Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< June 20	June 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. Fletcher[edit]

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added two references to this previously unsourced article about an artist. It has been tagged as needing more citations since 2007. It looks as if it was proposed for WP:SPEEDY in 2007, for copyvio and promotionalism, but survived. The sources I have added are from local papers and I do not think this person meets WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Tacyarg (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Visual arts, and New York. Tacyarg (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This article about a Silent Generation US veteran, small business partner, and painter in the industrial and landscape styles was apparently written by his grandson. That same local obituary claims that his collection of 21 military paintings was "highly acclaimed by the military and government officials", yet I couldn't find any mention of this in reports from the time it happened, or any wider notice of his art outside of these 2 entities. His art was displayed in his hometown of Warwick, New York, where it was featured in town hall, and where he was name-checked as a member of its art league. Even if more substantial confirmation of the US Capitol displays can be found, I'm not sure the obit claim, or his few illustrated books, satisfy WP:NARTIST #3 or 4b, or WP:ANYBIO #1 or 2. StonyBrook _babble 12:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage is local from the Warwick Advertiser. and the Warwick Dispatch (Warwick, NY). WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:19, 26 June 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 23:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apollonia Vanova[edit]

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

NN in both WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NACTOR UtherSRG (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Czech Republic, and Slovakia. UtherSRG (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She has acting credits in several fairly important movies, but always as minor characters. Under both spellings of her name I can find little except basic listings in the credits of those movies, and her music has even less visibility and is only self-promoted in the usual social media and streaming sites. It looks like she's making an honest living in entertainment but she has not received significant and reliable coverage from journalists. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:30, 15 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 23:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was planning to send to Afd out the cat:nn. Its had a note tag for a decade. Non-notable. Never been updated. scope_creep^Talk 22:28, 22 June 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 Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics#Group D. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An Gil-wan[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unsure, there is a Spanish book that needs translating that mentions him [1], there are two newspaper articles that need checking on [2], [3], I am not a member of newspaperarchive. But being North Korean, it might be hard to find those sources. Govvy (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Helpfully, all three of these sources are saying the same thing. I also don't have a newspaperarchive subscription but you can view the the OCR text by clicking the "OCR" button on the page. Here is the Jasper Dubois County Daily Herald passage (with weird OCR case errors preserved): the International soccer federation suspended North korean an Gil wan for a year for attacking the referee during a game the koreans lost to the soviet Union. The federation warned the entire team As to its future conduct. Some version of this brief squib was carried in newspapers around the world (here it is in a Cambridgeshire UK newspaper). It could certainly be argued to be of encyclopedic significance, perhaps meriting a mention in Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics. But since that seems to have been the beginning and end of press coverage of Mr. An, it doesn't really furnish much to build an article out of.-- Visviva (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally this would be redirected to Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics where there could be a brief mention of the fracas and An's suspension. But looking at the article I'm not quite sure where it would go, and I don't have the topical expertise to judge if the event is sufficiently significant to include at all. Otherwise there appear to be no plausible redirection targets, so if not redirected, delete. (I am a fluent reader of Korean and anticipated finding something about this fellow but wasn't able to come up with much; the top hit on Naver was actually a word-for-word translation of the EN article, complete with hatnote about Korean name order (!).) -- Visviva (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a note for anyone who wants to check further, the Korean name should be 안길완 (or conceivably the more common 안길원 if there was a romanization error; that one is shared by some fairly prominent South Korean folks). -- Visviva (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics#Final tournament#First round#Group D if it works redirecting to that. @Visviva: I've added an efn note there. Govvy (talk) 09:18, 25 June 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, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sin Hyok[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Simione001, what is your reasoning for thinking the article should be deleted? You should spell out your reasoning in your nomination. As it stands, this will likely be a speedy keep. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are databases or not independent, nothing to establish notability. Avilich (talk) 18:23, 28 June 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, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JDVM Inter College[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Since the last AfD we are now a lot stricter on schools. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NSCHOOL, lack of independent, secondary, reliable sourcing. -- Prodraxis ^talk _contribs (she/her) 23:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uttar Pradesh. AllyD (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find any GNG-level source. The single source in the article is a bare-mention. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NCHOOL.AmusingWeasel (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. 5.42.92.163 (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSCHOOL. Maliner (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 08:49, 24 June 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!} 22:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Odell[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable; the article only cites a single source, which is simply a listing of a painting by the subject, and I couldn't find any sources establishing notability on Google. 2A00:23C6:880C:E101:F5F5:614A:868:AB5A (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above rationale was copied from one of the several places where the IP manually added discussion sections to various delsort categories rather than transcluding. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 23:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, and United Kingdom. AllyD (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a review of a 2019 performance here, which could provide some basic verification as a reference, but doesn't demonstrate WP:MUSICBIO notability. AllyD (talk) 05:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Poetry. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the article and the editing history, it looks to be an unsourced fan-page (or maybe an autobiography, as it was edited within 5 minutes of creation by an account matching the subject's name). Does not look like a controversial case. 128.252.154.7 (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article authored by a WP:SPA (who also removed maintenance tags), subsequently also edited by further SPA and IP accounts. Looking at the subject's activities, her music career seems well short of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria; offering a work for sale on the Saatchi Art site is not notable (and it is not a WP:RS); no evidence of meeting the WP:NARTIST criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've searched for sources, and after sifting through all the results for Amy Odell (author), I'm not finding anything that suggests this Amy Odell meets our criteria for WP:NARTIST. Elspea756 (talk) 13:17, 26 June 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 14:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Frontier[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Completely unsourced with a decade-old WP:COI tag. 〜 Festucalex • talk 21:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Institute of Health Careers[edit]

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

does not cite any sources, my BEFORE serach shows that there are only primary sources i think Iljhgtn (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of sourcing, it appears they've closed since 2020. Hits are on any sort of career college/healthcare school in Ohio. Oaktree b (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Education, and Ohio. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. 5.42.92.163 (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Lacks reliable sources. Alex-h (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Maliner (talk) 10:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, current article is a stub without sufficient referencing to support notability or encyclopedic quality. - Indefensible (talk) 02:21, 27 June 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!} 04:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Sheehy[edit]

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

Contested PROD, fails WP:NRU and WP:GNG. Creator has stated that he has added more sources and is the son of somebody with apparent notability, however notability isn't inherited and none what's added points to significant coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found for this athlete, someone connected to the blowing-up of Nelson's column in Ireland with the same name. Could redirect to the club I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could only find passing mentions. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. LibStar (talk) 23:37, 21 June 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!} 22:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fittr (app)[edit]

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

Started by WP:SPA, the coverage is based on routine events, like funding rounds, etc. Fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ The Financial express article is an ok source. This is an article in the Deccan Chronicle [4], not extensive, but is in a RS, and doesn't mention funding. Oaktree b (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source #9, the rest aren't helpful for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b Deccan Chronicle is a press release-type article without any proper byline. It is not what we call significant coverage. Financial Express is a trade publication. We need more than routine coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. US-Verified (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b just did some searching and that exact same article also appears on unrelated websites such as [the "Brand Equity" section of the India Time] and was published the day before on the "Marketing" section of the e4M (a marketing company) website. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIRS. Looked at the first 11 references. Its all clickbait and branding information to get the thing out there. Very poor quality sourcing. scope_creep^Talk 09:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Deccan Chronicle chronicle above is a business name report from the business. It doesn't prove its notable. Its fails WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 09:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria applies. THe references are all PR and marketing. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the explanation above, I can't find any sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian dynasties and countries[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries. WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, fails WP:LISTCRITERIA (the lists equivalent of WP:NONDEFINING), and long series of precedents confirming that language family is WP:NONDEFINING for countries, territories, dynasties, and individual people. Many users at the "Turkic" AfD urged me to nominate the "Iranian" list as well, so here it is.

