turn up significant coverage on the games themselves, with no real coverage specifically on the main character that would warrant a separate article. (Also, the main character is named NiGHTS, who is a "Nightmaren" from "Nightopia"? Weren't really trying too hard with the names there, were they...). Rorshacma (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge as WP:ATD, per Rorshacma. The reception is mostly WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, but there is some verifiable content that might be worth preserving. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Metaverse Shakespeare Company[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to have significant coverage in secondary sources, per WP:ORG. JaggedHamster (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Internet. JaggedHamster (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No independent coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's probably hard to document Second Life stuff from over a decade ago, but if we have an article somewhere that talks about digital adaptations of Shakespeare, a redirect could be justified per [1]. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. A WP:BEFORE turns up a decent amount of coverage. Subject is frequently referenced as an example of digital Shakespeare productions, there's coverage of their theater in SL, as well as some of their tasks and processes, history and impact. Meets the guidelines of WP:NORG. Google scholar shows several hits of coverage with citations, and this is not sciences so other indexes might show more. [2][3]. Google books also show some distinct hits [4]. Also some coverage in tech news [5]. —siroχo 20:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you be more specific about which of those sources meet WP:SIRS? Thanks. JaggedHamster (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure.
    • Scholarly sources
      • Learning and Teaching in the Virtual World of Second Life, Pages 151- 152 (scroll up in link, too)] has in-depth coverage discussing their theater, multiple productions, including audience participation etc, and their virtual academy and curriculum. The source is independent, it has 157 citations in google scholar (likely higher in other indexes according to WP:SCHOLAR#Citation metrics suggesting reliability, and is secondary.
      • Edinburgh Companion to Shakespeare and the Arts - Page 573 has more than a passing reference, but less in-depth, mentioning their theater and a bit about production process. It's Published by Edinburg University Press so it should be reliable/independent, and is a secondary source.
      • Shakespeare and the Digital World: Redefining Scholarship and Practice Page 221 also has more than passing reference, using them as an example of a virtual space where audiences could gather to watch a performances in a virtual theater.
    • Education-based scholar-adjacent resources
      • "The impact of the characteristics of a virtual environment on performance: concepts, constraints and complications." from Learning in Virtual Environments International Conference. [6] goes extremely in-depth on the effectiveness of the methods used in a performance produced by the company, including images of the company's theater from Second Life. This is a conference journal with several citations so should be reliable. The paper is half-credited to a participant, so it's not fully secondary, but see the sub-bullet below:
        • This above paper is also referenced by A Practical Guide to Using Second Life in Higher Education [7]. This book would fully qualify as a secondary and independent source.
      • Drama Education with Digital Technology [8] has more then a passing reference, is secondary/independent, and should be reliable based on the publisher Bloomsbury Publishing
    • Non-scholarly sources
      • The Unofficial Guide to Building Your Business in the Second Life Virtual World Page 186 describes them in-depth including the quality and care of their theater, troupe and production, and a bit about their sponsorship model/incentives. It's published by the American Management Association, suggesting it's reliable. It appears entirely independent/secondary but it's a bit harder to be 100% sure.
    There are quite a few more, but I think this should be sufficient to demonstrate notability. People take their Shakespeare seriously. It's a bit hard to filter, because it seems a prominent scholar of Shakespeare had initials S.L., but if you perform a search like [9] you should be able to find more. —siroχo 23:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Several sources compiled by Siroxo above meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 12:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per siro's excellent work above, on which I can't improve, which I tried to do! Central and Adams (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regency Cruises[edit]

Regency Cruises (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)

Poorly written, promotional content, notability not definitively established. Contested PROD and contested draftifications. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Subject meets WP:NCORP. Here are some sources that seem to meet WP:SIRS: [10][11][12]. Regarding nom, WP:PRESERVE suggests that the quality writing is not a reason for deletion. —siroχo 00:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added 3 sources in article —siroχo 00:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per siroxo. Agree with nom that the article is quite a mess. -- Visviva (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree that it both appears to meet WP:NCORP, and that the article's an absolute mess right now. Needs a thorough revision/cleaning, but I don't think that means we delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalethan (talk • contribs) 20:46, 10 July 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! 04:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evgeny Nechkasov[edit]

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

The article has been deleted from Russian Wikipedia (See Евгений Нечкасов ). There is no significance either as a researcher or as a religious figure. The ru-wiki, de-wiki, and en-wiki articles are the result of PR activity. Khinkali (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, can't find anything to work with here. WP:V says it best: If no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. -- Visviva (talk) 20:14, 4 July 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ati Kepo[edit]

Ati Kepo (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)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This is despite scoring five international goals, albeit for the Papua New Guinea national football team. JTtheOG (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per IdiotSavant. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreed with JTtheOG that the above sources are nowhere close to SIGCOV. Athletes are required to have a source of SIGCOV cited in their articles, that has not been established here. JoelleJay (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this player seems to have a slightly higher profile than many deleted here. But he's still not cutting it as far as the notability requirements. I agree the sources we have are too brief. If anyone finds anything more substantial, ping me and I'll consider changing my !vote. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, significant coverage that passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which sources constitute significant coverage? MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NYC Guru (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:BIO says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, may help in this case? —siroχo 09:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, substantially per siroxo and IdiotSavant. Policy-based rationale follows.
    First, the applicable rules: WP:NBIO provides that 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, and that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. In turn, WP:SIGCOV states that significant coverage addresses the topic sufficiently directly and in sufficient detail that no original research is needed to extract the content. It also clarifies that the article subject does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
    Second, the relevant sources: Among sources cited here and in the article, we have some articles for which Ati Kepo makes up 1/4 to 1/2 of the article topic, and which contain substantial biographical information about him in particular: [13], [14], [15]. As the biographical content can be extracted without any hint of original research, these are squarely within both the letter and the spirit of SIGCOV. We also have some articles in which Kepo makes up 1/4-1/2 of the article topic but which do not contain much biographical information: e.g. [16], [17]. We also have at least two RS articles in which Ati Kepo is the main topic, but with little biographical information: [18], [19]. These latter sources also appear to be plainly within the letter of WP:SIGCOV, although perhaps not within its spirit (since they furnish little in the way of article material). (These latter articles also go to show that Kepo is "notable" in the colloquial sense of "important", which is not relevant under policy but for some reason has often proven relevant to AFD outcomes.)
    Conclusion: Even applying the rules with the greatest rigidity (which is rarely required), this article still qualifies under NBIO because the article subject has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. -- Visviva (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per Viva admin. Okoslavia (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep seems to be notable in PNG at least. Dont see a big issue here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:49, 11 July 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. ✗plicit 11:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Bolshevik Party of Spain[edit]

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

Article is about an obscure group, which appears to fail WP:GNG. Cited sources include: [1] An article that briefly mentions it in a long list of Spanish neo-fascist groups. [2] An article about a town that its founder is from. No information is given other than the founder's name and the group's name. [3] A blog post from the group itself. [4] An article that only briefly mentions its existence and describes it as "only active on the internet". [5] A book that I can't find anywhere. Nothing in Worldcat, nothing by Googling, nothing in my local library. I'm unclear as to if it even exists. [6] An article that mentions it had vandalised some articles on Spanish Wikipedia.

I checked the Spanish Wikipedia to see if I was missing anything, and found the article on this group had been rapidly deleted in 2008.[20] So all we can really glean about this group from reliable and verifiable sources is that it was an online group that called itself a "party" and vandalised Wikipedia. As it has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, I think this clearly fails general notability guidelines and am proposing it for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:42, 3 July 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. ✗plicit 11:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Bolshevik Party (Spain)[edit]

National Bolshevik Party (Spain) (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 about what appears to be a rather obscure group. The only cited reliable sources is a Publico article, which briefly mentions that it registered itself from a basement and that its website didn't work. (In a broader article about small newly-registered parties) Its other sources are to an anarchist aggregation website, which is in both cases scraping from self-published posts on a Basque anti-fascist blog. These posts only document a couple cases of stickering and graffiti by this group.

As it appears to fail general notability guidelines, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources, I am proposing this article for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel V. Maroney[edit]

Daniel V. Maroney (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:NBASIC - no significant, in-depth coverage. This person is no more notable than a CEO of some random company, who might also have similar minor mentions in several publications. ---Avatar317(talk) 22:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - leaders of major labor unions are generally notable, certainly far more so than a CEO of a random company. There are many more sources than those already in the article; for example, this entry in the West Virginia Encyclopedia. Having died in 1999, not all relevant sources will be online, but see for example an obituary here. Warofdreams talk 23:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He should be mentioned in the ATU and AFL-CIO articles, but I would say he is WP:1E being his one job, with no special stated accomplishments. Since he is dead, I don't see how this tiny article will ever be any more than the smaller-than-a-stub article that it is now, which to me means it shouldn't be an article, but a sentence or two within two larger articles. ---Avatar317(talk) 23:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Leading a labor union is not one event, it is a prominent role held over a longer duration. While it's a more prominent role than leading a similarly sized company, using your argument, being a CEO of a major corporation is not one event in the meaning of that section. Maroney is mentioned in the ATU article, but that in no way prevents us having an article on him. As the provided sources show, there is more which can be said about him, but like many articles, I've started one off as a stub, to which other people can add. Warofdreams talk 00:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being leader of a large labor union, and vice president of one of the largest unions, would seem to establish notability. I don't think this is what 1E is talking about—leading a labor union is not an "event" that might be better chronicled in another article. This article is hardly "smaller than a stub"—many stub articles are shorter, and this article has more details than many stubs. Being a stub is not itself an argument for deletion, so there is no argument for deletion based on the size of the article. And the fact that the subject is dead is certainly not evidence that there is no potential for expansion—if it were, all articles on historical figures ought to have been deleted as stubs as soon as they were started! But even if it's never expanded significantly, it would still be substantial enough to keep. P Aculeius (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and West Virginia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A check on Newspapers.com reveals lots of coverage of Maroney as a labor leader, including his election and front-page coverage of his work in the Charleston Daily Mail, as well as at least one national AP bulletin. These were just the sources I scraped off the surface, I would have to imagine there are more if you dig deeper. AviationFreak💬 18:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbours from Hell in Britain[edit]

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

Non-notable website, apparently defunct since 2017, links now point to a commercial plumbing website Cnbrb (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A236 highway (Nigeria)[edit]

