Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 19	September 21 >

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 redirect‎ to List of JAG characters#Lieutenant, Junior Grade Meg Austin, USN (JAGC). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Austin[edit]

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

Non-notable character in cancelled TV series, redirect - the AtD - removed, so here we are. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Military, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable character, fails GNG and fails WP:NCHAR. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Nagol0929. Does not have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of JAG characters, per WP:ATD. Obviously the link should exist, and freestanding notability is not required for a redirect. BD2412 T 01:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of JAG characters#Lieutenant, Junior Grade Meg Austin, USN (JAGC). As User:BD2412 states above, this is an appropriate alternative to deletion. It is very likely readers will search for this character, and while the role doesn't have the clear claim to notability to justify a freestanding article, redirects are cheap. Redirecting will also preserve the edit history on this article should it later achieve stand-alone status. Jacona (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Jacona. Idiosincrático (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 George J. Mitchell. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Institute[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG, of the 6 sources in the article: source 1 is a government database entry, 2 is an income tax exempt form, 3 404 errors but appears to have been an IRS database entry, 4 and 5 are to the org itself and 6 also errors out but appears to have been a flyer for a university, none of these are WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS and a before search turned up empty for this institute showing partial matches for Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies and Mitchell Institute for Global Peace. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Maine. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most recent edits are by bunch of edits by IPs and COI accounts some of which were pasting copyvios, the other edits have been reverting said copyvio, previous edits prior to the IP/COI were three years ago. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to George J. Mitchell There are a couple of hits on GBooks but no SIGCOV. (One of them is Mitchell's memoir). It looks like there's probably enough at least for a mention in the article on Mitchell himself but not a separate article. There is also an organization called the "Mitchell Institute" in Australia which is possibly notable. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Presidentman, seems like a reasonable compromise.-KH-1 (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Smith[edit]

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

WP:GNG not meet in BLP Endrabcwizart (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Endrabcwizart (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as actor has been involved in a significant number of roles and major television, film, video games productions over the past decade. Why is article marked for deletion? He-guy (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and California. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep on the strength of a title role in Harry & Meghan: Becoming Royal, which yielded some coverage, and voicework for notable animated characters. BD2412 T 01:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Admittedly not super-notable, but seems to be enough to stick.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Philippe Aumasson[edit]

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

No establishment of notability using WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Cryptocurrency, Mathematics, Computing, and France. Skynxnex (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Far from my area but notability should be examined under WP:PROF; this appears to be his GS profile [1] with top citations 418,360,357,276,244 and a further two papers over 200 citations and a total of ten papers over 100 citns. There's a fairly low total number of papers though and his PhD only dates from 2009. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete (treat like expired PROD). Cannot find enough evidence that this passes WP:PROF, but far enough outside my main areas of expertise to have a good sense of what passes or doesn't in this field. Only weighing in since this has two relistings and needs some direction. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If interested, begin a Merge/Redirect discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Randal Alexander McDonnell, 10th Earl of Antrim[edit]

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

Nobleman from the peerage of Ireland, but without enough SIGCOV to justify a standalone article: fails WP:BIO / WP:GNG. BEFORE didn't turn up more sources than what is in the article, see the source assessment below.

Being a Deputy Lieutenant (DL) isn't particularly useful to assert notability either, since they are subordinates to the ceremonial county's Lord-Lieutenant, "an honorary titular position usually awarded to a retired notable person in the county". In past AFDs, several biographies carrying the honorary title of DL resulted in deletion (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir James Stronge, 2nd Baronet, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Birdwood, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commander Herbert Roff Newton). If it were newsworthy, one would expect some sort of coverage related to this, but it doesn't seem appear to exist in this specific case.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Pilaz
Peter W. Hammond (1998), The Complete Peerage.			No SIGCOV: only genealogical information provided (DOB, married to, children). Also not a WP:SECONDARY source, which WP:GNG explicitly requests.	✘ No
Marie Louise McConville, Earl of Antrim's funeral to take place in Glenarm next week, The Irish News, 6 August 2021, accessed 3 July 2022			Obituary of the 9th Earl, no mention of the son. Fails SIGCOV.	✘ No
Burke's Peerage, vol. 1 (1999), p. 90			No SIGCOV: only genealogical information provided (DOB, married to, children). Also not a WP:SECONDARY source, which WP:GNG explicitly requests.	✘ No
"DUNLUCE, Viscount" in Lucy Hume, ed., Debrett's People of Today (London: Debrett's, 2017), p. 1882			No SIGCOV: only genealogical information provided (DOB, married to, children). Also not a WP:SECONDARY source requested by WP:GNG.	✘ No
" The Earl of Antrim, highcouncilofclandonald.com, accessed 3 July 2022	The Earl is one of the chiefs of the clan, which owns this website.	WP:SPS		✘ No
https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/life/pams-people-artist-hector-mcdonnell-sees-big-picture/31133678.html			No mention of the Earl.	✘ No
Richard Pococke, John McVeagh, Richard Pococke's Irish Tours (Irish Academic Press, 1995), p. 212			This source covers the castle, not the Earl.	✘ No
Mark Bence-Jones, Burke's Guide to Country Houses: Volume I, Ireland (1978), p. 135			This source covers the castle, not the Earl.	✘ No
"DUNLUCE , Viscount Randal Alexander St John McDonnell" in Sara Foster, Zoe Gullen, eds., Debrett's People of Today (London: Debrett's, 2002), p. 568			No SIGCOV: only genealogical information provided (DOB, married to, children). Also not a WP:SECONDARY source, which WP:GNG explicitly requests.	✘ No
"New Members appointed to the board of The Royal Parks", Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, accessed 28 July 2022			No mention of the Earl.	✘ No
Deputy Lieutenant Commissions, The Belfast Gazette, 31 January 2014, Notice ID: B-7586-1			WP:PRIMARY official gazette, not SIGCOV.	✘ No
Kathleen O'Sullivan, "Glenarm Forest is NI’s first accredited QCC forest conservation project", agriland.co.uk, 9 November 2021, accessed 3 July 2022			Passing mention.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Pilaz (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A previous iteration of this article was deleted after a AfD discussion last year. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randal McDonnell, 10th Earl of Antrim. Pilaz (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Royalty and nobility, Ireland, United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland. Pilaz (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Clear WP:ATD is a redirect/merge to Earl of Antrim. Curbon7 (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to redirecting to Earl of Antrim from me. Pilaz (talk) 02:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as I see enough for compliance with the WP:GNG. I do not agree with the table on Debrett's People of Today, which is surely a reliable secondary source, or Agriland, which is an important agricultural publisher (see here). I would not say that article has only a "passing mention", as it is about a project by Dunluce. Other sources help to provide significant coverage collectively. The GNG is of course not about importance, but I doubt if many Deputy Lords Lieutenant of counties are non-notable. Moonraker (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Debrett's is a tertiary source, as confirmed by this RSN discussion. Its main problem is the lack of SIGCOV of the Earl (DOB, parents and children are routine info). The argument that a person can inherit notability from a project is a typical WP:NOTINHERITED argument and is not grounded in policy, and I don't know how you can trust a publication that calls the current Earl the "15th Earl of Antrim". Besides, he only gets a namecheck. Significant coverage needs to be more than a trivial mention. Pilaz (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New sources added from Spear's Wealth Management Survey and The Waterlow Stock Exchange Yearbook, providing significant coverage of his city career. On your link, Pilaz, with the greatest respect, a discussion led by you which is about a different publication isn't an authority on Debrett's People of Today, you may like to review that article. Moonraker (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the addition. Spear's Wealth Management Survey doesn't help meet the GNG since it just seems to paraphrase Dunluce's workplace bioblurb in length and content (i.e. the reference to the "over 25 years" in the first sentence of both bioblurbs), which means Spear's blurb about McDonnell/Dunluce has independence problems from the subject. Secondly, it's not secondary: a secondary source, as defined in WP:NOR, ought to provide thought and reflection based on primary sources, of which there is none here. That's because Spear's acts as a tertiary source whose stated goal is to be a "guide" to private client advisers. I also don't think this kind of information is SIGCOV, but others can chime in on this.