On 12 June, I mistakenly WP:bundled this "Iranian" list with a couple of other lists/articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iranian dynasties and countries. It turned out that they were too different from each other to lump them all together in a single AfD, so I withdrew the nomination. The AfD ended in no consensus, with No prejudice against creating AfDs for individual articles, if desired. So now I'm only nominating the List of Iranian dynasties and countries individually. (Incidentally, virtually everyone at the bundle AfD seemed to agree that this "Iranian" list should be deleted, but we should judge it anew on its own merits rather than as a part of the malformed bundle.) Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, and Lists. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Aintabli (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Afghanistan, Tajikistan, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same as my previous vote. --Mann Mann (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per evidences provided. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator. Alex-h (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Maliner (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:BF10:CE60:6512:B576:E7A0:7A1E (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The list is of value. I don't see an argument of why it should be deleted. Is any part of it inaccurate?! If so, It can be updated? I personally found it very informative. 2600:1700:BF10:CE60:6512:B576:E7A0:7A1E (talk) 01:59, 28 June 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 Andre🚐 20:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies[edit]

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

This is an improper list that rests on a synthetic/original premise. I was trying to figure out what to rename it to or how to preserve the content, but I couldn't come up with anything. I believe this is an original creation and a violation of our guidance on what makes a list. Andre🚐 20:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. Andre🚐 20:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I brought this point up last week at Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies#What "controversies"?. It's the same problem with the other POTUS articles in Category:Federal judicial appointment controversies in the United States, an insufficiently discriminate page that isn't neutral. 21:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Keep, borderline speedy. Historically, most judicial nominations have been uncontroversial. These lists convey the range of circumstances that arise where there is some controversy arising in connection with a judicial appointment. Given that the United States has lifetime appointments for federal judges, and that these appointments are made by the President of the United States and must be confirmed by the United States Senate, these are high-stakes issues of broad public interest, and it is perfectly reasonable to document them accordingly. BD2412 T 21:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are called controversy by RS, so it's synthetic. They were contested, but they weren't necessarily controversial. It's a false consistency. Andre🚐 23:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying these were uncontroversially contested? BD2412 T 00:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, the new normal is for Republicans to contest judicial nominations just to be obstructionist and gum up the works. What's the source for it being controversy? A Joe Biden judicial appointment controversy? Why isn't that a total neologism? Andre🚐 01:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For a "new normal", there are a surprisingly small number of names out of the 136 Article III federal judges appointed by Biden. BD2412 T 01:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possible WP:SNOW see George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies George H. W. Bush judicial appointment controversies Bill Clinton judicial appointment controversies etc —siro χ o 21:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that a parallel rename of all this type of article may be a good idea as "controversies" is a bit loaded. —siro χ o 21:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE Andre🚐 23:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Some stuff exists for a reason. BD2412 T 00:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that a rename would be ideal. "Controversies" is not the correct term. I would suggest "unsuccessful," but I do not think that term is quite correct either. --Enos733 (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I previously removed several listings but was reverted, with discussion begun at Talk:Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies#What constitutes a controversy?. This article should not be just any instance where any Republican made an objection or mere poor faith partisan politics. Rather it should cover actual controversies treated as such. If it cannot do that by trimming of less significant items, the article doesn't need to be kept. The article should also be trimmed of extraneous procedural details, such as who vacated the seat the person was nominated to and when, since that's rarely relevant a controversy. Reywas92^Talk 02:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason Snickers2686 (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough reliable sources to establish notability. The OP should be briefed about WP:BEFORE.

95.12.119.26 (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason. Maliner (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was sceptical initially but, given equivalent articles exist for the last few presidents (as well as those posted by Siroxo above, there is also Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies and Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies), it seems clear that an article should exist with this title. I would echo Reywas92's concerns that we need to ensure they're actual controversies, as opposed to bad-faith objection by a small number of opposition politicians in our increasingly polarised age, though clearly that concern also applies to the last 2 presidents also. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 08:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. See all above. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:39, 28 June 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!} 23:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jepthe Francois[edit]

(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. JTtheOG (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, United Kingdom, and Caribbean. JTtheOG (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:08, 22 June 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 that individual is notable by virtue of highly significant role, recent in-depth coverage of appointment. (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Sinha[edit]

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

Non-notable civil servant, routine mentions in non-RS. Only confirmation of where the individual works. Was tagged for speedy deletion, which was reverted, bringing to AfD for review. I'm not finding extensive sourcing for the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Ravi Sinha is serving as Chief of Research and Analysis Wing which is same position as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 19:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 19:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to have been a lot of news coverage of his appointment to head RAW a couple of days ago, and accompanying background pieces, but I don't know whether it just consists of newspapers reprinting a press release. I really can't be arsed to check, so I'll leave that to others. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chhattisgarh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an appointed political figure at the national cabinet level per WP:POLOUTCOMES. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Maliner (talk) 02:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Big job - Chief of India's Research and Analysis Wing. Lots of recent news coverage.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appointed as RAW chief (significant role). 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 12:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though online sources may not appear frequently on Google search. But this person has been appointed as chief of India's Research and Analysis Wing. It's Indian counterpart of American Central Intelligence Agency.-Admantine123 (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chief of Research and Analysis Wing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Glenn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darryl Glenn. Since then, he has still not received consistent, in-depth coverage from national news outlets. Of the 6 cited sources, 2 are election databases and the other 4 are routine coverage of his political campaigns by local news outlets in Colorado. Being a county commissioner and a party's nominee for U.S. Senate doesn't inherently establish notability. Seems to violate WP:GNG. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Colorado. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:NPOL.Jeffrey Beall (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete city council members are not de facto notable, and failed political campaigns are not de facto notable, and there's nothing showing otherwise. SportingFlyer T·C 09:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of UWC Championships[edit]

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

No notable pro wrestling championship. The promotion doesn't even have an article HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and New Jersey. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The titles have as much notability as their parent promotion - none.LM2000 (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable wrestling group. Their championships obviously aren’t notable either. Dronebogus (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As nominator and other said. Promotion page that this title belonged was deleted because it wasn't notable enough. Not notable title.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UWC United States Championship[edit]

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

No notable pro wrestling championship. The promotion doesn't even have an article HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator and LM2000.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UWC Heavyweight Championship[edit]

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

No notable pro wrestling championship. The promotion doesn't even have an article HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator and LM2000.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 20:28, 23 June 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.

In the page history, there is an AFD mentioned occurring a decade ago but it looks like it was never completed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UWC Tag Team Championship[edit]

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

No notable pro wrestling championship. The promotion doesn't even have an article HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. Page of this title promotion is deleted due to not being notable enough thereof same is for title. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 20:31, 23 June 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. Withdrawing as nominator. The points about the article potentially covering academic discussions/debates of what does and doesn't qualify as a physical system have convinced me. (non-admin closure) - car chasm (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Physical system[edit]