A236 highway (Nigeria) (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 combination of all of the following I believe is grounds for deletion. The information on the article seems to be, while probably true, unverifiable and likely original research. There would be notability if the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As it stands, the article about the A236 highway does not showcase such significant coverage. A geographical feature would be considered notable if it's covered extensively in reliable sources beyond just maps. The A236 does not fulfill this criterion as it only provides the basic route information (and there is no other available info to add from other websites); perhaps a numbered roadway would be acceptable if it could be described beyond the route itself. (E.g., historical, social, or cultural significance.) However, the article on the A236 highway does not offer any information beyond the basic route. This road has not been the subject of multiple published secondary sources that provide significant coverage. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is there a way to mass-nominate similar articles? There are other (not all, but some) highway articles created by the same user that merely connect two other (also usually un-notable) highways and are not notable or discussed anywhere outside of maps or Wikipedia mirror sites. Chamaemelum (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's sit back and relax and start with discussing the merits of one article. You seem in a rush to mass-nominate, which often leads to WP:TRAINWRECK. VC 23:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, sorry. I thought it would be obvious, but I see now that that isn't the case. Chamaemelum (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOROAD (national highway), and obvious systemic bias. --Rschen7754 22:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The categorization of a highway as a 'national' one should not solely be based on the fact that it is located within a nation's borders. A 'national highway' typically refers to a road network maintained by the national government (indeed, A236 is a federally built-road within Kaduna State) and that has strategic importance to the country's economy/defense/mobility. The A236 highway only connects two other roads and does not have any national significance. The road is not mentioned in works discussing Nigeria's national highways, such as here or here. It is only mentioned in lists which also contain F-class roads. F-class roads, such as F127 or F252, are also federal roads, but they are not notable like A236 and thus do not have articles. Indeed, neither F-class roads nor A236 exist on Yoruba Wikipedia, in contrast to, say, A1. In the best case, auto-generated content, blogs, maps, or Wikipedia mirrors do not establish notability. For example, Trongsa - Gelephu (PNH4), a primary national highway of Bhutan, does not have an article (along with many others) despite being a national highway. Do you have a reliable source that establishes A236 as a notable national highway? Chamaemelum (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The categorization of a highway as a 'national' one should not solely be based on the fact that it is located within a nation's borders. - a straw man, where is anybody saying that?
    I will point out that [21] (which is the actual law of Nigeria) says that it is a national highway. Thus, GEOROAD is applicable. Rschen7754 23:09, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And just because nobody has bothered to make an article for Bhutan is a red herring. --Rschen7754 23:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly: the law of Nigeria lists an innumerable amount of national highways, including the F-class highways. That does not make it notable. WP:GEOROAD says that such roads are typically notable, which is true. That is describing an observation, not a rule: globally, if a road is a national road, it is likely also notable. It does not claim that the fact that a road is national makes it notable. Chamaemelum (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please justify why you do not think that this highway is the "typical" highway. Because it is in an underdeveloped part of the world? Rschen7754 23:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of couse not. It isn't notable because it is not indicated as notable in any source, only serves to connect other highways, and for the same reasons the F-class national highways are not notable. Chamaemelum (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And you are reading stuff into the policy that isn't there. By your PROD actions you are claiming that 33% of the Nigeria national highway articles are not notable. That seems to go against the spirit of GEOROAD and NEXIST. Rschen7754 04:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right now, I'm only claiming that this article isn't notable. My PROD actions were due to looking at a specific user's rapidly created stub no-source articles and being unable to find notability for a minority of them. Chamaemelum (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 22:35, 3 July 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.” and this is a national highway. Also, I agree with Rschen7754 that there is systemic bias on Wikipedia and that articles about subjects in lesser-developed countries and countries that don’t speak English are more scrutinized since there are fewer interested editors and sources are harder to find. Dough4872 22:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nigerians speak English, and it is the most common and the official language in Nigeria. However, because there is some non-English spoken, let's conduct a search on Nigerian Google:
    Hausa: "Hanya A236"
    Yoruba: "Ona A236"
    Igbo: "Uzo A236"
    These do not yield any source establishing the notability of, or relating to, the A236 highway. Chamaemelum (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But, Google Maps says that it is also the Kaduna-Jos Road. And there are plenty of hits when you search for that. --Rschen7754 23:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Kaduna-Jos Road includes A11 and A2, and is not synonymous with A236. Chamaemelum (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even so, have you gone through those sources to say that they do not apply? Let me point out that A236 is the majority of that road. I will also point out that A236 has other names. Have you gone through all those names and potential sources using them? Rschen7754 23:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I have done an extensive search for alternative names and stretches of the road, especially considering the numbered system is not the commonly referred to name (in fact, most of those A### highway articles should have their names changed). Still, the onus would not be on me to do that. Chamaemelum (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, WP:BEFORE. Rschen7754 23:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I found irrelevant sources, like a blog post that mentioned it in passing. Your link tells me that it is ok to proceed if I examine the sources and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic. Chamaemelum (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A236 is the majority in length, but not in relevance. It is away from the city centers. Chamaemelum (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Something that would refer to a stretch of A236 (but still not synonymous) would instead be be Zaria City - Pambeguwa Chamaemelum (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOROAD. Not sure why national roads in Nigeria would not be legitimate topics for WP entries. gidonb (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument is not against having articles for national roads in Nigeria or any other country. Notability should not be assumed just because a road is classified as a national highway. For the A236 highway, we could not find any sources indicating notability.
    While it's true that WP:GEOROAD typically considers national highways as notable, it doesn't make it a concrete rule. As for A236, the only information available is about its basic route, with no further elaboration on its historical, social, or cultural significance. Chamaemelum (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you really believe that, then start a RFC to clarify the matter. Rschen7754 23:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, who is "we"? Rschen7754 23:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You and I and the article creator. I'm assuming you've also searched in some capacity about the road, and if you or the article creator had found something, it would be in the article. This is besides the point though. Chamaemelum (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, 1/3 of the Nigerian road articles were PRODed. Rschen7754 23:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They were mass-created by a single user. Chamaemelum (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This creator did well. We absolutely need to carry geofeatures also in Africa. gidonb (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sympathetic to this. Naturally, English Wikipedia will be dominated predominantly by English-speakers who have access to the internet, meaning that a notable topic in (e.g.) Kyrgyzstan is less likely to be covered, so it can be good to give leniency to articles from places that may not speak English (not Nigeria) or may not have widespread access to the internet (Nigeria). While this is good, it doesn't mean that a truly non-notable feature should have its own article. For example, the F-series Nigerian national highways are not notable, and the Rantan Islamiyya Primary School is not notable. A236 highway falls under this same category of places with no even plausible relevance. Chamaemelum (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are already forced to heavily "punish" African nations in terms of articles and through it exposure on Wikipedia because we cannot carry biographies or company entries without independent sources. Your radical approach, now also to delete geofeatures, when there are insufficient independent sources in Africa, instead of working with sources that are sufficient for data support, would to a large extent wipe Africa off the Wikipedia map. I sincerely hope nobody will buy into this! gidonb (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The key issue here is not about 'punishing' African nations by removing content: instead, it's about ensuring that the content present on the platform meets Wikipedia's standards for quality and verifiability. Indeed, we are introducing a low-quality bias by allowing non-notable articles devoid of possible meaningful content to remain. This means that the Africa side of Wikipedia will be more bloated and lower quality than other areas precisely due to this trend to keep all possible articles. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a radical approach. As a member of an Africa project and a contributor to many Africa articles, I prefer the prevailing, more balanced approach. It seems that about everyone else is with me on this. Which brings me to note that you should NEVER have WP:PRODded all these articles per PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. gidonb (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I expected absolutely no opposition. I thought it would be really obvious that they should be deleted. I didn't know about the 'road article preservation' communities when I made the PRODs, and I didn't see any possible objections when I did PROD. Chamaemelum (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of people at WP who care about Africa. Disregading WP:PROD is not the only problem with your actions here. The other one is WP:BLUDGEONING all over this page. gidonb (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely can see that criticism! Thank for pointing it out. Chamaemelum (talk) 04:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The above are false claims of automatic notability and should be discounted. While certain national highways are "typically notable", they are not exempt from requiring sources altogether. In unitary states, most highways would be national highways, but that doesn't mean they must have standalone articles with disregard to WP:V and WP:GNG. The claimed RFC above is not necessary – articles need sources and actual coverage, simple as that. Reywas92Talk 03:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nigeria does have states, and also state highways (which are also notable according to GEOROAD). Remember that GEOROAD exists to help explain WP:NEXIST (which would include newspaper archives not available online). Rschen7754 03:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I nominated this article only after extensively checking for possible sources, and have since done more extensive searching and have not found nothing establishing notability. The potential for offline newspaper archives could be used to justify the inclusion of any article. Reading your link says that once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. Chamaemelum (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Plenty of sources here [22] [23][24] And I haven't even touched TWL or Newsbank yet. --Rschen7754 06:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    2: Kaduna-Pambeguwa-Jos road is not the A236 highway. Most of that is A11.
    3: Kano-Zaria road is A2. The other roads mentioned in passing in that article are also not A236.
    4: Again, Kaduna-Pambeguwa-Jos road is not A236.
    Maybe we should delete some of the A-series roads and we can replace them with your alternate roads such as Kaduna-Pambeguwa-Jos, which at least would have a non-map source for them. Chamaemelum (talk) 06:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can easily find sources talking about stretches of the road, or referring to parts of the road by cities. You should search for the cities that connect the road. I found sources more relevant to A236 than the three above. If you believe these merit the road's inclusion, then let us reroute the A-series roads to the common name most closely resembling the road (this would cut off chunks and may add segments of various parts of almost all the legally-defined roads), and also we should add all the F-series roads. Chamaemelum (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOROAD and all above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—WP:GEOROAD offers the starting point into our inquiry here. This is a national highway, designated by the appropriate highway authority in Nigeria. As we have found over 15 or so years, such designations are going to be notable. Arguments about different classifications (F-series roads) are inapplicable to this discussion and off-topic. The nominator seems to be in a rush to judgement and discounting various sources found under alternative names, indicating that a proper WP:BEFORE inquiry was not conducted. Sources have been found, thus this article should be kept. Imzadi 1979 → 17:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While legally designated, it is not notable and no one in Nigeria refers to highways with the legal name. We should instead delete this article and make articles on the relevant stretches of the highways, which often combine multiple segments of different legal highways, with common names. In fact, in the above text, no source has been given about the article. The note about the F-series roads is to say "I'd imagine it's obvious that all the F-series should not be included, and there is no meaningful difference between the F-series articles and the A-series, therefore it would also be logical to conclude that being an A-series road should not automatically warrant inclusion." Chamaemelum (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOROAD - Obvious notable highway. –Davey2010Talk 20:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOROAD. This highway is a national highway that connects two cities of 500,000+ population. The arguments about how to name the articles are irrelevant to this discussion and should be discussed separately after this discussion concludes. VC 17:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Association of Librarians, Information Scientists and Documentalists[edit]

Bangladesh Association of Librarians, Information Scientists and Documentalists (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 one of three professional organizations for librarians in Bangladesh. In 2008, it was PRODed by Ragib, then de-PRODed by DGG on the grounds that "National societies for major occupations are encyclopedic." Fifteen years later, the article still cites no sources. And WP:NORG has evolved considerably. Now, in addition to being national in scope, non-commercial organizations need to have received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources.

Primary source news mentions it occasionally, usually as an organizer of a specific event (lecture, seminar, workshop, training, etc.). Otherwise, extensive searches, including of WP:TWL, and in Bengali as well as English, found only a single paragraph about them in Libraries in the Early 21st Century. Even if that paragraph is deemed to be significant coverage, the topic fails the "multiple" aspect of WP:SIRS and WP:NGO part 2. Worldbruce (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Singer[edit]

Clifford Singer (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 artist does not seem to meet WP criteria for inclusion per WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. The current article sourcing consists of an alumni newsletter/press release, and a name-check mention in a NYT article on a group show at the Aldrich Museum. A BEFORE search finds only user-submitted content, advertorial churnalism/native advertising placement, social media, and the like. What is missing are multiple in-depth reviews in notable art magazines or entries on his work in art history books, significant exhibitions at museums or national galleries, multiple notable awards, inclusion in several notable museum collections. Many of the claims cannot be verified such as the claim that he showed his work at MoMA. Bringing it here for the community to look into and decide. Netherzone (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Guthrie[edit]

Chelsea Guthrie (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)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This is a good start, though it really isn't too in-depth, but other than that I can only find passing mentions like this, this and this. The gold medal she won is not truly a global competition, but a summer four-team tournament. JTtheOG (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps it's a WP:TOOSOON case and a redirect would make sense. She is mentioned, by the way, on several pages (Rugby sevens at the 2013 Summer Universiade, Canada at the 2013 Summer Universiade, 2017 Women's Rugby World Cup squads), but none of them seem to me to be a good option. Deckkohl (talk) 21:22, 9 July 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 Turks and Caicos Islands international footballers. ✗plicit 23:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Widlin Calixte[edit]

Widlin Calixte (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)

Redirect to List of Turks and Caicos Islands international footballers. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:39, 3 July 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.

Ruff vs. Fluff[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ toobigtokale (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Ruff vs. Fluff (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)

Upon research, does not meet any of the WP:NBOOK notability guidelines. toobigtokale (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources

    1. Westmoore, Jean (2019-06-30). "Books in brief: Ruff vs. Fluff". The Buffalo News. Archived from the original on 2023-07-04. Retrieved 2023-07-04 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review provides 310 words of coverage about the subject.

      The review notes: "Harmony uses Queenie’s charms to cajole clues out of the cat-loving local librarian and an elderly nursing home resident. Arthur has his own role to play, which includes a stint in the local pound and some heroic tracking. The narration by scheming cat and clueless hound is hilariously spot on. ... Appealing characters, a vivid setting and a well-crafted plot inspired by booze-smuggling of the Prohibition years make this series launch a winner."

    2. "Ruff vs. Fluff". Kirkus Reviews. Vol. 86, no. 24. 2018-11-25. p. 124. Archived from the original on 2023-07-04. Retrieved 2023-07-04.

      The review provides 270 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "However, it makes for a slow unfolding of the mystery and much obvious authorial manipulation to get the animals where they need to be to overhear vital facts; compounding this problem, although they both speak perfect English to readers, they can’t even communicate with each other. The cast is default white. Fans of Quinn’s previous work may enjoy the new character set, but there are too many fine furry detectives out there to spend time with these two."

    3. Perry, Diana (April 2019). "The Story Monsters Ink Shelf: Ruff vs Fluff". Children's Bookwatch. Midwest Book Review. Archived from the original on 2023-07-04. Retrieved 2023-07-04.

      The review notes: "Kiran must once again solve riddles and battle her evil Serpent King father - all while discovering what it really means to be a hero. This is an engaging, action-adventure with riddles that young readers will have so much fun trying to solve. The ultimate bedtime story."