The Waterlow Stock Exchange Yearbook is another yearbook, meaning it's also a tertiary source and is likely to not feature much beyond "contact information for over 1,000 advisers and a list of their corporate clients" [2]. So, not secondary, and although I don't have access to his entry, almost certainly no SIGCOV in there (paper and ink are expensive). Wikipedia is not a directory, so I don't think using other directories makes for a great argument that the subject is notable. Pilaz (talk) 01:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for Debrett's People of Today, it acted in the same way as Who's Who, by asking biographees to provide their own biographical entries and update them each year [3] [4]. Entries cannot be independent from the subject if they are written by the subject themselves. And, again, not secondary, so no thoughts or reflection on the material presented. Pilaz (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: on "15th Earl of Antrim", it's common for peerages to have disputed numbering, when they have been created more than once for the same family. In this case "15th" is arrived at by counting from 1620 instead of 1785. Moonraker (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article looks well sourced. However, I wouldn't oppose merging this article into Earl of Antrim in a "Present peer" section, as is done at Marquess of Anglesey. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

estar8806, two questions: which reliable secondary sources provide in-depth coverage to help meet the GNG? And what information would you merge from the current article into a "present peer" section? Pilaz (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Estar8806 has put forward a reasonable proposal. If other users think that the article cannot be a standalone page, then it's better to redirect it to the page that covers all his predecessors. Keivan.f^Talk 23:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 00:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Palace Group of Schools[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. BangJan1999 22:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been deleted three times check [5]. Also, Wikiwriterforal has submitted it to AFC up to four times and it has been rejected for NPOV. Lastly, the article failed WP: GNG Ibjaja055 (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Pakistan. BangJan1999 22:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. The schools exist. A couple of news reports show this, but they are not notable in their own right and not as a group either. Apart from a couple of local news reports, I find nothing so an article is not possible at this time. Salt owing to the repeated re-creation, and because if a school becomes notable in the future, it would be one of the schools and not the group. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per Sirfurboy. Fails GNG with only routine local coverage and primary sources. The linkless BOL News reference appears to be copied from one of the umpteen versions kicking around, but I won't bother linking it here as it's clearly a paid puff piece. Sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry/UPE of several SPAs is evident in the edit histories of this article, Happy Palace Grammar School, Draft:Happy Palace Grammar School, Draft:Wahab Shah, and probably other drafts I haven't spotted yet. Wikishovel (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 02:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Milkshape 3D[edit]

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

Non-notable software. WP:VG/SE shows no significant coverage and barely any mentions in reliable sources. IceWelder [✉] 19:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 19:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't locate any reliable in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. -- ferret (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reluctantly. There's a fair amount of discussion online, but it's all old and comes from unreliable sources. If someone can come up with good secondary sources I'd happily switch my vote to keep, but I couldn't find any. Moonreach (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 00:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cestné a Stavebné Mechanizmy Tisovec[edit]

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

Deletion was declined in 2007 as supposedly notable but the article is still uncited despite being tagged as needing cites 15 years ago. If the company is any good they ought to be booming nowadays. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This Tisovec business directory indicates they’re still in business. When you click on the www.csmtisovec.sk link, it takes you to a custom fabricating shop that makes heavy steel parts and attachments (such as for tractors and excavators) doing business as CSM. That would be a natural business if you were downsizing out of military equipment.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Companies, and Slovakia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable.

This is the previous AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Podpolianske strojárne Detva

That AfD was closed as no consensus and the article moved to the current name.