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

WP:DICTDEF, the one cited source admits this is typically used as a term for "an aggregate of physical objects" - and given that this source is not heavily cited, it would appear this is still the majority view. - car chasm (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This term is linked from a lot of articles and is used as a further exploration of a term used in a lot of physics articles. It is not a WP:DICTDEF; it does not describe its part of speech, pluralizations, usage, etymology, translations into other languages, and so forth. The article can use expansion, not deletion. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RecycledPixels! And expand, when I saw how nicely the corresponding German wikipedia article is written, I blushed. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
German wikipedia has different rules on content, so I'm not entirely convinced, but I've added the references from that article to this one. The one book cited there by Mario Bunge (who is certainly reliable) says "A physical system is anything existing in spacetime and such that it either behaves or is handled as a whole in at least one respect" which seems like a very generic term to me. - car chasm (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it actually is a very generic term that needs further definition as to its specific properties and (e. g. in case of an open system) any sort of relationship with the environment, in which it is found. Used in thought experiments a lot. It's as generic as the concept of, say, food. --Ouro (blah blah) 04:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Common concept in science, engineering, etc. Article clearly needs some love. —siro χ o 20:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The question of what can be treated as a physical system has been much discussed over the years: does a human mind qualify? What about the Universe in its entirety? And so forth. It's an encyclopedic topic. I could be convinced that this would make more sense treated as a section of another article (e.g., physics); for comparison, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy uses the term all over the place but doesn't have an article with that title [5]. But I'm not seeing a case for outright deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rabbi Doug[edit]

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

This article has been around for about 12 years with scant indication of notability. There is one book cited, where he appears to be mentioned once along with a number of other religious TV programs in Chicago. A google search for "Rabbi Doug" or "Taped with... Rabbi Doug" or "Taped with Rabbi Doug do not come up with significant discussion of the person or the show in reliable sources, the results are social media and notes that such-and-such has appeared on the show. Perhaps it is notable within the Chicago area but I can't see it for a Wikipedia article. ... discospinster _talk 15:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Judaism, and United States of America. ... discospinster _talk 15:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does Rabbi Doug have a last name? There are too many rabbis named Doug listed in Google to be of help here... Oaktree b (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His full name is Douglas Howard Zelden (see also this edit from the SPA article creator). StonyBrook _babble 13:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The show's host Doug Zelden is an unremarkable pulpit rabbi whose congregation Or Menorah was evicted from a temple building that was sold to another party. Coverage not significant in any way. StonyBrook _babble 14:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of genuine notability or in-depth coverage. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:35, 28 June 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!} 23:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gpremper[edit]

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

NN company - most, if not all, of the sources seem to be passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. UtherSRG (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Internet, Germany, and El Salvador. UtherSRG (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company/product therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *about the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references meet the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rolph Gobits[edit]

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

Fails WP:NARTIST. UtherSRG (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Photography, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all, Fails WP:GNG.PARVAGE ^talk! 05:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Commercial photographer. Fails WP:ARTIST. - WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think WomenArtistUpdates summarizes it best thus far. There were some beginnings of a diversified career and early hints at emerging notability. Now he is just a professional. Probably a good one. That does not equal notability. gidonb (talk) 01:59, 27 June 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 Kajukenbo. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Gaylord[edit]

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

Ref 1 is not a WP:RS. Ref 2 is not WP:IS, and refs 3&4 are questionably lacking in independence as well. So, fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sports, Martial arts, United States of America, California, and Hawaii. UtherSRG (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT It looks like he was one of the three pioneers who brought kajukenbo to the US,[6] he may also have introduced a notable technique/method called "the Gaylord Method of Kajukenbo",[7] more research for sources is needed as this is all quite old but if more found a {{Sources exist}} template might work otherwise I would recommend a merge with the kajukenbo article. Lewolka (talk) 11:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The art was created in Hawaii. The article says he was one of the first to bring it to California. The Gaylord method was his self-titled version of the the art. Papaursa (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes should have added continental. Lewolka (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of significance of the subject. Completely fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Lethweimaster (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kajukenbo. None of the references can be considered significant, independent coverage from reliable sources. However, he is mentioned multiple times in the article on the art and that article contains all the significant information that is in his personal article. Therefore, I'm advocating for a redirect. Papaursa (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT to Kajukenbo. not enough for standalone article. Lewolka (talk) 19:11, 25 June 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 14:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Caldiero[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a poet, not reliably sourced as passing notability criteria for writers. The article literally just says that she exists without even trying to show any evidence that she has any meaningful notability claims (e.g. noteworthy literary awards, etc.), and its sole "source" is an online bookstore, which is not support for notability at all.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to deep American resources (literary journals, etc.) than I've got can find stronger WP:GNG-worthy coverage about than I've been able to locate on the google, but "the availability of her books in an online bookstore proves that she exists" is not enough for a Wikipedia article in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage at all for this person. No critical reviews of any kind in Jstor, or Gscholar. No mentions in newspapers, this is about all there is [8], confirming she read a poem at an event. Oaktree b (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it appears she is also known as Sara Caldiero-Oertli, but on the Wikipedia Library and particularly ProQuest, I have found various announcements in mostly Utah press about poetry readings, a brief mention of a scheduled reading in Poets & Writers (ProQuest 203609212), and a brief quote in an quote-based piece about a small workshop (ProQuest 1513784208), so it appears there is insufficient support for notability according to the WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE guidelines at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 17:26, 21 June 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 14:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

K. Victor Chow[edit]

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

Lacks WP:SIGCOV; fails the General Notability Guidelines JoeNMLC (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and West Virginia. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justwatchmee (talk • contribs) 16:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: would feel better about this if the nominator or any of the participants described attempts to find evidence of notability. As-is, the nominator incorrectly attempted to PROD the article, then when multiple editors indicated that there was or might be some notability through academic papers, and that this would at least have to be addressed at AFD, immediately nominated it for deletion, without any explanation besides "Fails GNG". The only other comment literally copied that, and the person who left it didn't bother to sign. This nomination shows all indications of being rushed and perhaps ignoring WP:BEFORE. At a very minimum the nominator needs to make some attempt to investigate whether the subject could be documented through Google Books and Google Scholar, and describe the results in a non-perfunctory way here. Otherwise this nomination should fail, and the result would be keep. P Aculeius (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that this is weak nomination. Chow's Google Scholar profile (linked in the article) reports 2800 citations and three articles cited more than 100 times, which would typically indicate a pass of WP:PROF#C1. His work in statistics seems particularly widely covered; a search for "chow-denning test" gives many hits. – Joe (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's also holds a Distinguished Professor chair at West Virginia University, passing WP:PROF#C5. – Joe (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C5 and #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C5. Maliner (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep distinguished professor whose contributions are explicitly noted. Pass of WP:PROF -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:41, 23 June 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 14:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaylors[edit]