    4. Perry, Diana (May 2019). "The Story Monsters Ink Shelf: Ruff vs. Fluff". Children's Bookwatch. Midwest Book Review. Archived from the original on 2023-07-04. Retrieved 2023-07-04.

      The review notes: "But when the twins' beloved cousin is framed for murder, Queenie and Arthur must work together to clear his name... something Queenie finds even more distasteful than inexpensive caviar. This is the perfect early reader. Kids will love following the clues to solve the mystery."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ruff vs. Fluff to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I stand corrected, thanks for fact checking me. toobigtokale (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Superman: Legacy (2025)[edit]

Superman: Legacy (2025) (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)

Filming has not yet begun. There is already a draft. Bamba9898 (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's in its early works, so it is a bit messy and needs some sprucing up. It does pass WP:GNG with the LA Times article, Rolling Stone article, and even the POPSUGAR article. It's also notable. Conyo14 (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreeing with Conyo14. This being said, the draft is already quite advanced and pages should be merged as soon as possible to avoid the same work being repeated in different places.-MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 22:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree with that. Conyo14 (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For both of you, according to the guidelines here, there shouldn't be an article on a future film as long as its shooting hasn't yet begun. There is nothing about this film that makes it different from other future films that are still "brewing" in the drafts space and not in the main space. Bamba9898 (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for this reminder, but at reading Conyo 14's comment, I am quite certain they had kept this guideline in mind. There are however exceptions to the NFF, which I am sure you know:

    "RARE exceptions to guideline WP:NFF are allowed to be considered IF the coverage of the topic of a planned film is itself enduring and persistent in multiple reliable sources and over an extended period (thus dealing with violations of WP:NOTNEWS), and either there is too much verifiable information in an article (whose topic is "discussion about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur"), to be reasonably placed anywhere else, or a suitable target for a shorter article does not yet exist."

    (Wikipedia:Planned films (essay)) I think this film project is one (based on the coverage it has received, is receiving, and, most likely will continue to receive). In short: "General notability>>Film notability". -MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 23:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first sentence of WP:NFF says: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." There are reliable sources to the existence, the plot, and actors, hence the article passing WP:GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The point here is, I think, that even if the "film" remains a project, there's already enough to make it notable.-MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 23:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Half of the DC and Marvel projects and many other big projects that are producing by important studios (such as Warner Bros. and Disney) are also stand in the conditions you mentioned, so why aren't they in the main space? As there is no source confirming that their principal photography has started yet.
    From the short time I have been here, I have come to see that there is a general agreement that as long as filming has not started, there is no place for an article in the main space, and hence, this film, with all due respect to the reliable sources it has (like the other articles that are in drafts at the moment), is not an exception and should not be so.
    Even at the draft itself mention:
    "Please note: This draft should not be submitted for review or moved to the mainspace until filming has begun, per WP:NFF. The filming start date is currently scheduled for January 2024. Please see the draft for more information." Bamba9898 (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you but I had already mentioned NFF above and I have read the draft and its note. Also I never thought filming had started. It did not and that was perfectly clear from the start. As to why there are no other exceptions to NFF in the Main, I don't know, create them if you are sure they are notable enough, but we are here discussing this film project notability in particular not a general state of Wikipedia.
    The essay I quoted mentions (allow me to repeat again the original bold capitals) RARE exceptions to NFF, under certain conditions. Again, I think this is one and will leave it at that, thank you. -MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 00:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if there was consensus that this film was one of the rare exceptions that did not need to wait until filming has begun, this version of the article should still be deleted so the earlier (and much better) draft article could be moved to the mainspace. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect Per WP:NFILM, this film does not meet the general notability guidelines for a mainspace article at this time, and will do so once filming begins. At which point, the draft would be moved, this article will be forgotten about. There is no point in redirecting it as we already have the Superman: Legacy redirect to DC Universe (franchise)#Superman: Legacy (2025), where most coverage of this should remain until the draft is ready for a move. This should not be made an exception to the policy, especially since the draft is more developed and extensively worked on. To add onto that, this version of the article does not satisfy the reputable coverage over an extended period of time as the Planned films essay (which from my understanding should not override or overrule Wikipedia policy, only to help inform) states would be required for a rare exception. As the policy states in the section on future films: Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun. Allowing this article, which is undoubtedly a stub, to remain as a rare exception would set a precedent for similar future film articles to be made prematurely. We already have the draft that has existed far longer than this with adequate coverage, although any move attempt for that is likely to be rejected to uphold NFF. This could easily be redirected to the DC Universe entry for it if others want to preserve what little edit history exists, though this title will not be used as the inevitable page title in the long term. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect per WP:NFILM, which says that films must have started principal photography in order to be in mainspace. There's already a well developed draft at Draft:Superman: Legacy. Plus, this is the incorrect title, because it should be at simply Superman: Legacy, since there's no disambiguation needed —which would also be incorrect here, as the proper disambiguation would be either (film) or (2025 film)—. —El Millo (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy/strong delete This shouldn't be a controversial request, this is textbook violation of WP:NFILM — not an essay nor local consensus, but an actual notability guideline that has been thoroughly vetted by the community for years. It is exceedingly rare for a film to be granted an exception, so rare that I cannot think of an example off the top of my head. It would be astonishing and against longstanding consensus if this AfD closes as keep or no consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention that (a) the article title is improperly formatted, it should be just Superman Legacy; (b) it duplicates Draft:Superman: Legacy, which has existed since 2018; and (c) it is so poorly formatted, WP:TNT would probably apply as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Trail, Facu, and Infinite. Completely fails WP:NFF, which is a guideline. There's a reason the draft is being created, so that this "notable" info can be added and built upon as it is revealed so the article is ready to go come production starting in January 2024. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect per comments above. It has long been established that standalone film articles wait for production to begin (usually this means principal photography commencing). In the meantime, the limited information gleaned from sources can exist in articles covering broader topics, such as DC Universe (franchise) where coverage already exists. The "rare exceptions" called out above is for situations where there is "too much verifiable information" to reasonably fit as a subtopic in an existing article. That doesn't apply here, nor has a strong case been made to demonstrate that an exception exists. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the existing draft will be moved to the mainspace once filming begins. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carberry highway collision[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Carberry highway collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As it is, this fails WP:NEVENTS. At best, it is WP:TOOSOON. To quote WP:EVENTCRIT:

A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect... Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. (Emphasis in original)

Furthermore, the sources are mostly from Canada and UK. This does not appear to have global reach. Since its occurrence, it has fallen from the news cycle and has not made any notable or lasting impact (yet). If/when this goes to trial, or if there are parliamentary hearings about it, then it might meet NEVENTS.

Renominating after procedural speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #6. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Canada. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Large accident with many victims that drew a lot of international coverage. NOT just in Canada and the UK as nominator suggests. Article was kept days ago and was linked from our main page. gidonb (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While crashes involving 16 deaths aren't terribly common, we do, at least from my experience at ITN, see at least one roadway incident with more deaths come up once every month, namely bus plunges, which many I've encountered suggest are not even noteworthy enough and tend to run 30+ fatalities at a minimum. Really, this article doesn't substantiate the significance of this event. For example, the "Road incidents in 2023" template contains related events, all of which are either significant for speculation of intent or involved higher fatalities or a similar number of fatalities with numerous injuries. Also the article compares this event to the Humboldt Broncos bus crash, which is, I daresay, a poor comparison, as the Broncos crash was a heavily covered event by comparison due to the fact that it involved a [junior hockey] team. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for similar reasons listed at the 2023 Kericho truck crash AfD, and I am impressed with how well-sourced the page is.Chamaemelum (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I think it's a good thing that people are finally nominating these crash articles for AfD, as ITN may finally be able to figure out how to approach NEVENTS/NOTNEWS. As the one that posted this article to ITN, I believe it was the right call at the time (I'm less convinced now...). This one appears slightly more notable than the others recently nominated. I note that this might simply be due to Western bias in the available sources, but with ongoing investigations, this may actually pass WP:LASTING. Anarchyte (talk) 08:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the two above above. The fact that it received commends by heads of both major Canadian parties indicates notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely meets WP:GNG. Note to nominator: The UK is nowhere near Canada! That is global reach. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I stated on the talk page of the article itself prior to this nomination, this does appear to pass GNG. As Necrothesp noted, the UK is nowhere near Canada. To add to that, this was covered by the New York Times twice and by Reuters. There isn't just Canada and UK coverage here. Reuters and NYT don't write about random crashes in Canada -- nor does the BBC or The Guardian, for that matter; they generally don't care. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Last I checked the UK wasn't next door to or in Canada..... Anyway meets SIGCOV and GNG. –Davey2010Talk 20:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm clearly in the minority here to think these articles are absolutely unwarranted and prime examples of what NOTNEWS is meant to prevent. That the event is covered by a UK outlet means little; unlike with paper newspapers where the was limited space, most news now is just copy-paste from other outlets with minimal thought. All they want are clicks and tragedy generates clicks. The same issue is seen with various shootings. These areas tragic blips in the stream of history that almost never hold up to WP:10YEARS. Why my fellow editors view these as encyclopedia-worthy is beyond me. /rant
EvergreenFir (talk) 06:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though you didn't cite WP:10YT as your reason for deletion, I feel compelled to go on a /rant of my own: WP:10YT should not be misused as though it is a notability guideline. It specifically states Just wait and see. Remember there is no deadline, and consensus can change later on. Editors writing today do not have a historical perspective on today's events, and should not pretend to have a crystal ball. This is especially true during a news spike, when there is mass interest to create and update articles on a current event, regardless of whether it may be historically significant later on. Also, editors updating an article affected by a current event may not necessarily be the same ones participating months (or even years) later in the clean-up and maintenance of the page. Above all else, editors should avoid getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism. The 10 year test should not be invoked in deletion discussions as it effectively says the same thing as WP:RAPID. What it really says is that, while everything that happens recently may feel inherently more important, the 2020 US election article for example does not need to be significantly longer than the 2000 US election article. It's a suggestion for avoiding recentist bias, nothing more. Much like with NOTNEWS, the way 10YT gets thrown around bears little resemblance to what it actually says, and this has increasingly started to bother me in AfD discussions.
    Anyways, Keep per SIGCOV and GNG, and per the comments of TheSandDoctor. There's no shortage of secondary sources to indicate sufficient notability.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RAPID. Coverage appears to be substantially ongoing even two weeks on, with discussion of possible policy changes as a result of the event. (One might argue that two weeks is already persistent, although I think the better practice is just to wait awhile longer and see how things look with benefit of hindsight.) On the broader issue of whether we should be welcoming articles like this, in the past I have been happy to sign up to the idea that we need to get these articles out of the project because they are fundamentally unencyclopedic and take resources and attention away from our core work. But I have found my convictions on that subject shaken by the quality of the collaborative work that is consistently done on these articles, and which has also been done here. If you want to see the wiki process at its best, it seems that current events articles like these are where you need to look. Driving contributors who know how to do this kind of work off the project is about the last thing we should be doing. -- Visviva (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least Al Jazeera ([25]) is neither Canada nor the US. Deckkohl (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Secondary sources are required to establish notability. "International coverage" means jack squat if it's all primary sources and there aren't any retrospective secondary sources. If an editor is citing news coverage as GNG, then their ability to evaluate sources should be called into question. If the only sources you can find about an event are news coverage of that event, that's a good indication that you should not create an article for it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when are articles from news organizations considered not secondary sources? That's a heterodox interpretation of the notability guidelines I've never heard of. Can any event pass your personal criteria if you consider an article with dozens of news sources as having no secondary sources? Can you point to any language in the notability guidelines to support this perspective?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aturangi Putere[edit]

Aturangi Putere (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)

Four international appearances for the Cook Islands national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find the necessary coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Demetris Kyprianou[edit]

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

Currently an unsourced BLP. On a comprehensive search, the most substantive source found was an interview that contains little in the way of independent coverage of this footballer, and was only done because he got an award from a Facebook poll. Otherwise coverage in Greek consists of routine announcements such as [26] [27] without any actual WP:SIGCOV. The article therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT. GGT (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Shapiro Kramer[edit]

Laura Shapiro Kramer (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)