I suspect this plant usually just made subassemblies and not complete weapons. “What links here” turns up an unreliably referenced note on a Nazi weapon page that this plant made some unpopular clones in the late 1950s. No other weapons are linked. Given our extensive coverage of Warsaw Pact weapons, we’d have more links if they’d made other finished products. There’s nothing wrong with making subassemblies but they don’t get much press coverage — unlike finished products.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harita Kata[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Single source that is not WP:IS. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Environment, and India. UtherSRG (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is primary as given in the article, and I don't see sourcing we can use in my search. Unless there is some in the native language of course... Oaktree b (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Richmond, British Columbia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seafair (Richmond)[edit]

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

Article about a city neighbourhood, not properly referenced as passing WP:GEOLAND. As always, city neighbourhoods are not automatically entitled to have standalone articles as separate topics from the city just because they exist: it has to be possible to write something substantial about the neighbourhood, referenced to a significant volume of coverage in reliable sources. But this is literally just "it exists, the end", referenced entirely to content self-published by the city government and a shopping mall (i.e. not independent third-party sources), which simply isn't good enough. At this level of depth, it only warrants a mention in the city's article rather than qualifying to have its own. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Richmond, British Columbia as WP:ATD-M —siro χ o 04:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DRC, Inc.[edit]

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

This notability failing, annotated yellow page entry like contents should be removed per deletion policy:

Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content
Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia

Graywalls (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United States of America, Alabama, and South Carolina. Graywalls (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based on a search, the company is either defunct, moved, or has a competitor with the same name. The website on the page is no longer active and some of the references I find say it is based in Texas. So again, not sure if the same company. Regardless, I cannot locate sources meeting WP:ORGCRIT so doesn't meet WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Acid Mothers Temple. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ominous from the Cosmic Inferno[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails both the general and album-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Japan, and Brazil. UtherSRG (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Acid Mothers Temple: Found this review from Plan B but nothing else. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tricycle Driver, Kasangga Mo[edit]

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

The article does not contain enough sources to pass GNG, and a BEFORE check did not find any more sources. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Philippines. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable source hits on Google and no hits on Google News Archives. Google News turns out three potential references but all just provides passing mentions of the film --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFILM, a WP:BEFORE search nothing to pass the guideline. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast Alchemy[edit]

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

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

Completely unsourced article about a small defunct local radio company and a minimally sourced separate article about its slightly larger (but still small, local and defunct) successor company following a merger. As always, companies are not "inherently" notable just because they existed, and have to show passage of WP:CORPDEPTH on reliable source coverage about them -- but Broadcast Alchemy is a completely unreferenced one-line stub that's been flagged for lacking references since 2009, and Secret Communications contextlessly lists one news article from a local business publication as an external link without actually using it to footnote any content, but even just a basic WP:GNG pass requires a lot more than just one source.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived Cincinatti-area media from the nineties and naughts than I've got can find enough to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt either of them from having to be sourced properly -- and even if enough coverage can be found to salvage them, it still might not be clear that we would need two articles here instead of just one. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Ohio. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both If we go into List of companies subsumed into iHeart, Inc. (much less any radio conglomerate) it would be an endless list. Companies that owned three or four stations in the 90s don't meet N and even then would be limited to their own station articles, and most of these companies were 'run for fun' entities that had no designs on expansion pre-1996. Nate • (chatter) 22:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We actually do have iHeartMedia#Radio acquisitions, though Secret and its predecessor aren't mentioned there (probably because, even though all its stations were bought by companies that ultimately merged into Clear Channel/iHeart, it wasn't a package sale to only one company, despite initial plans otherwise). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: These definitely didn't need to be two separate articles, but unless sources emerge to the contrary having any article would appear to require more significant coverage than is presently presented. (I'll note that a passing mention in this article — which by itself counts for nothing — mentions that Secret owned 14 stations around 1994, though that doesn't mean much either other than further establishing the lack of any suitable redirect target.) Of the two, Secret Communications is probably the only one that should have a proper article if sufficient sourcing is found, but I'm not exactly holding my breath. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: Neither of these articles contain the level of WP:SIGCOV to pass the GNG, and I'm not finding much else elsewhere, either with Cincinatti-area media or national coverage. User:Let'srun 03:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G11. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manikanta Belde (author)[edit]

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

No evidence found of any notability, sources are databases and press releases. Fram (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and India. Fram (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Procedural note This article was created by a large WP:UPE sockfarm that I'm in the process of untangling. I've speedy deleted it per WP:CSD#G11.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bikwasi Haruna[edit]

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

Borderline WP:PROMO in parts and doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. At first glance, Place and See might appear to be WP:SIGCOV but the content is entirely copied from Wikipedia so fails WP:RS standards. I can't find anything better in my WP:BEFORE. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Uganda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTPROMO/WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:BASIC. —siro χ o 23:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Jacona (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Public Radio[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a non-profit organization that seems to exist (possibly not anymore, website dead) solely to operate relay transmitters in a mountainous area. This is not "inherently" notable in its own right -- it isn't an originating broadcaster for the purposes of satisfying WP:BCAST, but simply contracts to help other broadcasting companies extend their signal service areas, so we would have to see passage of basic WP:CORP or WP:ORG criteria, specifically a depth and range of reliable sourcing that would get it over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is The Current Website: http://www.sprtv.org/summit/ PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; despite the name of the organization, this is just an operator of translator stations and not a separate public radio network of its own. (Also, despite the article title, it does operate TV transmitters in addition to radio, but that's neither here nor there.) I can't see much reason why it would or could get the requisite significant coverage to meet the GNG, much less the slightly-more-stringent NCORP or ORG. The call signs for their stations — which aren't even mentioned anywhere in this article, anyway — appear to redirect to their actual parent stations (or at least the parent entity of one such station) if a title even exists as a page at all, which is generally the correct practice for translators. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Herb Sutter[edit]