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

Simply is not notable enough for its own mainspace article. There isn't even a Swifties article, so this is incredibly unneccessary. The whole article can be summarised in one or two sentences within Taylor Swift, if it needs to be. — Peterpie123rww (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Peterpie123rww (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only good sources per the bot are Buzzfeed and People mag. Rest are iffy or not useable. I can't find mentions of this topic in RS. I'd be ok with a selective merge if needed. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What about Jezebel, Cosmopolitan, Them, and Rolling Stone? Elttaruuu (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Elttaruuu is a sockmaster who used the account BARSHweedle to stack votes at this AfD: Special:diff/1161290779 Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They mention the term but don't talk about it. We aren't a dictionary; we know the word exists but need articles talking about it or the phenomenon it represents, which I don't find. Nice socks btw. Oaktree b (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some lesser sources need to be removed, but has notable coverage and passed WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justwatchmee (talk • contribs) 16:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though certain reliable sources cover this topic, this article easily falls under WP:FANCRUFT or WP:RUMOUR, which Wikipedia is not. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is supposed to cover universal topics and not stuff that only a specific audience is interested in. This topic should be restricted to fandom-specific websites. Ippantekina (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even think it merits a sentence on Taylor's page. These 'theories' are mostly gossip and there is no tangible proof. There have been multiple videos of the alleged kissgate incident. One in particular does not show a kiss, but could show Karlie Kloss kissing Josh Kushner just before he was believed to have left the concert. Unless the full story is going to be told, I believe that Wikipedia should refrain from gossip. Any media outlet who printed these stories are doing so for clicks and are well-known for spread gossip, both real and fake from 'sources' often straight from the celebrity's own PR team for PR purposes. Attach Taylor Swift's name to it and it's instant attention and clicks. Jacklynpaper (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Gaylor theory does not warrant an article on its own at all let alone a section of an article. It is not covered in Taylor Swift (as it should not be! biography articles should not tolerate speculation), but it's mentioned in Cultural impact of Taylor Swift in a tiny paragraph (sub-section: Mythology and subculture) about the parasocial behavior of fans as per reports by academics and coverage by few reliable publications like Rolling Stone, which is the only reason it's even mentioned there. ℛonherry☘ 18:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, a paragraph mentioning Swift's impact on the LGBT community and maybe "Gaylors" might deserve a mention in the Cultural impact article, not a standalone article. Ippantekina (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Conspiracy theories, and Sexuality and gender. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article content sourced from multiple published newspapers, so why delete? HarukaAmaranth (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being cited, but without proof from the artist's PR or management or from the artist herself. The same people who never pen their name to conspiracy articles, dating/drama articles, or attention seeking articles. Speculation doesn't hold up in court. Albeit Wikipedia is not court, but it does have higher standards and is more reliable than many published 'newspapers' who often times only cite 'sources' or a friend said, or in this case, fan speculation/gossip/rumor. Wikipedia runs the risk of being like Reddit, Tumblr, Twitter, Fake information sites or blogs, etc. So that I'm clear, my understanding of Wikipedia is to be a factual informational tool vs the a freedom of speech social media platform. I call for deletion. Jacklynpaper (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are lots of reasons why I believe this article should be deleted, including the fact that the creator and author of almost 98% of the page (Elttaruuu) is a sock, and just got blocked for a week for vote-stacking. Looking past the editor, the article itself is in direct violation of multiple official Wikipedia policies all detailed at WP:NOT (namely WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:NOTGOSSIP, and especially WP:RUMOUR, since none of the parties involved have confirmed anything). As well, WP:CRUFT—while not technically an official policy—holds power here as it directly explains why we shouldn't cater to matters that exist exclusively inside a fandom. From a notability perspective, I'm not so sure this meets WP:GNG criteria, as 'significant coverage' seems to be lacking in the article: most of the sources are just stating "Swift fans believe...", which does not seem all that different than citing the Swift fans themselves, which would not be notable. Overall, I believe that this would be a great article to develop on the 'Swiftipedia' fandom page or something less serious and more fandom-related; however, I'm confident in saying that this does not belong in an encyclopedia where facts and statements (not opinions and speculations) are of the utmost value. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 01:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Doggy54321. Obvious case of WP:FANCRUFT. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Beyond the fancruft issues, this article is not about the subject it claims to be about. A neutral article on "Gaylors," if one were merited, would be about the fan group itself. This article is almost entirely about that group's theories on Taylor Swift. It is a non-neutral and undue collection of "evidence" that someone's sexuality is different from what they have declared, which disturbs me on a personal level (even if the "intent" by this group is positive). Even if the "events" are cited it should be clear this is original research and is definitely well outside BLP standards. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 04:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's questionable whether Gaylors have been defined as a coherent group of people by reliable media, and coverage is still so skimpy that they only deserve to be mentioned briefly (and already are) at Cultural impact of Taylor Swift. This particular article is a disaster for Wikipedia, as it doesn't even describe the group itself but only unloads their unhinged theories about Taylor's personal life. It's nearly an endorsement of pathological obsession, or as one source put it, pareidolia. The article's content violates WP:FANCRUFT and WP:NOTGOSSIP, and this group of fans are not notable in their own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This topic – perhaps the article should be renamed Gaylor (fan theory) – is notable, widely reported on in reliable sources: i-D (2019), Gawker 1 2 (it was reliable 2021–23), Rolling Stone, Sydney Morning Herald, Salon, etc. Arguments that a fan theory is speculative/gossipy are separate from whether it has been covered in reliable sources. Addressing some comments here, WP:RUMOR (AKA WP:CRYSTAL) is about unverifiable predictions and original research, not notable rumors; WP:NOTGOSSIP is about gossip magazine–style minutiae, not the notability of a gossipy, fan fiction–adjacent (1 2) theory; and WP:FANCRUFT is not the kind of essay that can be namechecked without explaining how a relevant guideline supports that label. Keep is my first choice, but if there's no consensus for that, redirect to Cultural impact of Taylor Swift#Fandom dynamics. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – During an interview for Vogue in 2019, Taylor talked about her support for the LGBT community saying: "I didn't realise until recently that I could advocate for a community that I'm not a part of". These theories are nothing but weird conspiracy, Wikipedia shouldn't be a space for that. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 05:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the full publication, by the way: https://www.vogue.com/article/taylor-swift-cover-september-2019. GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 05:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article should be removed per WP:RUMOR. Pumpkinspyce (talk • contribs) 07:48, 27 June 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 14:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keegan Smith (soccer, born 1993)[edit]

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

I don't think the subject of this article meets GNG.

He had a relatively successful college career before a brief stint in the pro game. However, I can't find significant coverage, only routine coverage and passing mentions. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Football, United States of America, and California. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Winning West Coast Conference Men's Soccer Player of the Year would be a pass of WP:NCOLLATH, I believe; I'm rather surprised I haven't been able to find SIGCOV - though his common name makes it difficult. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 03:07, 25 June 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 14:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Niko Foster[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor and film producer, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for actors or film producers. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and instead have to show external validation of significance such as notable awards and/or the reception of significant coverage and analysis about them and their work in third-party sources -- but this is referenced almost entirely to IMDb and/or other IMDb-equivalent directories, which are not reliable or notability-making sources at all, and the only citation that comes from a WP:GNG-worthy media outlet is just a film casting announcement that glancingly namechecks his existence without being about him in any non-trivial sense, which means it isn't enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy source in the mix.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have stronger referencing than this, and the article has been tagged for possible WP:UPE to boot. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Little to no coverage in independent reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:56, 28 June 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 14:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damilola Adeparusi[edit]

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

Preposterous claim to notability. TheLongTone (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wanting to set a record is perhaps notable after you actually do it. There is no coverage of this individual, chef or otherwise. Appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean there is coverage [9] in a RS, but it's a "get to know the person" article, very much celebrity fluff. Coverage is all similar. Oaktree b (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was thinking WP:BLP1E before I did my source search. I found sources covering the original record attempt, plans for a second record attempt, and articles about needing bodyguards, so a bit more multi-dimensional of a person than I was expecting. But sadly these news articles seem quite WP:ROUTINE. They are lacking depth. For this reason I do not think she is currently notable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not the Wiki Book of World Records. Hilda Baci is notable for other ventures; this chef attempting to break her record is not. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 16:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one actually made me chuckle. Doesn't even get near notability. Nswix (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E. I don't see coverage of this individual outside of the context of that single event, so a standalone biographical entry is advised against. And, that event is non-notable, so I don't see any good place to redirect this to or merge this with. For those reasons, deletion is warranted. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:49, 22 June 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 14:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of paramilitary organizations[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST. UtherSRG (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Lists. UtherSRG (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as far as I know, if a topic is notable a list of that topic is notable. Paramilitaries are definitely notable, so shouldn’t this be notable? I’m not actually voting “keep” because I suspect the real reasoning here is that the list looks like crap and will almost certainly never be improved to a usable standard, so WP:TNT and WP:IAR could easily apply. Dronebogus (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:TIND. The list does at some points feel incomplete, of varying standards and what not, but a lot of lists on dynamic topics (and paramilitary organisations tend to come and go as they are formed, engage in conflict and are wiped out, or offhand information might simply be lacking) tend to be incomplete by definition. --Ouro (blah blah) 18:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a valid information and navigational list. Links to plenty of articles for paramilitary organizations. Would be better if there were columns for information like the start of the Asia section has right now. Dream Focus 00:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This passes WP:NLIST, as paramilitary organizations have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. These include Paramilitary Groups and the State Under Globalization, "Goons, Gunmen, and Gendarmerie: Toward a Reconceptualization of Paramilitary Formations", "Strong militias, weak states and armed violence: Towards a theory of ‘state-parallel’ paramilitaries", and many other reliable published works. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:58, 22 June 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 14:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Andromeda home video releases[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTCATALOGUE, poorly sourced fancruft for buyers and collectors Ajf773 (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Television, and Science fiction. Ajf773 (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously fails NOTCATALOGUE Dronebogus (talk) 17:43, 21 June 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 14:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Zettel[edit]