Shapiro Kramer wrote one book, Uncommon Voyage, which has been reviewed by reputable outlets (e.g., Publishers Weekly), and she has some producer credits on some plays, but apart from these I can't find other secondary sources on her to demonstrate she is a notable creative professional per WP:CREATIVE. Best, Bridget (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, and New York. Bridget (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Bridget (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Based on my searches, I do not think there is sufficient support for notability in independent, reliable, secondary sources according to WP:CREATIVE or other notability guideline. For the book, the Publishers Weekly review is through the BookLife program: "BookLife Reviews are a service provided for a $399 fee ($499 for books over 100,000 words). There is no fee to submit your book to PW for review consideration." The website for the book also links to a Readers' Favorite review - based on the website, this does not appear to be a reputable source, e.g. the description of reviewers and the pricing scheme. At the WP Library, there is also a mixed review from Library Journal (Vol. 121, Iss. 11, (Jun 15, 1996): 86.) ProQuest 196779981 with an editor's note "Kramer has been featured in Family Circle and on Oprah; librarians should expect publicity and commensurate demand." The questionable independence of the BookLife and Readers' Favorite reviews seem to undermine the notability of the book. For her work as a producer, at Playbill and Broadway World, Slab Boys is the only role listed; the 1983 review in the New York Times is mixed and mentions her in a list of credits after the review: "The Laura Shapiro Kramer and Roberta Weissman production presented by Paramount Theater Productions, in association with Jay D. Kramer." The 1982 NYT source in the article is about Robert Allan Ackerman and describes future plans for Slab Boys - Kramer is only mentioned: "The producers are Paramount Theater Productions, Laura Shapiro Kramer and Jay Kramer." Overall, it does not appear possible to create a balanced biography with the available sources. Beccaynr (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The nominator makes a compelling case for deletion, although Kramer has received some coverage of her work and career over the years. Other editors should weigh in here about whether it is enough and substantial enough coverage to merit keeping the article. I lean on the side of delete, but am open to other points of view from additional editors (or additional reliable source citations). Go4thProsper (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al Mamun Rasel[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable author and lawyer. Sources are definitely not WP:RS. Being a lawyer at the supreme court does not confer notability except if such person were a judge. The sources mostly makes mention of non-notable awards conferred on him. A search on GNEWS turns up with almost no results. This has been previously been created and deleted as WP:PROMO, request for possible salting. Jamiebuba (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've found that he got The Diplomat Award'2023 "at the International Diplomat Conference on the occasion of World Diplomacy Forum ([28]), but the notability of the whole affair is just as questionable. Deckkohl (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Kyriakou[edit]

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

Currently an unsourced BLP. An exhaustive Greek-language search revels a non-independent source from the CFA, otherwise just mentions of his name in sports coverage (e.g. [29], [30]), but no significant coverage despıte Kyriakou playing in a relatively major club (AEL) and searches in specialist outlets such as Balla. Therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT. GGT (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Zhang Side[edit]

Statue of Zhang Side (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 refs on the page for many years, almost all substantial edits made by one editor. No reason to think that this statue meets the WP:GNG from the page, I don't read the relevant languages but it seems unlikely that there is anything to be said about this statue outwith of Zhang Side. Nothing to merge, unlikely that a redirect is ever going to be relevant in searches. JMWt (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Neill[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:GNG. There is a claim that he set a minor NCAA record 25 years ago but there is not significant coverage of the subject. User:Namiba 17:08, 3 July 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. Deja vu here. Liz Read! Talk! 19:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu Venu[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Vishnu Venu (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:FILMMAKER WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. UtherSRG (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @UtherSRG: How about WP:FILMMAKER #3 for Kappela: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work... In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews...? Jay 💬 16:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So, IIRC, the subject-specific notability requirements only indicate that there should be references available given those qualifications, that failing at a subject-specific is good enough to say there's no notability, but that in passing a subject-specific only means there's an expectation that enough material should be able to be found to pass WP:GNG. Are there references that can be found to support the notability of this subject? (And I want to debate how major a role producer is wrt filmmaking... but I won't.) That said, this is more a pro forma AFD given the previous soft deletion and re-creation. I have very little skin in this game. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going only by your nomination which differs from the previous which did mention GNG explicitly. And I see that you haven't agreed or denied that the FILMMAKER criteria is met. Jay 💬 16:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair. I've updated, striking FILMMAKER and adding GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this person to establish notability. The article has been reference bombed with a mix of unreliable sources such as IMDB, and Wikipedia itself, and reliable sources which only mention Vishnu Venu as producer. The closest thing to significant coverage is this Zeenews piece which is just a republication of a Venu social media post. My own search for sourcing turns up more of the same mentions and nothing that would substantiate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Also, I deleted the absurd references to Wikipedia itself, mentioned above, to make it easier for others to check sources. Deckkohl (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 19:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Thornton (MacGyver)[edit]

Peter Thornton (MacGyver) (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)

While this character seems to be generally notable in MacGyver, I can't find any secondary sources that aren't just recaps, listicles, or passing mentions. I don't believe the article passes SIGCOV as it stands, especially since as of right now, the article only cites a few primary sources as its entire source list, not to mention that all information regarding this character is already in the general character list for MacGyver. If some more sources are found, I'm definitely not opposed to it being kept, but I don't think enough exist to justify an article as of right now. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolas Koutsakos[edit]

Nikolas Koutsakos (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 sole source in this BLP is an unreliable link to a live score website. A Greek-language search for sources has yielded a WP:ROUTINE announcement of his loan to Ethnikos Achnas at [31] (essentially a copy-paste of APOEL's announcement) and a mention of him scoring a hat-trick at a youth match, but nothing of substance. An English-language search did not contribute any significant coverage. Therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT. GGT (talk) 15:47, 3 July 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 Cryptic Fate. signed, Rosguill talk 03:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Srestho[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:ALBUM. UtherSRG (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Maluka[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. PROD declined. Fails WP:NARTIST. UtherSRG (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and South Africa. UtherSRG (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He seems to meet both GNG and NARTIST, altho the article can be updated and cleaned up. I found two notable museum collections North Carolina Museum of Art [32], and Studio Museum in Harlem [33]; an in-depth review in Art in America [34], and another on ArtThrob [35], an in-depth review in OneSmallSeed (a South African quarterly art magazine): [36], an in-depth review in ArtAfrica magazine [37], another review in the Mail & Guardian (South Africa) here: [38], and a mention in the NYTimes [39]. I'm pretty sure additional material to support notability can be found, but I think the above puts him over the bar. Netherzone (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've cleared out some puffery and uncited material (including some dead external links). I added link out to exhibition catalogue which has great examples of his work. It could still use some work, but notability is established with North Carolina Museum of Art and Studio Museum in Harlem. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments and finds. This is an example of PROD being overused, editors should only prod the very obvious pages - ones a child would prod - and not articles which have a chance at AfD. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Randy Kryn, please consider joining WP:PRODPATROL. This is an understaffed project doing critical work such as demonstrated here. ~Kvng (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per above. Okoslavia (talk) 14:57, 10 July 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. Participants are divided here but I see a consensus to Keep this article however it might be due for a change in its article title. Please start a discussion on the article talk page and share your ideas. Liz Read! Talk! 03:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bluebird record-breaking vehicles[edit]

List of Bluebird record-breaking vehicles (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 odd and confusing WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:COATRACK article; basically a severely bloated disambiguation for vehicles named bluebird that also attempts to discuss the Campbell family who drove them and ALSO attempts to discuss the record-breaking nature of the vehicles. The only thing tying anything together here is a name, a common family ownership, and a proclivity for breaking speed revords. Dronebogus (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However odd or confusing it may appear to you currently, this is a largely cohesive and discriminate collection of information about a notable and very specific series of vehicles used by the Campbell family for record breaking. You are correct in that otherwise the only thing tying these vehicle together is the name, but in this field, that name is both notable and significant. Mighty Antar (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is notable, it looks like a draft— very messy and directionless. It should probably be draftified and WP:TNT’d, up to and including the title (which makes it sound like “Bluebird” is a brand) Dronebogus (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say SOFIXIT, but please, don't even try. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AFD is not cleanup. The article does need a bit of cleanup and a better introduction writing, but nowhere near the TNT mentioned above. Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NLIST. There's no such family list out there in the "wild". The "Blue Bird"s could be added to Malcolm Campbell, along with a brief mention of "Bluebird"s in his family, as well as in Bluebird (disambiguation). (Then there would be an outbreak of happiness?) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a major cleanup - maybe simplify title to List of Bluebird vehicles or similar.--Mervyn (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly just rename to “Bluebird vehicles”— this shouldn’t be a list because it doesn’t deal with raw data comparisons, standard-format groupings, or chronologies. It could have a sortable table list for clarity and comparison, but it should not be a list article. Dronebogus (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, the simplest solution.--Mervyn (talk) 15:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf and Mervyn. I don't think this article is really a list, and it should be renamed to reflect this. Note however that Bluebird Vehicles is a redirect to Mellor Coachcraft and Bluebird vehicles may be ambiguous with some of the various entries at Bluebird (disambiguation)#Transportation. A7V2 (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - who knew Bluebirds set records?
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CFORK/COATRACK. Absolutely no need to rehash the same information every time in a slightly new combination. The models can be listed at Bluebird (disambiguation), the details under the individual articles, and the racing activities are already in the relevant biographies. Keep it simple and keep it organized! gidonb (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, TNT to delete, AFDISNOTCLEANUP to keep, or DRAFTIFY to, well, draftity do not apply to this article since these are for rightheaded, yet wrongly executed efforts. This article is a WRONGHEADED effort and then you get in the direction COATRACK, CFORK, INDISCRIMINATE, and the like. gidonb (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Malcolm Campbell article, there just doesn't seem to be much sourcing for each vehicle alone. What they accomplished is notable, but we don't have much discussion outside of the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems entirely natural to me to have an article on the highly notable topic of a series of notable vehicles: boats and cars all called Bluebird and intended to break (and breaking) world speed records, operated by Malcolm Cambell and, later, his family. I'm personally perplexed why the article causes difficulty. If it was a navbox it would pass without notice but it is far better as an article. Thincat (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Thincat - although perhaps it should be renamed Bluebird record-breaking vehicles as per User:A7V2, which would allow for expansion of the useful content. Merging to Malcolm Campbell doesn't make much sense since Bluebirds were built by four different members of the Campbell family.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:55, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A (Personal attack removed) nomination by someone who's obviously read nothing of the content here. Do you really not see what the connection is through record breaking and the Campbell family? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ouch. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:10, 7 July 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. ✗plicit 23:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Libfat[edit]

Libfat (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 file library for video games. Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 3 July 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. Consensus is that the article needs cleanup, not deletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Los de Abajo[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Almost entirely unsourced. Fails WP:NORG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, passes GNG, article needs improving not deletion.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there's a fair amount of academic coverage available ([41], [42]) signed, Rosguill talk 03:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per above. Okoslavia (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment looks like it needs the tag for migrating content from another language wikipedia page. I forgot the name of that tag, maybe someone could add it. Seems the article just needs to be updated per others above and thus keep . Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:52, 11 July 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 Rajput. ✗plicit 11:56, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rajputra[edit]

Rajputra (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)

Ongoing effective edit war between a longstanding redirect and a one-line WP:DICTDEF. The new short article was PROD'd and then de-PROD'd as not uncontroversial with AfD suggested. Attempts to return to the original redirect have been reverted with reference to User_talk:Bishonen#Need your advice whether some action should be taken against this editor. One editor has been topic-banned. Rajaputra may also be relevant. Lithopsian (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as before. Wikipedia is not a dictionary per above, the definition entry is more appropriate for Wiktionary. - Indefensible (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect back to Rajput as was the case for over 15 years and where the term is already mentioned (so could even have a specific redirect to Rajput#Early_references). I see no reason why this needs to be a stand-alone article and agree with other editors' concerns around WP:NOTDICT. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore redirect per above. (I have a slight preference for redirect to Rajput as a whole, as the lead has sufficient information to help the reader IMO, but no strong opinion.) Even the reader who is looking for a definition is going to be better served by that article. -- Visviva (talk) 19:59, 4 July 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. ✗plicit 14:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moship[edit]

Moship (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 obvious evidence of notability Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helllo!
There is several links to articles on the page:
https://electronicgroove.com/moship-links-up-with-michael-horowitz-for-a2e/
https://www.side-line.com/colin-angus-of-the-shamen-introduces-moship-project-featuring-michael-horowitz-on-moksha-recordings/
https://www.xsnoize.com/interview-colin-angus-1st-ai-interview-about-his-new-band-moship/
https://www.xsnoize.com/track-premiere-colin-angus-the-shamen-presents-moship-a2e-ft-michael-horowitz/ Peter Music Sweden (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete That Electronic Groove article is about all I find, the site is not listed in our various source lists that I can see, likely not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 3 July 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 13:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Janine Ditullio[edit]

Janine Ditullio (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)