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

Lack of independent sources, fails notability qualifications for authors. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Author, and Software. 19:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've made some significant changes to the article, pairing down parts of it and bringing back a previously excised section. I've found independent sources for most of the statements that remain in the article. The sourcing is still a little weak though - it's difficult to find sources that are truly about him rather than mentioning him in passing or simply quoting what he has to say about something else. I'm also a little hampered by my lack of the necessary background to understand and paraphrase what sources like this one is saying he has done. However, I would consider the last two sections of that article to be significant coverage. Ideally I'd like to see a bit more, but from the way he is discussed in the sources I've found, I do think he is notable. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of what that source says shouldn't be in the article - cppfront is still a personal experiment, and probably doesn't even deserve its mention in Cfront. What Sutter's done that's most significant is chair the international C++ standard committee since 2002, except for a one year break ("over a decade" is, I suppose, technically correct), resulting in C++03 through C++20. This and this are authoritative (though of course not independent); p70:20 of this is a bit better; and this article from The Register, though now very out of date, is at least less misleading than the Infoworld piece. —Cryptic 22:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to quickly point out that at the current moment, almost all of the independent sources in the article mention Sutter solely in the context of his Free Lunch paper:

InfoQ: "...despite the advances in CPUs and networks, 'The free lunch is over,' he said, referring to a March 2005 technical article by Herb Sutter, software architect at Microsoft and chair of the ISO C++ Standards Committee..."
Verge: "Are you familiar with the highly influential piece for programmers by Herb Sutter called 'The Free Lunch Is Over'? He wrote it in 2004..."
Semiconductor Engineering: "Almost 15 years back—in March 2005—Herb Sutter, who was at Microsoft at the time, published his now famous paper, “The Free Lunch Is Over,” predicting nothing less than..."

That plus the paper's 1700+ citations (of which I would be shocked if we couldn't find at least two that discussed the paper and its findings in non-trivial detail) makes me think that the paper probably has enough significant coverage to be notable--but since all of those sources are discussing the paper more than the author, I'm not so sure that is significant enough coverage to justify the author's notability. 2603:8001:4542:28FB:E56D:1D24:B019:A2E (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete it seems that this is an instance of the work being notable, but not the author. It's not the most egregious article, but I still think it's lack of significant coverage, as well as little non-primary sources warrants it's deletion.Industrial Insect (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we heard when you when you nominated this. Repeating yourself with words-in-bold doesn't lend your position any additional weight, and gives the appearance of duplicity. —Cryptic 04:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is weak on biographical information, but the number of citations of his works is enough to give him notability as an author - and in particular someone who has made a fundamental contribution to his field. Lamona (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From what I could tell from Google Scholar, after his The Free Lunch is Over article, his next-most-cited work has less than half the number of citations that that article does. So if the primary indicator of notability here is the number of citations, I would argue that--plus the complete lack of independent sources discussing his life/history personally we've found (as you noted), and the fact that as I noted a good number of sources solely discuss him as "the author of The Free Lunch is Over" (including https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2020/10/9/developing-military-electronic-systems-calls-for-holistic-strategy if anyone wants to squeeze that into this article as well)--indicates the article he wrote is what is truly notable, not him. 2603:8001:4542:28FB:C917:2D30:4F00:28C9 (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The primary article has over 1700 cites, but the next one has over 700. It's true that 700 is less than half of 1700, but an article cited 700 times is significant on its own. Then there are 2 coding books, one cited 230 times and one 145 times. It's not unusual for a writer to have one wildly "best selling" text and that isn't an indication that other highly cited items are not important. If it is argued that the "free lunch" piece deserves its own article, then so be it. But if there is no article for Sutter then there is no place to record his work on C++ and on software concurrency. I do recognize that our policies for IT "inventors" are weak - these are folks who are rarely written about as "human beings". Yet some are the architects of exactly what we are doing right now - engaging in digital culture. Lamona (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't focusing on "recording Sutter's works", we are focusing on writing what reliable sources have to say about him. As it seems that almost all non-primary sources are about his book and not him, I believe that his work is notable and not him. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, Wikipedia:Right wrongs. Industrial Insect (talk) 22:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet we regularly include articles for academics about whom there are no secondary sources. I propose that we accept him under the same criteria. WP:NACADEMIC Lamona (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" Yeah, independent reliable sources are still required for the only notable academic qualification he would, well, qualify for. Additionally, I don't know if he would even qualify as being an academic in the first place, however that is not something I am not fully sure of and am not knowledgeable in. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator does not make a case against WP:SCHOLAR#C1, so this isn't going to be a particularly deep analysis from me. Citation counts are used for C1, so the subject seems to easily meet the criteria on the face of it. The CSB vs RGW merits of PROF itself are out of scope for any individual AfD, so this can be a keep. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link to the specific criterion notes, it helped clarify things a little bit for me (I'm cringing reading my previous reply). Reading criteria 1, while I might be taking this too literally, It says that "either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates" From what's been previously said in this discussion, Sutter's most two most cited works are 1700+ citations and 700+ citations. While the first one is a large amount of citations, and the other one is still arguably so, I don't believe that 1 unarguably highly cited work would qualify for the first, and the high citations of his Free lunch work are unfortunately not consistent. Industrial Insect (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NAUTHOR as above and WP:ANYBIO#1 for his work on the C++ standards, Dr Dobb's column, books, and papers, all of which are pretty widely cited, both formally and informally. There's enough biographical details in fully independent reliable sources to make it so the article can have something to say and given the earlier is met, there's a number of computing-specific sources which I'd say are generally reliable to be able to get a decent article. (For example, right now [6] there's a citation needed for joining Microsoft in 2002. Given this is non-controversial, something like [7] plus [8] (for example) are more than sufficient for that biographical detail. Skynxnex (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G4 via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Syrian Air destinations Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of TUI Fly Netherlands destinations[edit]