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

Non-notable Brazilian actor. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, and Brazil. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:20, 21 June 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!} 04:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seema Hamid[edit]

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

No notability nor reliable sources; only passing mentions and kind of promo materials Edit.pdf (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are enough sources to be considered notable for a rather short article, and I can’t find any of these “passing mentions” the nominator is talking about because the references used in the article are all independent of her and talking about her in whole, not just a passing mention. Have you looked at the references before nominating? FatalFit | ✉ | ✓ 10:51, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Bangladesh. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very think attempt at notability with ref stacking. I can't find extensive coverage of the person in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage in the Dhaka Tribune articles does not meet SIGCOV (what is "World University of Leadership and Management"? their website is a shell) Other coverage seems to be primary sources, or otherwise insignificant. Not sure if this is of note, but none of the articles are attributed to authors. —siro χ o 10:19, 21 June 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) 09:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marlboro Friday[edit]

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

Not notable/no sigcov Very Average Editor (talk) 08:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Somewhat famous event that has inspired case studies [10][11] and is referenced in reliable sources with regards to stock prices and branding eg [12]. The event is famous on its own and would not necessarily be appropriate for merge into any Philip Morris-related page. There's already a citation that has SIGCOV. Event is famous enough to demonstrate WP:PERSISTENCE. Seems like a perfect invocation of WP:NOTPAPER. —siro χ o 09:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's still taught in business schools, plenty of examples in Gbooks. [13]. It's even mentioned in History Channel [14]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Siroxo and Oaktree b --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:Sigcov. Maliner (talk) 08:59, 22 June 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 14:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Mataix[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. All of the sources in the article are either passing mentions, are too short, or are written by him. I couldn't find any reliable sources for the article. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Business. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 07:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom after reviewing sources. —siro χ o 10:37, 21 June 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 14:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emile Benoit (writer)[edit]

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

Vanity page, no mention of this "critically acclaimed" philosopher's work anywhere. The book reviews at the bottom are from what appear to be pay-for-review sites, so this article also does not meet WP:AUTHOR. - car chasm (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. - car chasm (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after some investigation, no way to verify, notability guidelines not met. —siro χ o 10:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searches for the name mostly turn up other people with similar names. Searches for the publications turn up enough to verify existence but not significant coverage by reliable sources. Notability is not demonstrated. Seems promotional. Author is pretty much an SPA. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Emile Benoit should be redirected back to Émile Benoît. DanielRigal (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and California. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I find his books in Gboks, some mentions of a professor in 1972 with the same name (but the subject here would be 9 yrs old). Having other best-selling authors on the NYTimes book list like your work is fine, but "famous people liking my work" is notability-by-association. I couldn't find critical reviews of his works, or much of anything really. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 21 June 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 Seremban#Retail. ✗plicit 14:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Era Square[edit]

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

Fails GNG. I did a search for ("Era Square" seremban -wikipedia) and nothing indepth comes up. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A related article was deleted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Terminal_One_Shopping_Centre with some concerns. Possible redirect to Seremban#Retail was suggested, which may or may not be appropriate here.—siro χ o 07:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Seremban#Retail, where this mall is mentioned, with thanks to Siroxo for the idea. Couldn't find any WP:GNG passing coverage. Found some passing mentions in travel guides. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the aforementioned Seremban#Retail as non-notable shopping mall. Suitskvarts (talk) 12:30, 28 June 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 minor planets: 15001–16000. ✗plicit 14:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15955 Johannesgmunden[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NASTRO. All you can say about this is the same thing you can say about any minor planet, some numerical parameters from a database and a brief blurb about its namesake. NASTRO explicitly states "if a minor planet has received an official name from the Committee for Small Body Nomenclature, this does not necessarily mean that object is notable". Its subsection WP:DWMP states "For asteroids numbered above 2000, if an article of questionable notability is found, and a good-faith search has failed to locate references establishing notability, then it is appropriate to redirect the article to the corresponding list of minor planets, keeping the original categories and {{DEFAULTSORT}} information." I did this (both the good-faith search that failed to locate any in-depth publications about this minor planet and the redirect) but my redirect was reverted, so here we are. For exactly the same reasons, I am also nominating 9119 Georgpeuerbach and 9097 Davidschlag. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the arguments don't hold up, we have to wait for a space probe mission ;-) Hauptgürtel (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Hello David, sorry i am from europe and i have some troubles with tecnical english. Can you for me summary in the case for 15955 Johannesgmunden the problem?

Thank you.

David Voglsam Hauptgürtel (talk) 07:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We long ago agreed not to have articles on all asteroids. We only have articles on asteroids with some particular historical significance (numbered less than 2000) or those for which we know an unusual amount of information (for instance those that have been visited by space missions, or that have been studied closely and individually in other ways). I see no evidence that these three asteroids are in any way unusual. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, yes i agree, the histroical significance is very important, but do not forget, in particularly "9097 Davidschlag " is the first asteroid after a break of 73 years, which discovered 3 austrian (amateur) astronomer´s "Erich Meyer, Erwin Obermair and Herbert Raab in this place.

Best regards,

David Hauptgürtel (talk) 07:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding information - it was Johann Palisa in 1923 (i think it was 996 Hilaritas or 1073 Gellivara), who discoverd the last "austrian minor planets" before. Hauptgürtel (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added some historical facts about Johann Palisa and last austrian asteroid discoveries. Hauptgürtel (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to List of minor planets: 15001–16000. Doesn't pass the WP:NASTRO criteria. Couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV so doesn't pass WP:NASTRO #3 or WP:GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, 9097 Davidschlag was the first austrian astronomer discovery after 73 years ago.

The last austrian discovery 1073 Gellivara by Johann Palisa was in 1923. Hauptgürtel (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hauptgürtel. Thanks for the comment. Quick question. Which WP:NASTRO criteria do you think 15955 Johannesgmunden passes, and how are 9097 Davidschlag and 1073 Gellivara related to that? –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae Thanks for your feedback - i think it is (WP:NASTRO criteria) criteria 3 - source you can find here (Austria Press Agentur - Net Science-Week vom 26. Jänner 1996- second article) [15]https://www.sternwarte.at/erfolge.html

it describes a long historical descovery break for asteroids in time and place in austria. Hauptgürtel (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is that "multiple non-trivial published works" with "significant commentary"? Lithopsian (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For all three minor planets, shape models are available (with the corresponding images shown in the articles). Creating a shape model requires long series of photometric observations over several oppositions of the objects, so I would argue that there certainly has been significant "study beyond refining its orbit". Note that for most, even lower numbered minor planets, no shape model is available. For 9097_Davidschlag, the fact that it was the first discovery in 70+ years made in Asutria, adds further, historic significance. --HerbRaab (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC) — HerbRaab (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 15001–16000. It fails WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of minor planets: 15001–16000, it is a good idea for yet at all.MICHAEL 942006 (talk) 14:57, 27 June 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 draftify‎ per creator's request, which I see no reason to not honor. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 06:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Olatunde David[edit]