Assertions of notability not supported by given sources. Fails WP:ENT. UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sources about her Emmy nominations and WGA awards. I'm really curious about the claims that she was the first woman writer on two shows. That would certainly make her notable. Significa liberdade (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB proves it. Look at all the writers for Daily Show and Conan, she is the first: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115147/
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106052/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_8_nm_0_q_late%2520night%2520with%2520conan Ash The Flash1994 (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ash The Flash1994: IMDB is not a reliable source. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - According to Salon (2010), "in 1995 [she] became the first woman hired to write for Conan O'Brien (and before that, the first woman to write for the original 1993 "Jon Stewart Show")," and I have added references and some detail to the article about her career, but have not found a lot to help develop this article. However, it looks like there is support for WP:CREATIVE based on her work as a writer, including due to the 6 Emmy nominations for Outstanding Writing (which also seem to support WP:ANYBIO notability) for her work on Late Night with Conan O'Brien; she was also a lead voice actor on Home Movies for several years. Beccaynr (talk) 01:12, 9 July 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. North America1000 13:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yugen (restaurant)[edit]

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

Non-notable restaurant whose sources are quite local (meaning they fail WP:AUD). All are written promotionally, as is the article. There's no evidence that this is notable in the long run or at the present time. The sources lack WP:SIGCOV, and they mostly focus on the food and the interior of the restaurant. Nythar (💬-🍀) 13:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ UtherSRG (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SME Limited[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NORG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - UtherSRG (talk) 12:02, 3 July 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. ✗plicit 12:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rozina Sini[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, 3 July 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 Danvers, Massachusetts#Transportation. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robbins Airport[edit]

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

Small private airfield that only received significant coverage in one source. Fails WP:GNG. Hirolovesswords (talk) 11:51, 3 July 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. ✗plicit 12:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Sica[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Only a single EL and no references, otherwise this would be a CSD BLP candidate. No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:47, 3 July 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. ✗plicit 12:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Siaton[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:32, 3 July 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. ✗plicit 12:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Dragon Heir[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No sources. No indication it passes WP:NBOOK. UtherSRG (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was relatively easy to find and there are tons of other hits, such that it's clearly likely that at least one more RS review will be found. No indication that BEFORE was conducted. Withdraw this now, please, UtherSRG, rather than wasting a week of AfD time when you didn't do your homework first. Jclemens (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close due to a clear lack of WP:BEFORE. - jc37 16:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are several other reviews as noted here: [43]. ISFDB is always a critical place to check for reviews of novels. BOZ (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Storm Constantine. This may be notable, but this needs to be demonstrated. Kirkus Reviews is a capsule review, and what I see at ISFDb is a likel decent source (Locus Magazine) and then three minor magazine and one fanzine reviews. So while this might pass NBOOK, someone needs to improve this article - and if this doesn't happen, a soft delete by redirecting until this is done will help. As things stand, this article lowers Wikipedia's quality by being a pure plot summary. This is not how encyclopedic articles should look like. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because Sea Dragon Heir is part of a series, I wonder if it would be beneficial to create a wikipage for the series, which would include the information currently on the SDH page. In addition to the reviews listed above, the final book in the series, The Way of Light, also has a review from Publishers Weekly. Looking at ISFDB, it looks like other books in the series also have reviews from Locus, too. Significa liberdade (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit I've looked over the Storm Constantine page, and a lot of her work is focused on the Wraeththu stories, which includes novels and short stories. According to her page, the stories have a cult following (though there isn't a link). I wonder if it would be worthwhile to have a page for the Wraeththu stories, which includes the Sea Dragon Heir trilogy. Significa liberdade (talk) 17:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources

    1. Murphy, Brian (April 2000). "Sea Dragon Heir". Realms of Fantasy. p. 73. Retrieved 2023-07-05 – via Internet Archive.

      The review notes: "For the Fantasy reader who wants everything fantastic, Sea Dragon Heir has it all. Courtly politics, plots within plots, mystery, romance, sex, magic, monsters, and gods. But Constantine overlaps bits and pieces of this tale, turns things upside down, oftentimes confusing the reader in the best of all possible ways. Sea Dragon Heir is the first of three novels concerning the Lords of the Fire Drakes and the Lords of the Sea Dragons. This book is highly recommended to those of you who love a bit of meat on the Fantasy bone and are willing to approach, and sometimes cross, any and all existing borders, boundaries, and even taboos. Enjoy."

    2. "Sea Dragon Heir". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 247, no. 24. 2000-01-24. p. 296. Archived from the original on 2023-07-05. Retrieved 2023-07-05 – via Gale.

      The review notes: "Constantine's new fantasy setting is finely textured, full of fierce and powerful magic, compelling characters and tangled intrigues. It should draw many new readers to the already crowded ranks of her fans."

    3. Cassada, Jackie (2000-02-15). "Sea Dragon Heir". Library Journal. Vol. 125, no. 3. p. 202. Archived from the original on 2023-07-05. Retrieved 2023-07-05 – via Gale.

      The review notes: "Constantine's latest novel, the first in a projected trilogy, evokes an atmosphere of tragedy and dark sensuality. The author of Wraeththu extends her gothic appeal to classic adult fantasy in a tale suffused with magic and madness."

    4. "Sea Dragon Heir". Kirkus Reviews. 2000-01-01. Archived from the original on 2023-07-05. Retrieved 2023-07-05.

      The review notes: "She gives birth to twins, Valraven and Ellory, and in an out-of-body experience learns that Foy is weary and only wants to die. Caradore must achieve freedom by another means. A carefully plotted, beautifully detailed fantasy family-saga spoiled by a thin, trite storyline; the midstream point-of-view switch doesn't help."

    5. Arden, Tom (March 2000). "Varieties of Hip". Interzone. No. 153. p. 53. Retrieved 2023-07-05 – via Internet Archive.

      The review notes: "For a start, Constantine really can write. To create a prose which is both lush and sensual on the one hand, and taut and economical on the other — the story moves much faster than is common in this genre is no easy task, but Constantine manages it with ease. The characters — Pharinet in particular — are not flat hero-and-villain figures but complex individuals, while the plot is no hackneyed Tolkien rip-off but genuinely intriguing. Incest figures prominently, and there is real darkness. It's all a long way from David Eddings. It's perhaps even hip — in the best sense, of course."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sea Dragon Heir to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:25, 5 July 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. ✗plicit 12:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Parry[edit]

Rob Parry (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 satisfy WP:NACTOR as no major roles, mainly bit-part roles. No WP:SIGCOV on his career either. – Meena • 11:07, 3 July 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. Consensus is the recently creating article about the building - Alcazar (Marseille) - should be worked on instead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alcazar Library arson attack[edit]

Alcazar Library arson attack (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)

False information mixed with lack of notability Dynamo128 (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the information on the article appears to be incorrect. 76.232.20.197 (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually read the article? You only need to read the beginning to see "deliberately badly damaged by a large fire" -- "deliberately", OK; "badly damaged" nonsense; "large fire", nonsense. Athel cb (talk) 17:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moderately badly damaged by a moderately-sized fire? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not even that. I might add that I live within walking distance of the Alcazar (well, not now; I'm too old to walk more than 100 m or so, but 30 years ago, yes), and my wife has lectured there. Athel cb (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly in the article is false? Jim 2 Michael (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reposting from the article talk page:
A lot of, shall we put it politely, mendacious media is reporting that the library was burnt down, when in reality all that happened was some external fire damage to the building and windows being smashed: not a single document was destroyed or damaged because the protesters failed to enter the building. Look no further than the third source (https://interviewtimes.net/riots-in-france-continue-for-the-third-day-as-rioters-burn-down-the-largest-library-in-marseilles/) claiming it has "burnt down" when that never even happened. In light of this, I fail to see why this article is necessary considering it was such a minor event, to me all it does is help promote a conspiracy theory. I think this article should be removed, and possibly replaced with an article on the library itself.
The library is set to re-open next week, there was some damage to the exterior of the building and some glasses got smashed, but considering we are dealing with riots, I fail to see how such an event of minuscule magnitude has any relevance for Wikipedia? The very first line said that "the building was heavily damaged by a large fire", which did not happen, this wasn't the Notre Dame fire. --Dynamo128 (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and, well, I forgot to vote. Delete, of course. --Dynamo128 (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. The framing of this article is textbook blatant WP:POV bordering on deliberate hoaxing. Examples:
  • At the time of its arson, the library was one of the biggest in France, containing nearly a million documents. This is clearly meant to imply to the casual reader that a million documents were burned.
  • The window of the library was smashed. But, the protesters failed to completely destroy the library. Not only is this crucial info buried near the end, the wording in failed to completely destroy is self-evidently unacceptable for an encyclopedia.
  • As pointed out above, the sources are all unreliable and even misleading. The only reliable source, the BBC, doesn't mention the library at all.
In short, damage to some windows and exteriors of a building is not even remotely notable, and can be covered in a sentence in the main Nahel Merzouk protests article. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I completely agree with you. Yes, the Alcazar was attacked, but the damage was minor and external. It's very worrying that it happened at all, but far worse things have happened in the past few days (like the attack on the house of the Mayor of L'Haÿ-les-Roses). Athel cb (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As explained above, this violates WP:POV and potentially WP:SOAPBOX --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change the title to Alcazar (Marseille) & make the article about the building, including a section about the fire. The wording can easily be improved. The building is notable & the French article is good. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jim 2 Michael: You can go ahead and create a new article for the library. There's only one salvageable paragraph here, and you'd be better off writing it from scratch with better sources. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the article about the building needs to be started from scratch. Reword this one & source it better. The French article can be translated. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Translating the French page of the library would in effect be the same as creating a new one, so... --Dynamo128 (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim 2 Michael: An article about the library would be different from an article about this incident involving the library, and thus the history of this article (especially in this woeful state) doesn't need to be preserved. Just create a new article if you care enough to write it. 〜 Festucalex • talk 18:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Background & Arson sections, as well as the photo, would be useful for an article about the building. Jim 2 Michael (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even the background content about the building is more WP:BOLLOCKS than fact. The image comes from the fr.Wikipedia page about the building. Facts and citations are distorted. Architectural landmark? yes. Ancient monument? hardly. Biggest library in town is its biggest center of research, of course. Most researched site? distortion of the citation given. The arson content has only a tenuous relation with the facts. There is nothing worth salvaging. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Not worth preserving. If anyone actually wants to create an article about the library, just create a new article with new sources instead of WP:BACKWARDing it from this mess. 〜 Festucalex • talk 02:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and France. Shellwood (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to creating an article on the building. This event is not notable enough for a page unless the building is independently notable enough for a page on en.wp. If someone translates the page, the single sentence added to the fr.wp article about this event seems to be proportionally due weight. WP:DUE, WP:10Y, etc. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 17:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and repurpose to an article on the building, which is clearly notable. French article here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case, what you are actually voting for is delete, because the French article is an article on the building itself and not on this event (which would thus become at best a redirect), and the article about the building would need to be started from scratch here even if using a translation from the French page. Furthermore, the article as it stands already has a redlink to the (non-existent) English equivalent of the French page, further underlining how it's that one that should be created while this removed entirely. --Dynamo128 (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I'd been voting for deletion I'd have said "Delete"! Instead, it needs renaming and repurposing, not deleting. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Minor news event done in the Breitbart News style, incendiary lede unsupported by the later more factual content. Fails WP:V, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SOAPBOX. If the library is notable, start over from the fr:Alcazar (Marseille) article, rather than this nonsense. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You show you are blinded by leftwing bias by referencing Breitbart. 71.173.76.38 (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What in the world are you talking about? Breitbart is considered an unreliable source and its usage is not permitted on Wikipedia. If you think we are all "blinded by leftist bias" (whatever that even means) then I don't think you'll have a very good time with this site's policy on sources. --Dynamo128 (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cited the Breitbart style with this article in mind: "Revealed: 1,000-Man Mob Attack Police, Set Germany’s Oldest Church Alight on New Year’s Eve." (Can't link directly as the link as the site is blacklisted, but here's some context: [44]). A sensational and inflammatory lede is followed by content saying that's not what really happened. A stray firework from New Year's Eve celebrations set a small fire that was extinguished in 10 minutes. In the case of Alcazar, "badly damaged by a large fire" is both sensational and grossly hyperbolic. The following statement, "protesters failed to completely destroy the library," is more factual only because the rioters only vandalized the exterior. A citation in the article says they expect to reopen in a few days. Barely rates a one-sentence mention in an article about the protests. Again, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. and pretty much everyone above, the page as it is is clearly not fit for purppse. The keep !vote and another suggest a move and repurpose, but this is back door deletion, in any case. If we change the article and pretty much all the content, it is a delete by another name. There is a definite case for an article, based on the French article, per Necrothesp, but reading that article shows the little history that has been written here is wrong and needs a healthy dose of TNT. The building was a theatre until 1966. It was not repurposed as a library until 2004. So creating an article is fine, but this article needs deletion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted tweets, or as we call 'em in the industry, the Paragons of Truth 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was a horrendous, traumatic attack on the culture and heritage of the indigenous people of France. That makes it notable. We do not downplay or brush under the rug attacks against indigenous cultures, or anyone, as having "lack of notability".
The wikipedia page appears factually correct. S138008 (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, KEEP. S138008 (talk) 06:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC) — S138008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Will you provide reliable source citations that support these assertions? The article doesn't have them. The article stretches the truth to the breaking point, concerning both the importance of the building and the damage done. It misrepresents the sources it cites. While the article isn't a pure hoax, it appears to be less than 50 percent factual. • Gene93k (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Appeal to emotion using language that virtually no person in the world would in regards to an event like this even if it were real ("attack on indigenous culture"? really?). Which, of course, doesn't even matter since if you think none of the parts of this article appear to be incorrect, I have to question if you even read the article or bothered to check any of the sources... --Dynamo128 (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gene93k and Dynamo128: I gather this AfD has gained attention on far-right Twitter, and thus we got a bunch of IPs (and this one WP:SPU) coming here to troll. Remember, WP:DONTFEED. 〜 Festucalex • talk 11:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, duly noted. --Dynamo128 (talk) 12:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://twitter.com/elonteslaholic/status/1674799695254925316?s=20
It's so easy to search on any social media. Not sure why Breitbart is blacklisted. It's owned by CCP. Aren't we CCP owned now? So should be any MSM corporate owned media until the Smith Mundt Act which allowed propaganda in 2012 in the US is rescinded or replaced.
It's insanity that there is this much effort to whitewash truth. 173.163.190.30 (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources you've posted are a blacklisted site known to be a sensationalist tabloid at best, and deleted tweets. Not exactly persuasive. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 15:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the many problems already discussed. Walt Yoder (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NYC Guru (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Surprised the main subject does not have its own English article, the best solution as mentioned above is to AfC from the French translation and then merge this article into that in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 03:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The keep votes are mostly all arguing for a completely different article to exist with a completely different name. The delete votes are persuasive. I'm concerned that this AfD has been extended for another week for "clearer consensus" given the problems already observed by the nom and others arguing for deletion. -- asilvering (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge Appears to be a solitary incident as part of widespread protests and therefore not not notable for stand alone article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have created a page, Alcazar (Marseille), translated and sourced entirely from the French article, save one reference to the recent fire which I found myself in Le Monde. The French article tone is a bit off in my view, but for the initial translation I tried to stick to it faithfully to preserve attribution. Copy edits from this point on to make it more encyclopaedic are welcome. Creation of that article does not change my view that this one should be deleted. Nothing in this article can be merged into that one, as anything beyond the one line of text from the French article on the fire is undue, and the history on this page is wrong. Editors might wish to consider redirect as an alternative to deletion, but I oppose that because I don't actually think the subject of "Alcazar Library arson attack" has anything but ephemeral significance. People are not going to be searching for this in the future. Yes, redirects are cheap, but this one is really not necessary. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very good, I was going to attempt a translation myself once I returned home only to see it has just been taken care of. Thank you kindly. I completely agree with you that, even though redirects are cheap, this is a case where an outright delete is the better option. And the presence of this article now, as far as I am concerned, voids any concerns about needing to merge the existing page into this or that article. --Dynamo128 (talk) 09:29, 11 July 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 Dominica national football team#Records. Liz Read! Talk! 03:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Briel Thomas[edit]