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

No indication this would ever meet any notability guideline. WP:NOTDATABASE, WP:PROMO. Kleuske (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Netherlands. Kleuske (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page is created with the purpose to give a general overview of the current destinations of List of TUI Fly Netherlands destinations without the aim to promote or create a database for any business or organization, in particular this airline. In this case referring to any other airline which has a separate list of destinations, which is also part of the Wiki domain (for example List of Delta Air Lines destinations and List of Korean Air destinations. With the reasons mentioned, the page meet the notability guideline. Sources could be improved with external reliable sources who indicate the destinations list of this business. Elmo997 (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that sources have been added to the page to establish the list of destinations of this business. In addition as mentioned above, several airline businesses do have a list of destinations on Wiki, which has no direct link with building up a database, neither to promote or brand the business. Elmo997 (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (slightly selectively) into TUI fly Netherlands. The target is a rather short article and this information would belong there. This article is a not well developed spinout. The sentence that details what is not in the list should be deleted in the process. gidonb (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge fails WP:NLIST. 159.196.171.101 (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Fails WP:CORP and per reasons given previously in the multiple Airline destination AFDs which are listed/archived at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/AfD_record. Coastie43 (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Speedy Delete as per CSD#G4. This article is a direct recreation of the deleted article at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Syrian Air destinations AFD discussion. Coastie43 (talk) 09:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete' Fails WP:NCORP and is contrary to Wikipedia Terms of Use. WP:PROMO. It is not Wikipedias purpose to store content copied directly from a company website. scope_creep^Talk 09:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Scope creep --iMahesh (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul B. Murphy Jr.[edit]

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

I'm not convinced that this is a noteworthy banker because sources barely mentions him or he is giving interviews. Being a CEO of any bank is not an automatic WP:GNG pass and the reviewer deserves some trouting for accepting an UPE submitted draft. Emmanuel Oluwashina (talk) 12:09, 12 September 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 September 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see no evidence of paid editing. There were no peacock terms or promotional language in the article as submitted for approval. I can't say that this was or wasn't paid editing - can you?

I don't understand on what basis you accused the author on their talk page of paid editing: User talk:Aeonhuskyy.

Is creating an article about a CEO now prima facie evidence of paid editing?

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A red-linked user, with an account less than 6mths old, using perfectly formatted wikicode, yes, that's suspicious. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Where is the notability for finance, etc? We know he held several positions in banking, but so what? For someone in the banking industry, there should be more than just mentions of where he worked here and there. It tells us he's a retired person. Serving on any corporate board can often mean the person had a friend who brought them aboard - it doesn't tell us what he did on those boards. Being CEO (Chief Executive Officer) is more of an appointed position. Serving on boards is not necessarily indicative except he had friends who brought him aboard - doesn't say what he accomplished. — Maile (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The CEO runs the company.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know what a CEO does. I'm pretty familiar with the banking industry. CEO is still an appointed position, often appointed by a board of directors. But they're not just figureheads, and should be carrying their own weight. The article essentially says "he got this position, and then he got that position". So what? I'm not asking for a job profile of any of his positions ... but what his accomplishments were while he held those positions. — Maile (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that our article, Cadence Bank (1887–2021), notes that Cadence Bank in 2020 had assets of $18+ billion (U.S.) and earned half a billion. I don't know about your country but in my country, those are really big amounts of money. 1800 employees. He ran that company for 10 years.

Before that, Murphy ran Amegy Bank of Texas of Texas for 9 years. That was an $11 billion bank.

Notability does not end when someone retires.

--A. B. <n. sup>(talk • contribs • global count) 20:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my comment above to "Neutral", giving the benefit of the doubt to how this article is written. Where the real flaw is, in my opinion, is that it lists a lot of positions he's held - but it would be more convincing if at each institution it states how each bank benefited specifically from his leadership. Without those accomplishments, this looks like he got his positions because of having the right connections in the industry. — Maile (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would probably fall under NBUSINESSPEOPLE, source #5 is what we need, not perfect, but it's an article about the individual. The rest is about what the business does, not about him as a person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Problem is, source 5 is an interview. Rest of the sourcing is about Cadence Bank, not about Murphy himself. I can only find photos of him at charity events or the like, nothing for notability. Bank seems notable, not him personally. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also created by a red-linked user with no edits outside of this article. Not a smoking gun, but a red flag in AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 11:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gomer Pyle[edit]