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

PR stunts; non-independent sources; fails the general notability guidelines. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom after checking sources —siro χ o 10:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more Nigerian PROMO. Nothing beyond fluff coverage for this person in the sources, or that can be found elsewhere. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 3 advertorial sources and an interview. Does not pass WP:GNG. They are not independent. WP:ADMASQ. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Maliner (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete satisfied WP:FAILN.PARVAGE ^talk! 05:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or help improve please or move to draft: Greeting friends, this article has been marked for AFD, and I have tried to improve it to my best capacity so that it wouldn't be deleted. I have even asked other contributors in my community to help out with the improvement. Kindly help me improve as this is just my first article and i would like to learn more about how Wikipedia works. thank you alot. Engrdrizzy (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Engrdrizzy, and welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately not all articles are notable. Notable means they pass our rules about what subjects can have their own page. It looks like the sources used in this article were not high quality enough. That is a hard problem to fix, since better sources may not exist for this topic yet. Anyway you are welcome to keep looking for high quality sources and adding them to the article. But the sources need to be independent (no interviews, no advertorials) to pass WP:GNG. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator and others. Doesn't even come close to meeting notability.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 14:13, 23 June 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. WP:SNOW close (non-admin closure) Ca^{talk to me!} 12:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Reddit API controversy[edit]

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

My reason for submitting 2023 Reddit API controversy as an article for deletion is that the subject is already covered in the Reddit article.

I don't think this event as a standalone article meets WP:GNG. 1keyhole (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes GNG.[16][17][18] Has been in the news for a couple weeks now, so is showing good signs of eventually passing WP:PERSISTENCE. The article Reddit has 10 paragraphs about this, and the subarticle 2023 Reddit API controversy has 18 paragraphs and is likely to grow, so a WP:SPINOUT here seems reasonable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pass GNG. It's an WP:OKFORK. CastJared (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Novem Linguae above. Additionally, note that Reddit is a huge topic and other sub-topics have grown their own articles such as r/place, r/IAmA, etc. —siro χ o 09:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This event is very different from r/place is a repeated event and r/IAmA is a perment fixture. 1keyhole (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: This event has stand-alone notability and passes GNG, with plenty of sources. Reddit's article is already over 200k bytes. There's no need to shove it back into that bloated article; if anything, Reddit needs to be split further. I would argue for a procedural close here, as this really should be a merge request instead of an AFD discussion based on the nom, as this article is over twice as long by bytes as Reddit#2023 API changes; I'm not a fan of the giant AFD banner on what could easily become a heavy-traffic article when deletion is barely supported by the nom (if this did not meet GNG, the !votes would be for merging, not deletion). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly seems to pass GNG. — Czello ^(music) 10:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNC and is an acceptable WP:OKFORK. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG and meets Wikipedia:PERSISTENCE. Wikentromere (talk) 11:56, 21 June 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 Rajput clans. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 06:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baruwar (Rajput clan)[edit]

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

The topic fails to fullfill WP:GNG and a standalone article is not viable. However, the content should be merged in Rajput clans, as it is a clan of Rajputs and information regarding it should be there. -Admantine123 (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Hinduism, and India. Admantine123 (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Did a "search inside" of the 3 book citations in the article for the word "Baruwar", didn't get any hits. If I am missing something, consider adding page numbers to the citations. Did a Google News and Google Books search for "Baruwar", didn't see any promising sources. Based on what I just checked, I think the topic likely does not meet WP:GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many such Dictionary items are created on Wikipedia, which donot contain reliable sources to back them. It should be merged in Rajput clans.-Admantine123 (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I found that they have 4 citations, but didn't get any results. I found no results on Google News. CastJared (talk) 12:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI — Barwar (caste) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) exists and is older than this one but duplicates content; might need histmerge or just merged alongside this one if that's the way it goes. Stumbled upon it via a CSD request. Feel free to nominate it too; I didn't dig too far into either article. --slakr^\ talk / 13:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this closes as merge/redirect/delete, I think boldly redirecting Barwar (caste) to Rajput clans would be a good option. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rajput clans as I found no search results at all. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 12:38, 22 June 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 substantial analysis of citations indicate that there is not a PROF pass here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andras Farago[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:PROF. Sources on the page are primary and I cannot locate any reliable secondary sources to show he qualifies under WP:GNG. CNMall41 (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 14 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!} 04:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @CNMall41: I see several well-cited papers at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Andras+Farago%22 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I see papers he has written but to satisfy 1a, his papers would need to be highly cited. I do not see that here. If we created pages for anyone who has written a scholarly article, we could be creating profiles on just about anyone in his field. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

8 papers with more than 100 citations apiece, and 13 with more than 50, isn't a level attained by just about anyone. XOR'easter (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The papers he's first author of only have around 100 citations. The papers where he's not first author have around 450 citations. No Google Scholar profile. Unsure, so I'll sit this one out. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are several cited papers using Google Scholar. CastJared (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Several is not "highly cited." --CNMall41 (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The two keep !votes have failed to address the nom.'s point that this academic fails to meet the policy criteria in WP:NPROF. The guidelines clearly say in the summary: Having published work does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study. This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work. There are 8 criteria in NPROF, and an academic meeting any of the 8 criteria will be deemed notable. I cannot find that this subject has met any of these 8 criteria, so correct and consistent application of policy is required, thus delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is it is common and acceptable to use multiple highly cited academic papers to pass WP:NPROF #1. This can be difficult to judge though because the cut-off for each academic field can be different. In this case the academic field is computer science. My impression is the NPROF AFD regulars have an idea of what the cutoffs are for each field. The papers and citation counts provided here hint to me that this person may pass WP:NPROF #1, but it is in borderline territory. If citation counts or first author counts were higher, I think this would be an easy keep. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So yes, citation count can help establish if The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Who is citing the paper and where is more important than the count though. In this case, I do not see how this comes close to meeting #1 of the NPROF criteria. Pertinent here is that not a single Wikipedia page on any topic talks about him and his work. If he is not significant enough for a mention in any article, this may be a suggestion that a page on the subject is undue (that is not an established criterion - it is my observation, which is that there is insufficient evidence of an encyclopaedic subject here). A friend of mine reported yesterday he had just received his 1000th citation on one of his papers - yet I would hesitate to say that he is notable outside of his specific academic field, and not notable for an article per NPROF. The citation count here is too low to meet criterion 1. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, notability is not determined by whether Wikipedia happens to cover a person's work yet. All that means is that hobbyists futzing around in our spare time haven't written about it so far. You're correct in saying that it's not an established criterion; but it's not even a criterion that could ever be workable in principle. XOR'easter (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:PROF#C1. On the one hand, Google scholar does show some eight publications with over 100 citations each, which should normally be enough for WP:PROF#C1 even in a high citation field. On the other hand, there seems to be nothing of note beyond the publications. The recent NP=RP debacle [19] and the fact that almost all of his recent publications listed by DBLP [20] are in journals by MDPI and Wolfram do not inspire confidence. And the high-citation publications are mainly with Imrich Chlamtac, who is much more clearly notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seems borderline. Here's the scopus profile. User:JoelleJay, this might be a good case for your in-field citation script? My intuition is that this prof is below the median R1 citation count & h-index for their career stage, so unlikely to meet NPROF#1. Suriname0 (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based on the citation data provided by JoelleJay, I don't think he meets NPROF. In the absence of other SIGCOV (couldn't find anything myself, but their might be some Hungarian-language coverage from his time teaching their), I recommend deletion. No obvious redirect targets. Suriname0 (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for the ping, Suriname0. Here are the Scopus citation profiles for all 76 coauthors with ≥25 papers (out of all ~140 coauthors, the average # of papers is 112!!! and the median is 31), excluding a couple high-citation people whose Scopus profiles seem to have been merged with another author's.