Briel Thomas (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)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This is despite the fact that the subject has earned 40 international caps, albeit for the Dominica national football team. I found this, this and this, though I do not believe it is enough. JTtheOG (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not only has Thomas earned a considerable amounts of caps with the national team and seemingly is the player with the fourth most caps in the nation's history (Dominica national football team#Records), he also notably played professionally abroad in Trinidad and Tobago, a rare feat for a Dominican player [45]. You'd expect SIGCOV but I haven't found any yet through web searches. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Dominica national football team#Records if the consensus is to delete, however I will prefer to see an international players list for the island with these players and records on. Govvy (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree with Robby.is.on that one would expect SIGCOV of one of the few fully-pro footballers from Dominica. However, I'm struggling to find much - this CONCACAF Champions League match report praises his performance in one of his club's most high-profile matches, but it's not specifically about Thomas and it doesn't go in-depth on his play. Jogurney (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability, although as above I expected more. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:55, 3 July 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. Okay, I see a consensus to Keep this article for now. Any future "refocusing", article move or redirection that accompanied the "Keeps", I turn over to interested editors to handle. Good luck. Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Dyck[edit]

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

Not notable per ANYbio; no deep reliable independent coverage; McNally Robinson Award is good, but not a guarantee for being included into Wikipedia. Edit.pdf (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and refocus the article to be about the book, Shelterbelts per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The author is largely known for his book. The coverage in reliable sources is largely about the book rather than about the author.

    Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. "The best Canadian comics of 2022". CBC.ca. 2022-12-12. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

      The article notes: "Shelterbelts tells the story of a Mennonite community breaking open, as traditional beliefs and modern values collide. The schisms in the community reach a turning point when a non-denominational mega-church opens on the edge of the rural village. Shelterbelts weaves together scenes from the community — a pastor and his queer daughter contend with lost parish members, a librarian writes prescriptive notes in books for her patrons and young activists fight with a farmer over pipeline construction on his land."

      The article further notes: "Jonathan Dyck is a cartoonist from Winnipeg. He has received several provincial prizes for his illustrations, including a silver medal at the 2021 Alberta Magazine Awards and the Manuela Dias Book Design and Illustration Award at the 2018 Manitoba Book Awards."

    2. Mlynek, Alex (2022-05-02). "'Shelterbelts' explores how a rural Manitoba Mennonite community wrestles with change". Broadview. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

      The article notes: "Set in a rural Mennonite community in southern Manitoba, Shelterbelts is the debut graphic novel by illustrator and designer Jonathan Dyck. Now based in Winnipeg, Dyck grew up as a pastor’s kid in the largely Mennonite city of Winkler, Man., and his fiction draws on this background with empathy and insight. ... Dyck’s storytelling is superb, and through his sensitivity and eye for detail, often conveyed wordlessly through his thoughtful drawings, he fills in a picture of life in this community."

    3. Roeschley, Annabeth (2022-11-15). "Jonathan Dyck's queer Mennonite graphic novel: Shelterbelts is a quiet ode to rural life that honors what is good and confronts what is not". The Christian Century. Vol. 139, no. 19. pp. 105+. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

      The review notes: "Shelterbelts is a quiet ode to rural Mennonite life that feels right—not because it is praise, but because it is honest. Dyck’s novel is a mirror and a prism, a provocation and a balm. It honors what is good, and it confronts what is not. This book bears witness to a profound yet ordinary hospitality toward the neighbor, to the kind of social fabric and relational economy found in less populated places. "

    4. "Shelterbelts". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 269, no. 16. 2022-04-18. p. 61. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

      The review notes: "Dyck wows with his ability to convey unmistakable emotions and personalities in lightly detailed character drawings. Flashbacks nestled inside outer panels create an unusual, but rewarding, swerve within rigid panel layouts. Fans of Craig Thompson’s Blankets will welcome this nuanced portrait of faith and community."

    5. Noe, Matthew (2022-06-01). "Shelterbelts". Booklist. Vol. 118, no. 19–20. p. 56. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19 – via Gale.

      The review notes: "While faith is front and center, Dyck also forces readers to confront the history of setder colonialism, with one Metis character challenging claims of land ownership while protesting ou pipelines. The combination of wide-view landscapes and careful attention to each character's facial and bodily expressions make it easy for the reader to imagine themselves inside the world of the story. A poignant, expressive comic that will appeal to fans of Blankets (2003), by Craig Thompson."

    6. Goodwillie, Ian. "Historical conditions clash with the present in Mennonite-driven graphic short stories. Jonathan Dyck's fictional Manitoba town comes to life through interconnected tales". Prairie Books Now. Archived from the original on 2023-06-19. Retrieved 2023-06-19.

      The review notes: "The Mennonite influence in Manitoba runs deep, and that’s reflected in Shelterbelts by illustrator and cartoonist Jonathan Dyck. This collection of graphic short stories, which were originally published as individual comics, weaves together a narrative set in a fictional town that feels quite familiar."

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

    Cunard (talk) 09:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get other opinions on refocusing the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See previous relisting comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Cunard's suggestion to keep/refocus, presuming that includes a move/redirect, given the sourcing provided. (As well as the fact that that specific book won the award). Other coverage of the author is interviews and such, so doesn't suggest notability outside of the book. —siroχo 06:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Cunard offer a lot of very good reasons on why the BLP meets WP:NBIO and GNG. Batmanthe8th (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 18:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goddard.[edit]

Goddard. (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 appearance of notability aside from the one hit single. Sourcing on page is poor and I could not find adequate additional material. The hit song is notable, yes, but that notability isn't inherited. I vote to reinstate the redirect I made which was undone. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSICBIO#C2, although it doesn't help that his name is really difficult to google. I'll take a more comprehensive later on today.--Launchballer 04:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article has now been expanded considerably, meets WP:MUSICBIO#C6, and almost certainly meets WP:GNG and WP:HEY too. QuietHere - please consider withdrawing this.--Launchballer 13:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New sources are mostly as poor as what was already there. From what you've added, the only sources I'm sure are reliable are NME and The Line of Best Fit, and of those two the former hardly mentions Goddard and the latter is too short to be useful.The charting for "Go" along with released "Messy in Heaven" is promising, but I still don't see WP:GNG without better sourcing than this. No withdrawal at this time. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 14:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess recent improvements to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources added above look ok, not a strong keep, but weak keep. Oaktree b (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The consensus here is that sources don't supply SIGCOV. Thanks to editors who spend the time to research non-English sources. Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein Ammar[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hussein Ammar (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:BIO, as all sources are either routine coverage or passing mentions. The article was previously deleted in March through an AfD, but has been re-created. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 03:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has stated WP:GNG failure as the reason. Playing on the national team has nothing to do with notability. Hundreds of articles on capped players have been deleted this year and rightly so. Do you dispute that Hussein Ammar fails GNG and can you please provide evidence of GNG if you do indeed believe that he meets it? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I see the claim that this subject fails GNG but no discussion here about the article sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to the simple fact that there is no evidence of significant coverage. The two keep !votes make arguments that are not rooted in policy. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; I can only find trivial coverage in online Arabic-language sources (lots of match reports, and this Iraq News Agency match preview that infers Ammar is an "influential player" for his club over the course of a single sentence) but nothing that approaches SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, comprehensive coverage in a variety of sources is enough for SIGCOV IMO.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this Al-Mirbad source appears to be the only decent one and even that manages to write 4 paragraphs about him without actually saying anything of substance (basically just says that he's the only one from Basra in the Iraq team). I was going to do a source analysis table but the function seems to be broken. I'm not seeing a GNG pass anyway. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the sources in the article are sufficient and varied, in addition to the presence of the player's database in the most important sites, which are mentioned in the External Links section. SonOfBasra (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 10 July 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. And, for future reference, a more complete and detailed deletion rationale helps other editors better understand what problems exist with an article and can be more persuasive. Liz Read! Talk! 18:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of Calton Hill[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Declaration of Calton Hill (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)

GNG and verifiability RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was decided last time this was nominated for deletion that those notable people from the Scottish arts who attended added notability to this event. It was an event in the history of republicanism in Scotland that was attended by notable people and was notable for being in opposition to the monarch's involvement in politics. It was also something I wrote many years ago as my first article I started on wikipedia so it would be personally disheartening to see it go, but the reason I wrote it yet remains : it was a notable event that had, before I wrote it, no previous mention on wikipedia, so I created the article. This notability of the event remains and as such the page should be kept. Boleslaw (talk) 09:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was poorly referenced and had been written around a declaration that was issued in 2004, but the phrase has also been used for political statements issued in 1981, 1992 and 2023. I have also added some information about this along with some references to support this additional information. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:40, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Sourcing now demonstrates GNG for the 2004 event (BBC + Observer), as well as for the concept as a whole. I think this is now a WP:HEY. —siroχo 07:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to have enough referencing support for notability per above. - Indefensible (talk) 15:38, 3 July 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 Law & Order characters. Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Borgia[edit]

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

Sources used in the article are either primary or IMDB (not reliable), a quick Google search gives sources that only talk about the character in pass by. Spinixster (chat!) 04:36, 3 July 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. ✗plicit 05:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agueda Moroni[edit]

Agueda Moroni (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)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. This transfer piece is the most I could find from a third-party source. JTtheOG (talk) 04:14, 3 July 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! 03:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Wolf (investment banker)[edit]

Martin Wolf (investment banker) (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. Edited as a part of a PR campaign: Draft:Martinwolf M&A Advisors and Draft:Tim Mueller. US-Verified (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Georgia (U.S. state). Kpgjhpjm 04:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete complete vanity spam, sourced to interviews and press releases and nonsense masquerading as "journalism". PICKLEDICAE🥒 20:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could find no sources whatsoever that establish notability for the subject of the article. Warning when searching: There is also a Martin Wolf who is chief economics commentator at the Financial Times - this is not the same person. Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:42, 9 July 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 Canada women's national rugby sevens team. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ella O'Regan[edit]

Ella O'Regan (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)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON at this moment. JTtheOG (talk) 03:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Canada women's national rugby sevens team. Don't oppose removal, but this will save page history in case she passess WP:GNG somewhere in future. Deckkohl (talk) 22:36, 9 July 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. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 18:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No Dessert, Dad, till You Mow the Lawn[edit]

No Dessert, Dad, till You Mow the Lawn (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, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES; I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and nothing suitable or reliable was found to pass WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Cullum, Paul (1994). "No Dessert Dad, 'Til You Mow the Lawn". In Levich, Jacob (ed.). The Motion Picture Guide: 1995 Annual (The Films of 1994). New York: CineBooks. p. 257. ISBN 0-933997-00-0. Retrieved 2023-07-03 – via Internet Archive.