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

Many sources in the article are primary, a quick Google search does not give any sources that prove individual notability. If the character is not notable, I suggest a redirect and/or merge to ~~List of The Andy Griffith Show characters~~ Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.. Spinixster (chat!) 07:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 07:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. characters#Private First Class Gomer Pyle. This character does not seem to have enough SIGCOV. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep "Gomer" or "Gomer Pyle" has become a slang term for "fool" in English. That suggests significance to me. I will see if I can find SIGCOV not already present in the article. Wow, that's a lot... Gomer Pyle and the Music of Southern Poverty Rural Comedy, Public Persona, and the Wavering Line Between Fiction and Reality [9] Gomer Questions Not all of these are suitable for use in the article, but they're there. Stumble, bumble, mumble: TV's image of the South When I use a word . . . Medical slang: gomers and gomerettesDarkfrog24 (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like notability only on one thing for me and can be easily merged into the show's legacy section. As for the sources...
- First and third sources are blogs and are thus unreliable.
- Southerncultures and Proquest source are just passing mentions on the show.
That leaves the medical slang source, which can be used for the legacy section, as I said, because that's not enough to prove the character's individual notability. Spinixster (chat!) 12:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this character was the lead on its own television show causes me to question whether it's appropriate to merge it into a list of characters on another show, which seems to have run for five seasons. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would think to merge it to Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C instead because it seems like the character is more popularized by it rather than The Andy Griffith Show. Spinixster (chat!) 02:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~Weak merge. My BEFORE suggests he may be notable due to his cultural impact (per cited BMJ scholarly article and some other sources above). Here's another good academic ref: “There Goes Old Gomer” Rural Comedy, Public Persona, and the Wavering Line Between Fiction and Reality. And Stumble, bumble, mumble: TV's image of the South. Granted, the first one is balancing on SIGCOV, and I couldn't (quickly) access the second one, but with what we have here already I amwas leaning keep. Ping me if anyone does a deeper dig in the sources and wants to dispute SIGCOV being met. PS. Changed from weak keep to abstain/leaning merge because I did not notice Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.. I am not sure if the characer has stand-alone notability separate from the show, this would require more reading than I have time dedicate. For those who want to vote keep and would like me to change my vote, please tell me which sources contain SIGCOV about the character, not the show? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources were already broken down by me above. Spinixster (chat!) 07:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the first one I link? I don't see it mentioned? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the second link Darkfrog gave. Spinixster (chat!) 09:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The problem with a merge is the target could be the character, the term, or the nickname in Full Metal Jacket. [10] So I don't see an obvious consensus for a merge target, so it has to be at least kept. The article could be trimmed and cleaned up, rather than being deleted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nickname in Full Metal Jacket seems to be based on the character. But either way, if it isn't notable, it shouldn't be kept (WP:N still applies here). An option would be merging the page into Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. and then making a disambiguation page, or just redirecting it fully to Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. instead. Spinixster (chat!) 10:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm looking at the discussion above, and it's like it's an exercise in how can we dismiss references one-by-one. Which makes it look quite a bit like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The character appeared not only initially on the Andy Griffith Show, but then was deemed worthy enough to be spun off to their own show which ran for 5 years. And also appeared in character on the very popular and renowned I Love Lucy and Carol Burnett shows. And as noted above, the name has entered the lexicon of language. See also: wikt:gomer#Etymology_3. - jc37 10:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37 Just because the character is the main character or has appeared in many other shows does not mean that they are notable on their own. Gomer Pyle the series may be notable, but not necessarily Gomer Pyle the character. See WP:N and WP:PAGEDECIDE. Spinixster (chat!) 11:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia. Even if something is popular, that does not mean it warrants a separate page. This character page can be easily merged into the Gomer Pyle series page. Spinixster (chat!) 11:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the series may be notable, does not mean the character is not notable. You're just doing a circular fallacy.

And all of Wikipedia could be merged into a single page. That does not mean that we should. And yes, I'm very well aware of WP:N, etc.

I'm watching you seemingly trying to dismiss things individually, rather than see the topic in the aggregate. And others above have shown you sources for notability. Our focus is our readers and what they might look for.

So yes, this really comes across as IDONTLIKEIT. - jc37 11:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37 Those sources talk more about the show of a similar name, I have dissected it above. And again, unless the character has individual notability, then they are not notable for a separate page. I have already said that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The whole article is 90% plot summaries and mentions of the character in popular culture. If you think the character is notable, please put forth sources that talk in depth about the character, don’t just say that “He is notable” and leave it at that. See WP:USEFUL. Spinixster (chat!) 13:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, you didn’t really say WP:USEFUL in the original comment, but WP:N also says that popularity does not equal to notability, so 🤷 Spinixster (chat!) 13:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JSYK, I have felt free to post sources for discussion here that I wouldn't necessarily use in the article itself. I am not upset that you pick them over one by one. I see that a bit like you thinking out loud. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.. I'm seeing signs of coverage. The threshold here is unclear, and there is a logical merge target if there is a consensus this shouldn't have a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Golly, he is a character in two notable series, The Andy Griffith Show and Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend As I've said above, being a character in two notable series does not mean that the character is notable individually. Spinixster (chat!) 09:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe being a regular on two well-known series does. See, for example, Lou Grant or Frasier Crane. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend That does not mean that the character is inherently notable. At least with Frasier's page (because I think Lou Grant's may not be as notable) it has clear WP:SIGCOV, so they're definitely notable, but with Gomer, there's not much. I have already said a lot, and I don't want to repeat myself, so please take a look above. Spinixster (chat!) 09:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the analysis of both Jc37 and Clarityfiend. I see no real question about notability, but I see it reasonable to consider navigation. The nomination suggests a merge/redirect to an Andy Griffith characters list, which while not without a reasonable basis, seems very unfortunate when considering the character played an important (23 episodes) but relatively minor role on that show and later had a much more prominent role on the highly successful show titled with the characters name. The list of Griffith show characters redirect is therefore IMO a total non-starter. To redirect/merge to the Gomer Pyle show is not unreasonable, although it would seem to minimize the characters impact beyond the TV shows. While I could support a redirect to the Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C., I think that the typical Wikipedia treatment of super-characters, as well as prominent businessmen, is to have articles both on the individual and their organization(s). Therefore I'm going with Keep. Jacona (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I forgot to do this, but I changed the original redirect target of the nom from list of The Andy Griffith Show characters to Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C.. I suggest all future voters take a look at what I've said above before voting. There may be another option to disambiguate the page to either refer to the character or the series. Spinixster (chat!) 11:29, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject meets WP:GNG with sources in the article including America on the Rerun and "When I use a word ... Medical slang: gomers and gomerettes". Further solid sources have been presented here. There are literally 80 years of sources to comb through, and a quick before shows that many of them provide sigcov as well. Here's a couple for good measure [11], [12]

While in some cases, even the most notable character could be merged to the benefit of readers, that clearly would not benefit readers here. Not only is this a character in two notable shows, but the character is arguably more notable than either show they appeared on for the breadth and depth of cultural impact. —siro χ o 03:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Breakdown of the sources below:

The first source has a chapter focusing on Gomer, Goober, and Howard that can be used. I don't know how useful it really is because it seems to mostly be a summary of the character's plotlines, which usually doesn't prove notability. The rest of the mentions seem to be passing.
The second source doesn't seem to mention the Andy Griffith show, let alone Gomer.