Total citations: avg: 3981, med: 2075, Farago: 1554. Papers: 207, 146, 111. h-index: 27, 23, 18. Top 5 papers: 1st: 433, 211, 308; 2nd: 238, 126, 272; 3rd: 171, 99, 98; 4th: 142, 90, 85; 5th: 120, 77, 63.

I don't think this demonstrates the exceptional citation record necessary for a C1 pass, and this is reinforced by his publishing in MDPI, so I would recommend delete. JoelleJay (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs previously broadcast by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation#IBC News 5:30 Report. (non-admin closure) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 06:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IBC News 5:30 Report[edit]

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

I'm unable to find GNG-level sources for this news show. Recommend Redirect to List of programs previously broadcast by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation. Am happy to change my vote if local/other sources can be found to show that this meets GNG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Philippines. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No sources in article. Google News and Google Books search not turning up anything promising. Not enough content in article to justify a merge. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. It does not cite any sources. CastJared (talk) 12:27, 21 June 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 03:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Hedger[edit]

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

The article states that Kristin Hedger is a candidate for office and a businesswoman. Hedger would not qualify under WP:POLITICIAN. Only under certain circumstances would a candidate qualify for an article based on their candidacy either as their candidacy has some sort of notability to it (e.g. Lar Daly for his use of the "equal time rule") or are candidates who qualify for reasons independent of their candidacy (e.g. Joe Exotic). Hedger as the "youngest to be a statewide candidate for public office anywhere in the United States during the 2006 election cycle," does not reach the level of Daly and her business career does not meet GNG let alone the level of a Joe Exotic, Cynthia Nixon, or another GNG qualifying person who happened to also be a candidate for office. This will be added to deletion streams for politics, North Dakota, and business among others. Mpen320 (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Young person ran for office, lost and got job." Just a regular working person at this point, I don't see any further coverage for her. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is about all the coverage I can find, could likely be her, but nothing for notability [21]. Still a !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any sources that pass WP:GNG in article or on Google. Having never been elected to office, does not pass WP:NPOL. There is no election article to redirect to. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Maliner (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG and NPOL, there's only really two sources in the stub (disregarding the image referenced?) and one is only a passing mention. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 00:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable political candidate. SportingFlyer T·C 09:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Consensus seems clear, but lending further support to an argument for deletion on the grounds discussed above. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:54, 28 June 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!} 23:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Julien-Laferrière[edit]

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

Scant evidence of notability in the article, sources available online are not in-depth, not not passing, and independent. Bremps... 03:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He won the first prize at the Queen Elisabeth Competition, a notable competition. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are a few decent sources such as an AllMusic staff written bio here and a piece from Radio France here, and this here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:41, 15 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!} 03:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Atlantic306's three sources. Those appear to pass WP:GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isam al Khafaji[edit]

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

The article doesn't demonstrate notability nor meets the minimum bar to firstly presume inclusion per WP:BIO and WP:N. After researching more of what's out there, he is at best a minor academic and war advocate. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Iraq. DreamRimmer (talk) 04:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He is obviously a prolific commentator but in depth sourcing about him isn’t particularly easy to come by. I found 1, 2 and 3 and similar. Mccapra (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was hopeful the links would help demonstrate GNG but they do not unfortunately. They achieve the opposite effect. I assume Google Translate is not too bad for this. 1 is not a reliable source and says very little about him. Basic bio info and looks like a contributor profile. 2 is someone's blog and most of the content is condemning the US occupation of Iraq. All it says about Al-Khafaji is that he left the "occupation administration". 3 is a basic record information on a paper he wrote. At best the links tell us he exists, but do not help with GNG to presume notability and beyond that do not help make the case for notability and inclusion. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Salsa's observations and nomination. The sources stated in this AfD aren't eligible for GNG in my opinion, as well as the ones already existing Karnataka (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As this AfD heads towards the end of its second week, I have two observations.

A lack of interest in this subject both through editing and this AfD.
The one vote says "Weak keep" but makes a strong case for deletion citing difficulty in finding any "in depth sourcing" and providing 3 links that are nothing close to in-depth sourcing. All 3 are non-RS, 2 barely mention the subject's name saying almost nothing about him, and the other is a very short contributor profile on a media site. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SWinxy (talk) 02:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this, this, this, this. There are several coverages in Google Book search. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to assess newly found sources. As always, more participation would help here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, despite Twinkle1990's excellent work. I'd say that the 2003 interview and profile constitutes an item of in-depth coverage, but there isn't much else to combine it with to support a BLP-compliant article. (And to address a question that perhaps nobody but me was asking, I'll note in passing that while I am generally not a supporter of AFD's ill-considered tradition of ignoring persuasive authority from other Wikipedias, in this case ar:عصام_الخفاجي appears to have been translated from EN in 2020 and so its existence doesn't really reflect independent editorial judgment that we could learn from.) -- Visviva (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. All the sources in the article and mentioned in this AFD have various problems, including appearing like personal websites/blogs so unreliable, not containing significant coverage, being an interview so not independent, or being written by himself so not independent. Therefore, this individual doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. No merge or redirect targets come to mind. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:54, 21 June 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 01:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing Shuren Ribet Private School[edit]

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

Non-notable school lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Article was previously PRODed. 33ABGirl (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and China. 33ABGirl (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
Sources
1. Yin, Yin Fei 尹菲; Han, Xinhui 韩欣惠 (2020-11-06). "择校直通车：邂逅近30年校史的北京市私立树人·瑞贝学校" [School selection through train: Beijing Shuren-Ribet Private School has a school history of nearly 30 years] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. Archived from the original on 2023-04-15. Retrieved 2023-04-15.
  The article notes from Google Translate: "Beijing Private Shuren Ruibei School (formerly known as "Beijing Private Shuren School") was established in 1993. It is one of the earliest private primary and secondary schools in Beijing and has a school history of nearly 30 years. The school has kindergartens, primary schools, junior high schools and high schools. It offers 15-year bilingual excellence courses, international experimental courses, and artistic creativity courses. It also enrolls Chinese and foreign students. ... The school is co-founded and led by university professor Wang Jianchao, the former principal of the Experimental Primary School of Beijing Normal University, the former principal of the High School Attached to Renmin University, the former principal of the High School Attached to Tsinghua University and other well-known domestic principals and educators. Since 2006, it has maintained the joint management of Chinese and foreign principals."
2. Hung, Fan-Sing; Liu, Yang (2011). "School Privatization in Relation to Development Goals". In Lee, John Chi-Kin; Caldwell, Brian J. (eds.). Changing Schools in an Era of Globalization. New York: Routledge. p. 112. ISBN 978-0-415-99330-2. Retrieved 2023-04-15 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "One illustrative case is that of Beijing Shuren-Ribet Private School (北京市私立树人•瑞贝学校), established over a decade ago as a collaboration between Beijing Shuren Private School and Los Angeles Ribet School. The school offers preschooling to Year 12 education. It has a Chinese and an international section, both of which accept international students and students from Mainland China. The goal of the school is to educate intellectuals trained in both Chinese and world cultures. The international section, called the American School, is unique in that it aims to prepare students to progress to an American educational setting and then into the U.S. college and university system. Study in the American School is essentially an American curriculum program, conducted in English and using American textbooks for grade-level course work based on the North Carolina EFL guidelines and on California state standards. The school evaluates students using the comparable American high school standard. The American School's program does not aim to take students to the level of graduation, but to place them in an appropriate sister school in the United States (or other Western countries as appropriate) to complete the last 2 to 3 years of high school."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Beijing Shuren Ribet Private School (simplified Chinese: 北京市私立树人•瑞贝学校; traditional Chinese: 北京市私立樹人•瑞貝學校) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing the sources. Please find my assessment on the sources below per WP:SIRS.