      The review notes: "No Dessert Dad adheres strictly to the point of view built into the title that of kids goofing on short-sighted oblivious parents but the meandering narrative creates the feeling of something made up as it goes along, much as a four-year-old might tell a story. This, coupled with largely infantile humor, leaves the queasy but vivid impression that this is a film written not only for kids, but quite possibly by kids. None of this will is likely dissuade the post-linear, computer-driven, cybergarten audience, but it promises to be slow going for anyone over the age of 10."

    2. "Papa, Előbb Dolgozz Meg A Sütiért!" [Papa, Work for the Cookie First!]. Video Magazin [hu] (in Hungarian). June 1996. p. 32. ISSN 0237-5141. Retrieved 2023-07-03 – via Internet Archive.

      The magazine notes: "Howard McCain filmjében, melynek eredeti címét - No Dessert Dad Ti You Mow the Lawn-fordíthatjuk így is: Papa, nuku süti, amíg le nem nyírtad a füvet, minden együtt van, ami egy kellemes videós estéhez kell egy famíliának: átlagos amerikai család három rossz gyerkőc- cel, szeretetre méltó apával- anyával, akik normálisnak is jók, de azért a gyerekek kihasználják a kínálkozó alkalmat, hogy egy kicsit átformálják őket, lesz, ami lesz. Már az alapkonfliktus is igazi amerikai találmány: apu-anyu le akar szokni a cigizésről, és ez, ugye, egy komikus filmben a szereplőknek egyedül nem megy. Igy hát Carol és Ken (Joanna Kerns és Robert Hayes) önszuggesztióra épülő magnó- szalagokat vásárol, hátha az majd segít. És a történetnek ezen a pontján alkalmazható az ősi fogás: ahelyett, hogy a szülők leszoknának a dohány- zásról, a gyerekek kaparintják kezükbe a hatalmat, és a hipnó- zis erejével kezdenek el uralkod- ni szüleiken, sőt, egy idő után egymásra is kiterjesztik a kazet- ták áldásos(?) hatását. Tökéle- tes képlet egy vígjátékhoz."

      From Google Translate: "In Howard McCain's film, whose original title is No Dessert Dad Ti You Mow the Lawn, we can also translate it as follows: Papa, nuku cookies, until you mow the lawn, everything a family needs for a pleasant video night is together: an average American family of three with bad children, with lovable fathers and mothers, who are also good for normal, but the children take advantage of the opportunity to reshape them a little, what will happen will happen. Even the basic conflict is a true American invention: mom and dad want to quit smoking, and that, right, is not the case for the actors alone in a comedy film. So Carol and Ken (Joanna Kerns and Robert Hayes) buy autosuggestion tapes to see if that helps. And at this point in the story, the ancient technique can be applied: instead of the parents giving up smoking, the children grab the power and start ruling over their parents with the power of hypnosis, and after a while, they even extend it to each other. the beneficial(?) effect of cassettes. A perfect formula for a comedy."

    3. "No Dessert Dad, Till You Mow the Lawn". Radio Times. 2000. Retrieved 2023-07-03 – via Internet Archive.

      The review notes: "This rare foray by producer Roger Corman into PG territory is a surprisingly reprehensible family film. When a brother/sister duo accidentally discover they can manipulate the self-hypnosis tapes of their parents (Robert Hays and Joanna Kerns), they use this knowledge to get everything they want. The movie is never able to justify this pseudo-rape of the mind, even when the siblings' tape manipulation becomes unselfish (at least as far as they're concerned). Though the premise may not bother children, they might share their parents' discomfort, not just at the film's cold tone, but also its attempts to find humour in cat faeces and cracks about incest."

    4. Elder, Bruce (2002-01-28). "Movies - Thursday January 31". The Sydney Morning Herald. Archived from the original on 2023-07-03. Retrieved 2023-07-03.

      The review notes: "Cute fantasy about a bunch of kids who find that they can hypnotise their parents. The conceit is obvious. The kids then can do unto their parents what all parents historically have done unto their kids, like refusing a treat before an onerous task is completed. Hence the title. Justin Cochran is sick of being ignored by his parents, who are just too busy to spend time with the kids. So he implants messages in their self-hypnosis "Stop Smoking" tapes and finds that he has true power. Of course, the parents will eventually wise up to the scam. Mildly amusing."

    5. Less significant coverage:
      1. Connors, Martin; Craddock, Jim, eds. (1998) [1991]. Videohound's Golden Movie Retriever. Detroit: Visible Ink Press. p. 610. ISBN 1-57859-024-8. Retrieved 2023-07-03 – via Internet Archive.

        The book notes: "Suburban parents Ken and Carol Cochran (Robert Hays and Joanna Kerns) are harassed at home by their annoying offspring, Justin, Monica, and Tyler. When they try hypnosis tapes to quit smoking, the kids discover by doctoring the tapes, they can plant suggestions resulting in parental perks."

      2. Flowers, John; Frizler, Paul (2004). Psychotherapists on Film, 1899-1999: A Worldwide Guide to Over 5000 Films. Vol. 2. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 432. ISBN 0-7864-1908-3. Retrieved 2023-07-03 – via Internet Archive.

        The book notes: "Ken and Carol Cochran go to a hypnotist for help to stop smoking. They get tapes to use at home, along with gongs, candles, and other new age cures, and proceed with their homework. The children, Justin, Tyler, and Monica begin to intervene while the parents are suggestible and ask for and start getting everything they want. Ken and Carol are taught a lesson and become better parents, and the kids become better too."

      3. Martin, Mick; Porter, Marsha (2002). Video & DVD Guide 2003. New York: Ballantine Books. p. 789. ISBN 0-345-44991-6. Retrieved 2023-07-03 – via Internet Archive.

        The book gives the film three stars. The book notes: "When parents Robert Hays and Joanna Kerns attempt to kick the smoking habit by way of self-hypnosis tapes their neglected kids alter the tapes, giving their parents a more youthful outlook on life. Watching their transformation from strung-out chain-smokers to vibrant, healthy parents is both funny and poignant."

      4. "No Dessert Dad, 'Till You Mow the Lawn". Video Magazin [hu] (in Hungarian). June 1996. p. 62. ISSN 0237-5141. Retrieved 2023-07-03 – via Internet Archive.

        The review notes: "A gyerekek ráveszik szüleiket, hogy hagyják abba a dohányzást. Módszerül a szülők önhipnotizá- ló kazettát hallgatnak. A gyerekek rájönnek, hogy a szalag szug- gesztiv erejét felhasználhatják ar- ra, hogy az ő vágyaik kerüljenek előtérbe. Hamarosan minden a feje tetejére áll. Egészen addig, amíg ki nem derül a csintalanság. De minden jóra fordul, sőt még jobbra."

        From Google Translate: "Children persuade their parents to quit smoking. As a method, parents listen to a self-hypnosis tape. The children realize that they can use the suggestive power of the tape to make their desires come to the fore. Soon everything will turn upside down. Until the foul play is revealed. But everything is getting better, even better."

      5. "TV Plus". Sunday Mail. 2002-01-27. Archived from the original on 2023-07-03. Retrieved 2023-07-03.

        The article notes: "Comedy about a pair of rambunctious kids who turn their parents' lives inside out when they discover the power of hypnotism. Stars Robert Hays, Joanna Kerns and Joshua Schaefer."

      6. James, Stan (2002-01-31). "TV Movies". The Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2023-07-03. Retrieved 2023-07-03.

        The review notes: "A certain winner in a strange title competition, this fantasy comedy has parents Joanna Kerns and Robert Hays trying to quit smoking using self-hypnosis tapes. Angered by their parent's lack of attention toward them, their kids switch the tapes and find they can manipulate the situation. This harmless fare has its moments, some of them funny."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow No Dessert, Dad, till You Mow the Lawn to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:54, 3 July 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! 03:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Javon Frazier[edit]

Javon Frazier (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)

Routine coverage, fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 03:01, 3 July 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 agree with the conclusions of the nominator and one participant that the sources are primarily press releases. If an editor wants to work on improving this article in Draft space, contact me. Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hanif Jewellers and Watches[edit]

Hanif Jewellers and Watches (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)

Routine coverage. KT Network of Khaleej Times is a paid article, Gulf News article sounds like a press release with a proper byline (i.e. author). Fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Pakistan. Skynxnex (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There doesn't seem to be a valid reason for the deletion of the article on Hanif Jewellers & Watches, as the content maintains a neutral tone and is supported by several reliable references. Upon conducting a search for their Dubai store, I discovered multiple articles, such as those from The News International and Retail Jeweller World, which further substantiate the existence and significance of the company's international expansion.
    The claim that the KT Network of Khaleej Times article is paid seems unfounded and lacks supporting evidence. The articles found in my search, including the one from The News International, do not appear to be paid promotions but rather independent reports. These references contribute to the credibility of the article and reinforce its relevance.
    Additionally, the assertion that the Gulf News article reads like a press release merely because it includes a proper byline is unsubstantiated. Bylines are commonly used in journalistic writing to indicate the author responsible for the article. The presence of a byline does not diminish the value or legitimacy of the content.
    Considering the aforementioned reputable references and the neutral tone of the article, it is evident that Hanif Jewellers & Watches meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Therefore, the claim that it fails WP:NCORP (notability guidelines for corporations) appears unfounded and lacks substantial support. In light of the available evidence, I kindly request a reconsideration of the decision to delete the article. The presence of multiple independent references, such as those mentioned above, should provide sufficient grounds for the article's retention. Thank you for your attention to this matter
    https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1002328-hanif-jewellers-launch-int-l-outlet-in-dubai Competitiveedgedigital (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be a valid reason for the deletion of the article on Hanif Jewellers & Watches, as the content maintains a neutral tone and is supported by several reliable references. Upon conducting a search for their Dubai store, I discovered multiple articles, such as those from The News International and Retail Jeweller World, which further substantiate the existence and significance of the company's international expansion.
The claim that the KT Network of Khaleej Times article is paid seems unfounded and lacks supporting evidence. The articles found in my search, including the one from The News International, do not appear to be paid promotions but rather independent reports. These references contribute to the credibility of the article and reinforce its relevance.
Additionally, the assertion that the Gulf News article reads like a press release merely because it includes a proper byline is unsubstantiated. Bylines are commonly used in journalistic writing to indicate the author responsible for the article. The presence of a byline does not diminish the value or legitimacy of the content. Considering the aforementioned reputable references and the neutral tone of the article, it is evident that Hanif Jewellers & Watches meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Therefore, the claim that it fails WP:NCORP (notability guidelines for corporations) appears unfounded and lacks substantial support. In light of the available evidence, I kindly request a reconsideration of the decision to delete the article. The presence of multiple independent references, such as those mentioned above, should provide sufficient grounds for the article's retention. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
ref articles: https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1002328-hanif-jewellers-launch-int-l-outlet-in-dubai Competitiveedgedigital (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be a valid reason for the deletion of the article on Hanif Jewellers & Watches, as the content maintains a neutral tone and is supported by several reliable references. Upon conducting a search for their Dubai store, I discovered multiple articles, such as those from The News International and Retail Jeweller World, which further substantiate the existence and significance of the company's international expansion.
The claim that the KT Network of Khaleej Times article is paid seems unfounded and lacks supporting evidence. The articles found in my search, including the one from The News International, do not appear to be paid promotions but rather independent reports. These references contribute to the credibility of the article and reinforce its relevance.
Additionally, the assertion that the Gulf News article reads like a press release merely because it includes a proper byline is unsubstantiated. Bylines are commonly used in journalistic writing to indicate the author responsible for the article. The presence of a byline does not diminish the value or legitimacy of the content. Considering the aforementioned reputable references and the neutral tone of the article, it is evident that Hanif Jewellers & Watches meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Therefore, the claim that it fails WP:NCORP (notability guidelines for corporations) appears unfounded and lacks substantial support. In light of the available evidence, I kindly request a reconsideration of the decision to delete the article. The presence of multiple independent references, such as those mentioned above, should provide sufficient grounds for the article's retention. Thank you for your attention to this matter. https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1002328-hanif-jewellers-launch-int-l-outlet-in-dubai Competitiveedgedigital (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article by a new editing account about a jewellery company, whose text and references describe announcements of branch openings etc., falling under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. (Since the Khaleej Times piece has been discussed in triplicate above, I will mention that it is clearly promotional - "momentous occasion", "carefully crafted pieces that allow you to experience pure art", etc. - as is the item in thenews.com.pk, no matter how glittering the occasion might have been.) This is a company going about its business but without encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:05, 9 July 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. ✗plicit 02:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MIDAC (CRC)[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:COI (per creator's username) essay from 2008 about an organization (or set of organizations?) with no evidence of notability * Pppery * it has begun... 02:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferenced for 15 years. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources available to meet NCORP — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater 18:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, this can be incubated and returned to draft at the author's request if the subject is notable enough but seems to have been from over a decade ago. - Indefensible (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn‎. ✗plicit 11:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Caneiro[edit]