The America on the Rerun book seems to mention Gomer in passing; there is a dedicated chapter on the Andy Griffith Show, but it's mostly quotes from interviews and focuses more on the actor. Spinixster (chat!) 04:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, say that again, and then share with the room that you understand what the concepts of coverage and notability mean. It's tempting to be humorous about this, but I read your comments and you seem serious. - jc37 05:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of fictional elements is a hard subject, especially when you try to decide what is notable and what is not. WP:FICT does exist, but it doesn't go in depth enough. I myself have experience writing these pages, and I find that:

Sources on plotlines and trivia don't always prove the notability of fictional elements. Unless there are sources talking about a certain plot point from a real-world perspective, and that's on a case-by-case basis, I find it to be WP:CRUFT, even if there's a lot of coverage about it.
The character has to be notable in multiple aspects. In this case, "Gomer" has become a slang for idiot, and its use is common within popular culture, but that's just one thing, so unless there's more, it fails WP:SUSTAINED.

Of course, this is just a flexible idea, and it may change in the future. Spinixster (chat!) 07:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Full Metal Jacket character (not to mention other characters, common insults/slang, etc.) is named after him because it's (or maybe it was) a ubiquitous cultural touchstone. One of the most famous characters on US television (I would be surprised if there were anyone in the US over ~45 that hadn't heard of Gomer Pyle). In addition to sources already found, we'd need to dig through pre-digital sources (unfortunately my newspapers.com subscription doesn't seem to be working at the moment). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:23, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites, you can access Newspapers.com via WP:TWL if you have access to it. I wish you luck in finding information, but do try to find sources that talk about the character in a real-world perspective. Spinixster (chat!) 13:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I think that last phrase was a bit much. We're all Wikipedians here, and how long we've been editors shouldn't matter much, but still when I look at your contribs and you've been around for all of 3 years, and Rhododendrites for 16 years. We all are expressing our opinions here, based upon sources. And you seem to have a rather different interpretation of policy than I've seen. But whatever, that last comment was a bit much. I was surprised above by your comments, but seriously, wow at this last one. You couldn't me rolling my eyes. But I was... - jc37 14:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This makes me think I didn't understand Spinixster's comment, which I interpreted to be an odd application of SIGCOV or something. And yes, it's when I try to access the account I have on newspapers via TWL is when it doesn't work. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was just giving out a tip. I didn't mean it in a harsh way and English is not my first language so sorry if that was what you read it as. Spinixster (chat!) 14:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. For future reference, it was the "...but do try..." that lent rather emphasis to the phrase, telling a long term Wikipedian something rather obvious, that made your words sound rather bad, to say the least. - jc37 18:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Wikipedia:Systemic bias, and WP:RECENTISM, might be worth reading, along with Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source. - jc37 18:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Gomer is too recognizable and well known for his page to get deleted. It’s like deleting the page for Peter Griffin. Scratchu90 (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have anything else to say other than WP:JN? Per that page, it's not useful just to say he's notable without explaining why and/or giving sources that prove notability. Spinixster (chat!) 02:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Julian Price[edit]

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

The sources cited are mostly articles written by him (i.e. not independent). This may be independent, but is extremely brief. This is reasonably in-depth, but not independent. From what I can see, they are quite some way from meeting the requirements of WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and United Kingdom. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 15:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Couldn't find SIGCOV on him in RS either, and it's been a minor struggle with the article creator to move it on from this sort of thing to something resembling a neutral article, suggesting UPE. Wikishovel (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Garbett[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a film producer, not properly sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for film producers. As always, film producers are not "inherently" notable just because they and their work exist, and have to show external validation of their significance in third party reliable sources -- but two of the three "references" are his own LinkedIn and his IMDb profile, which are not notability-building sources, and the only third-party source is a single article in a minor local-interest magazine, which isn't enough to singlehandedly vault him over GNG all by itself if it's the only starter source on the table.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 20 September 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) 15:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFILMMAKER and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there is no source about the subject other than two unreliable sources, Egeymi (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Latter Day Saints and Utah. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wētā Workshop. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Falconer[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a "creature, costume, armour, weapon and prop designer", not properly sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for artists or film crew. The sole notability claim stated here is that he and his work exist, and the sole source is a book about a film series that he worked on, which likely mentions his name in passing but isn't strongly enough about him to carry him over GNG all by itself if it's the only reference on offer.
And while there is an inbound from another article about an award presented by a science fiction convention which this article has failed to note, "notability because award" does not automatically attach to just any award that exists: it requires the award to be one that media cover as news for the purposes of establishing that award's cultural significance, and does not attach to awards that require you to depend on the award's own self-published content about itself for sourcing (but even that award's article is depending 9/10 on self-published primary sourcing rather than third party media coverage).
So the award still isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt this person from having to have more and better sourcing than just a brief mention in one book about something else. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Film, and New Zealand. Skynxnex (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage outside of TheOneRing.net, which is not a RS. "Being known" for something without sourcing to back up that statement is not helpful for notability in Wikipedia. I can't find anything about him. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge into Wētā Workshop - people WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wētā Workshop – no indication of standalone notability. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 11:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MultiBank Group[edit]