(added 11 June) In general, the sources fail WP:ORGDEPTH, with only brief mentions or coverage of the subject. One of the sources is also WP:PROMOTIONAL and not WP:INDEPENDENT, failing WP:ORGIND. As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the sources does not establish WP:ORGSIG.

In summary, I believe the presented sources does not fulfill WP:SIGCOV, so WP:GNG has not been met for the article subject.

Link	Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
1	Sina Finance	No, the tone of the article is entirely promotional and written as a school profile for a career fair hosted by the company. ^(Translated) ".....the "Sina* 2020 International School Autumn and Winter School Selection Tour Exhibition (Beijing Station)" sponsored by Sina Education Channel will be held .....* 　　Beijing Private Shuren Ruibei School will participate in this exhibition. Next, follow the editor* to learn about the private Shuren Ruibei School in Beijing"*	Partially, Sina is generally considered to be a tabloid/low quality.	No, only provided a brief introduction, for promotional purposes.	No
2	Changing Schools in an Era of Globalization	Yes	Yes	No, only a single brief mention as part of a case study.	No

33ABGirl (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The characterization of #2 is incorrect. "One illustrative case is that of Beijing Shuren-Ribet[...]the last 2 to 3 years of high school." is a long paragraph about that school's United States curriculum division. That would qualify as WP:SIGCOV. As for the first source, it is true Sina (which itself is the newspaper) sponsored the event, but the writing seems to be independent of the school itself (so long as the school did not sponsor the article or pay Sina). As for relatively tabloidy newspapers, they may be OK if the topics are not biographies of living people, medicine, etc. Honestly, though, Changing Schools in an Era of Globalization is much stronger. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While source #2 is a long paragraph, it is still only a single paragraph, which essentially only introduces the fact that the school uses the US curriculum. As no further analysis is offered, I maintain that this source does not fulfill WP:SIGCOV. 33ABGirl (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the text of source #2: "The international section, called the American School, is unique in that it aims to prepare students to progress to an American educational setting and then into the U.S. college and university system." (I added emphasis to show the author is using deeper analysis, and in my opinion it does fulfill WP:SIGCOV). WhisperToMe (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - SIGCOV demonstrated in Changing Schools in an Era of Globalization, and there would be no reason that a comparable Chinese language source would not exist. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SWinxy (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from some more experienced AFD regulars.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Tongzhou District, Beijing. Sina source is unreliable per an RFC, and a possible advertorial. The School Privatization book's coverage of this topic is only one paragraph, that is a tad below my threshold for WP:SIGCOV. The youth.cn source might pass WP:GNG if it's not an advertorial, it has enough WP:SIGCOV. Overall, probably not enough GNG-passing coverage. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus in the discussion you've linked is that Sina is an aggregator, and reliability must be judged based on the original source. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, thanks. I've updated WP:NPPSG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that Changing Schools in an Era of Globalization constitutes SIGCOV. As a somewhat scholarly book the information within that paragraph is pretty densely packed confirming a lot of basic information and offering a deeper understanding of what makes that school "interesting". It's not as long as, say, a newspaper article, but it conveys as much information as a good medium length article generally would. —siro χ o 04:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Siroxo and also per Cunard's outstanding work above. I think that SIGCOV has been adequately demonstrated. In addition, a Google Books search suggests that Changing Schools is not a one-off and that there are other moderate-depth sources in Chinese. (And although I am in no position to evaluate them, that one at least is from a publisher whose books are fairly widely cited on EN.) The ZH article in this case also appears to reflect an independent judgment that the subject is article-worthy, which is certainly not decisive but should weigh in the balance as an independent perspective. -- Visviva (talk) 23:26, 22 June 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 01:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College kalyanpur[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability for schools is a lot stricter than during last AfD. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOLS. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL, unsourced. I couldn't find any reliable sources for the article. JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced. Google Books and Google News search didn't turn up anything promising. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Not a suitable title for a redirect because the title erroneously contains the word "kalyanpur" at the end. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:00, 21 June 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 schools in Germany. Without adequate references cited, the "keep" !votes ultimately failed to prove that this school is notable. ✗plicit 01:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich-Dessauer-Gymnasium, Frankfurt[edit]

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

Article does not meet notability requirements. The German article also does not seem to contain much in the way of notability per English Wikipedia requirements. -Asheiou (they/them • talk) 13:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be sufficient sourcing available to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out some of these sources for me? I cannot find them. > Asheiou (they/them • talk) 12:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few pages of results when searching through Google News. 33ABGirl (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these sources from Google seem to be referring to the school in Aschaffenburg rather than the one in Höchst. > Asheiou (they/them • talk) 20:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite a lot of sources on the school, seems to meet WP:GNG. 33ABGirl (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source evaluation, anyone?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Germany. I checked and translated all the articles on the Google News link given above [22]. The 7 non-paywalled sources had no WP:SIGCOV. The 3 paywalled sources, judging from their titles and first paragraphs, had various problems. One article talked about how the school was fighting school bus accidents by sending pupils to a "bus school" for safety training (not sigcov of the gymnasium). One article talked about appointing a new headmaster (WP:ROUTINE). Overall, I'm afraid I am not convinced these sources meet WP:GNG. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant redirect per Novem Linguae. I would be happier about this if we had a better target; the List of schools in Germany entry contains no information not already present in the page title. Once again we are victims of our success in driving away the dedicated content editors who could have maintained better coverage of schooling and education on the regional/city level. But keeping a free-standing article doesn't really seem to be in the cards; there just isn't much to work with here. Notably, the DE article on the school is much more substantial but mostly uncited (and the sources it does cite aren't really SIGCOV material), so doesn't provide much help here. -- Visviva (talk) 23:49, 22 June 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 12:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huddard High School[edit]

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

No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Only a primary source provided. LibStar (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tried to find in Google Book search, but found a few mentions only. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 14 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 00:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources that I could find are either primary OR school databases. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find WP:SIGCOV in Google Books or Google News. A promising looking book, Education in Kanpur, states in the "about this edition" section "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online." One possible redirect target, List of schools in India, appears to only accept created articles. Another possible redirect target, List of educational institutions in Kanpur, only accepts colleges. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:29, 21 June 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 00:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Birla Intermediate College[edit]

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

No significant coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. Only a primary source provided. LibStar (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Uttar Pradesh. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find sources to meet WP:NSCHOOL. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of institutions of higher education in Uttar Pradesh. Couldn't find any GNG compliant sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In India, Intermediate college or inter college, is the equivalent of a school with grades 11 and 12. This is borne out by the text of the article. The target that you suggest seems to include only (the more normally defined) colleges, and universities. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. I can't find a good redirect target then. Changing to delete. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the sole source[23] i came across during my search, and unfortunately, it does not meet the requirements set by NSCHOOL.AmusingWeasel (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Maliner (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 12:20, 22 June 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 00:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Borden[edit]

(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. JTtheOG (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Caribbean, and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Searches online and in the Virgin Islands Daily News turned up nothing more than passing mentions. I also searched for coverage about his time at Indiana Wesleyan but found nothing significant. --MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find any GNG passing sources in article, search, etc. Borden is not mentioned at United States Virgin Islands national soccer team, so wouldn't be a good redirect target. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Maliner (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons cited above. Noneate (talk) 10:10, 27 June 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.