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

A one-sentence athlete biography created 11 years ago, has one cite with career statistics, but lacks additional coverage (WP:SIGCOV) to establish notability. The Talk page lists three sources, although none provide any in-depth coverage. JoeNMLC (talk) 02:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - article now has sufficient content to establish notability. JoeNMLC (talk) 11:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Uruguay. Skynxnex (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems to have been a rather successful player in Uruguay. A key player in five national championships and both a national team player and coach. There are some sources on ProQuest that I haven't been able to go through which may or may not contain significant coverage. Not sure what other online archives there are for Uruguayan publications. My WP:COMMONSENSE leans to weak keep but at worst I would say redirect to Uruguay men's national basketball team. Alvaldi (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Adcock[edit]

Brett Adcock (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)

Routine mentions, fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — The subject is covered by multiple sources independent of him. We can argue that some of them do not cover him in-depth, but that doesn't make all his sources "Routine mentions". Even his primary sources are from CNN, Yahoo News, and Bloomberg. He is already mentioned within other existing Wikipedia articles. Two of the companies he co-founded already have articles: Archer Aviation and Vettery.71.187.190.229 (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Management, Engineering, Technology, Aviation, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - could use clean up and might have potential COI but seems to have enough references to support notability and quality. - Indefensible (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Adcock has pioneered notable companies such as Archer Aviation (that have developed air taxis used by United Airlines) and Figure (which is developing an AI robot), as noted by reliable sources such as TechCrunch. [47] The article, which passes WP:GNG, could be expanded from its present form, rather than being deleted. desmay (talk) 20:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Though the article is currently barebones, it clearly passes WP:N and can be improved with the abundance of references that discuss him in depth, such as this one [48]. Knox490 (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Notable executive and founder of two highly notable companies, Vettery and Archer Aviation. Meets WP:SIGCOV since he has been cited in multiple top-tier newspapers and publications. Batmanthe8th (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is the inventor of an eVTOL aircraft that is being used en masse by major airlines, such as United Airlines, as seen here. The subject easily passes notability and WP:GNG. Hkkingg (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The editor who nominated this article for deletion has a COI and is apparently biased towards the subject. How do I know? He took back the article of Figure to the Draftspace, then immediately nominated Adcock's article for deletion. What kind of an editor does that? 213.202.147.85 (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GELF[edit]

GELF (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)

Cobbled together WP:COATRACK about a neologism used in a couple of fictional works that also includes a fancrufty character list better suited to List of Red Dwarf characters Dronebogus (talk) 01:17, 3 July 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. Unlike the previous AFD, i think there is a clear source analysis here and a consensus to Delete this article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsin Hani[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mohsin Hani (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 result of the previous AfD was no consensus. Still fails WP:SIGCOV - PR-based articles are unacceptable. US-Verified (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or anything else really. Perhaps there are more Arabic sources, however, from reading his article and news sources, it seems like if anything deserved an article, it would be his company, not himself. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 23:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has credible references from times of oman, muscat daily, entreprenuer, gilf news, national.ae, forbes and CEO magazine. (Khonsuhorus (talk) 09:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Forbes is a paid piece, the "witch" as you say spent money to get promoted. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But they're not in-depth. US-Verified (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Paid pieces, PR work and fluff, not much else can be found. This appears to be more of the same PR exercise. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Times of Oman and Oman times news is generally enough to establish notability for Oman based article. (196.132.47.107 (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC))[reply]
    comment There are four pieces that are labeled "Times of Oman" or "Oman Times". One is reproducing a press release and the other three are links to bitwize.com.lb that don't contain the supposed cited content. Oblivy (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Khonsuhorus has been promoting this subject for over a year now. They initiated this draft in April 2022, and the majority of their work is related to this biography. If they are unable to find in-depth sources, then it is clear there is no substantial coverage of this person in his local language. Please discount IP votes. US-Verified (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the closure on the previous AFD closure on this article was overturned last month (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 May 9), I'm relisting this discussion to get a more solid consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. See previous comment. The last AFD ended up at Deletion review and this one looks like it might also close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sourcing in the article does not seem to meet GNG, see table below —siroχo 03:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
The Business Year: Oman 2021/22 No interview ? Yes ✘ No
Entrepreneur.com No primarily interview ? Yes ✘ No
Forbes ME No Disclosed as "Paid Program" No Yes ✘ No
The CEO Mag No primarily interview ? Yes ✘ No
Muscat Daily - COVID-19 (listed twice) No interivew ? Yes ✘ No
eme outlook mag No primarily interview ? Yes ✘ No
menafn No disclaimer on site No disclaimer on site ~ ✘ No
Time of Oman "MHD rolls out bouquet" ~ partly interview, general phrasing is that of press release not an article eg "When price, safety and performance come into play, there is no better choice than Volvo cars." and so on ? No not about subject ✘ No
Times of Oman "MHD ACERE reversing trend..." No primarily interview ? Yes ✘ No
Times of Oman "MHD chief optimistic on market recovery" No interview ? Yes ✘ No
Times of Oman "MHD ACERE signs agreement with Chedi Muscat" No interviews ? No covering a business deal ✘ No
middleeastawards.ceotodaymagazine ? ? No nothing in the 2022 edition about subject ✘ No
Arabian Business. "How MHD ACERE is helping to create" ? ? No just a photo ✘ No
businessconnectindia No "Lounge interview" article ? Yes ✘ No
Middle East Business No interview ? Yes ✘ No
Arabian Business. ? no author, not even the magazine, written like self-promotion, not sure how "GCC Young Achievers 2021" works ? Yes ? Unknown
Oman Observer "Al Amerat Club" (listed twice) Yes ? ~ one of several individuals elected unopposed for varying leadership positions for a cricket club ? Unknown
Arabian Stories "MHD appoints Mohsin Hani Al Bahrani as CEO of ACERE" No interview, press release, "TAS also focuses on digital media marketing, branding ... " ? Yes ✘ No
Arabian Stories "Mohsin Hani Al Bahrani in Forbes Middle East’s 30 Under 30 list" (listed twice) No "TAS also focuses on digital media marketing, branding ... ", also seems to rely on subject's linkedin for info ? Yes ✘ No
OERLive No video of subject speaking ? ? ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Keep On account of his prominent position, stature in Oman and Middle East and Arabic sources as well as English

(Contentpie (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete per table and PR fluff/paid articles. There is a serious issue with this in general: resume article with self-report / PR coverage only. Chamaemelum (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The content of the article is unacceptably promotional, and the refbomb to PR sources and interviews typical of these articles does not change that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject or rather his company MHD ACERE might qualify for having an article eventually in my opinion, but can or should probably start over in draft form. - Indefensible (talk) 18:21, 9 July 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 Uttaran. Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oviya (TV series)[edit]

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the target article only includes a brief mention of this TV series. I'd like to see if there is more support for a Merge or Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See previous comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arundhathi (TV series)[edit]

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article lacks adequate references, which makes it non-compliant with WP:GNG (General Notability Guideline), WP:RPRGM (Reliable Sources), and WP:SIGCOV (Significant Coverage). Furthermore, Source 1 appears to be a promotional piece about the serial, while Sources 2-5 mainly focus on various cast members. SaurabhSaha 08:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 3 July 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teya Dora[edit]

Teya Dora (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)

Self-promotion does not satisfy WP:GNG Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why is this biography about the Serbian artist being set up for deletion? There are many more sources about this individual that can be added, if wished upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksandarstankov (talk • contribs) 00:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aleksandarstankov: Please read the nomination statement that explains the reason for this deletion discussion. You speak of "many more sources". Could you please link to said sources, so that they can be evaluated? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://wannabemagazine.com/teya-dora-o-muzici-skolovanju-na-berklee-college-of-music-i-inspiracijama/
https://www.journal.rs/kultura/muzika/teya-dora-juzni-vetar/
https://noizz.rs/intervju/teya-dora-teodora-pavlovska-intervju-bassivity/jt0kktl
https://antistresvodic.rs/teodora-pavlovska-rb-sa-srpskim-motivima/
https://nova.rs/zabava/showbiz/teya-dora-u-juznom-vetru-objavila-novu-pesmu-oluja/
https://citymagazine.danas.rs/popkultura/muzika/samo-tri-domaca-izvodjaca-su-presli-broj-od-milion-slusanja-na-spotifaju/
https://sound-report.com/vijesti/teya-dora-novo-ime-na-regionalnoj-sceni-predstavlja-prvi-singl-za-bassivity/
https://genius.com/artists/Teya-dora (A overview on all her work, including the songs she has written for other artists).
https://www.billboard.com/charts/croatia-songs-hotw/2023-04-22/ (Source listing her song's current rank on the Billboard Croatia. Her current rank being 6th.) Aleksandarstankov (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The subject of this draft does not satisfy any of the musical notability criteria, at least not as the article is written, and the article should speak for itself. It may be too soon in her career. There is also a draft, Draft:Teya Dora, which appears to be identical to this article. The draft should be left alone and can be improved, and can be submitted for AFC review when she satisfies one of the musical notability criteria. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The artist has currently over 1,7 million monthly listeners on Spotify. Definitely not "too soon" in her career. The artist does not fulfill all of the musical criteria, but saying she satisfy none is wrong.
    For example,
    1. All the sources listed has been published by independent Serbian or other Balkan media.
    2. The last source I listed showed this artist having her single at 6th place at the Billboard's Croatia Songs chart.
    As she is also a songwriter and spent much of her career being so, she has gotten credits for writing songs for other Balkan artists, and even songs for the Serbian national competition for Eurovison. Aleksandarstankov (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The first version of this article was moved to the draft space by User:Onel5969, and was later rejected by another reviewer User:Robert McClenon with similar reasons. --Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I did not reject the draft. I declined it. There is a difference. It can be resubmitted when expanded. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - An article should speak for itself. If she meets any of the musical notability criteria, the article should say so, rather than just telling the editors in the AFD that one of the sources provides that information. The reader of an article should not be required to read the sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for tips on improvements. This is the first page I created, so I'm still learning. I have added more text and source on the artist's achievements on national chart. Aleksandarstankov (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as said by Robert McClenon, might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently does not pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 20:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review recently added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as all opinions offered occurred before additional sources were added to the article. There was a request for more evidence of notability and now that this has been provided, they should be evaluated to see whether or not they are sufficient for establish GNG. I should also mention that over the past few days, the draft version of this article has been merged into this main space version.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest this page is kept, now that the page is in align with WP:NMUSIC after the new citations got added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksandarstankov (talk • contribs) 17:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Muzika.hr appears to confirm a top 10. chart spot in Croatia. Journal SR has ok coverage as well. signed, Rosguill talk 03:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep seems ok and needs a content update tag to migrate content from the other language. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:55, 11 July 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! 01:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kayed Afifi[edit]

Kayed Afifi (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. Most of the sources are nothing more than just blogs and a news sources only mentions him once and nothing more than that. Kaseng55 (talk) 00:01, 3 July 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_July_3&oldid=1164785498"