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

Paid article, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. – bradv 16:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 15:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find anything relevant on my end either. Best was an interview. No comment on the CU stuff, obviously. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking WP:CORPDEPTH and there's no way you can build a decent encyclopaedia entry from press releases and Nasdaq listings.Expressive101 (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Sophie Nyweide[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Beyond two movie reviews in the NYTimes, no coverage found. Delete for lack of sourcing, BLP is not met. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NYT and other reviews are mostly bare mentions without significant coverage. I also found [13] but it's a single source, basically just an interview, and framed as a local human interest story, all things that could be counted against it as an RS for notability purposes. More coverage is needed for a BLP. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dominion Herbal College. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Nowell[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Medicine, and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Redirecting to the college he founded would seem possible. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the college. A founder of a university may be notable via WP:PROF criteria about university presidents, etc. but an online search suggests that this article will never be more than this stub and mentions of him seem to come not from the mainstream herbalist community but from fringe views ("Cure any disease with Cayanne Pepper," etc.) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dominion Herbal College (which appears to have pretty terrible referencing btw) as an alternative to deletion. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Nolan[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, United Kingdom, and Wales. UtherSRG (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, considering I tried to speedy delete the article a couple of years ago, which was only reverted on the basis the article had been around a while. Time for the article to go, no evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST Sionk (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added a couple of citations, but this is still some pretty thin stuff. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Seems to be a popular contemporary artist but I was able to find very little coverage. A couple of intervierws [14] [15], and some coverage of a family tragedy [16] [17] but not enough for a BLP, IMHO. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NihongoUp[edit]

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

WP:GNG failure. COI creation by the software's developer. No hits at all with WP:VG/S's reliable source search, though that's understandable. Google News search finds nothing at all. Most basic google results are database entries, blogs, or written by the developer as well. Both of the current sources were commissions (acknowledged by the sources) by the developer. The reward, from "divita.eu" for "Best Game" in the Student category? Was issued by the developer as well. -- ferret (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Education. -- ferret (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero sourcing found for this item of software. Perhaps some in Japanese-language media, but the fact that it has no article in Jp-wiki doesn't leave me hopeful. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like it was created to promote the creator's product rather than because it was notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lance A. Slatton[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an "influencer, healthcare innovator, author, journalist and host", not properly sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for any of those occupations. As always, Wikipedia is not a free LinkedIn alternative on which people are entitled to have articles just because they exist -- meeting our inclusion test requires passing WP:GNG on third party reliable source coverage about their work in order to establish its significance.
But the main notability claim here is that he exists, eight of the nine footnotes are primary sources (staff or contributor profiles on the self-published websites of companies or organizations he's directly affiliated with, directory entries, press releases, etc.) that are not support for notability, and the one footnote that does come from a third party source is a fluff piece in a minor local-interest magazine that reads more like an advertorial than a real piece of objective journalism, and thus is not sufficient to singlehandedly vault him over GNG all by itself if all the rest of the sourcing is garbage.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Michigan. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for this person. Gnews has an article about an Elvis impersonator, a man that attacked people with a sword and stuff about crop production levels. None of which help here. What's used for sourcing in the article is primary or promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NBIO, found little to no third party coverage.-KH-1 (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per those above. The article on his podcast All Home Care Matters should probably also be deleted given it is referenced by press releases and non-independent sources. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 02:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saukko[edit]

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

No dab page needed if it is just two things. A simple hatnote would apply. Llammakey (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's three things (a person and two ships). I reinstated a vessel that had been deleted. Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep three's a crowd. Skynxnex (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, seems like a valid disambig page. - Indefensible (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tregynrig[edit]

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

Per coordinates, this is not a hamlet but a farm with a few buildings (the exact coordinates come up under the name "Thomas N". Does not appear to meet notability criteria, other sources fail to confirm notability. Kazamzam (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found except listings for a beach cottage and misleading WP-scraped content (a perfect illustration of why articles for such nonexistent locales should be deleted). Only source is Google Maps, which is a red flag as they source data from WP, among other places, leading to a possibility of circular referencing. Could just as easily be a copyright trap for all we know. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does exist but its not an OS settlement[18] (it only shows "[other features]" rather than "[Other Settlement]") so probably doesn't pass GEOLAND and could be merged with Llanbadrig. The Welsh Wikipedia article doesn't contain anything substantial. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Cemaes which a couple of real estate sites treat it as a synonym of. It is called a "family-run farm"[19] and a "620 acre holding"[20] both of which indicate it is not a settlement covered by GEOLAND. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mouth Sweet[edit]

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

I tagged this for notability while gnoming about, and the article creator came back to the talk page to agree that they did not feel notability was met now that they were more experienced. The article has 8 sources. Only the 8th is a reliable secondary source that says anything significant, and it's a listicle of 10 games chosen by "Colin Spacetwinks" for Giant Bomb. Sources 1 and 3 are primary, while sources 2 is likely unreliable. Sources 4, 6 and 7 are probably unreliable, but also non-independent interviews. Source 5's reliability is irrelevant, as it's a trivial name drop. WP:VG/S uncovers nothing more. -- ferret (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No game reviews that I can see in any of the acceptable sources. TV Tropes is about the best site with a review I can find and it's not an RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creator Delete No objection here. Open and shut to me that there's not enough reliable sources. I'll look into source discussions for the potentially unreliable sites that remain unconfirmed. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There does not seem to be enough mentions in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Association for Cave Diving[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, United States of America, and Florida. UtherSRG (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pet peeve of mine, could you maybe try and follow WP:AFDLIST, specifically "To avoid confusing newcomers, the reasons given for deletion should avoid Wikipedia-specific acronyms." AFD is one of the first "behind the scenes" places many new users ancounter, and a nomination like this is not goinjg to be coherent to them. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above point aside, it does appear that the article is sourced almost entirely to the organization itself, and the problem was noted shortly after it was created thirteen years ago. That seems like more than enough time, and what appears to have been done instead is to simply expand the coverage of the organizations programs based on their own materials. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha Erotica[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously deleted through AFD (Articles for Deletion) under the following discussion: [21]. It was determined that the subject fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:MUSICBIO. The primary source of information about Ayesha Erotica can be found here: [22]. However, it is worth noting that the majority of the sources available are considered trivial and do not provide substantial coverage of the subject. DSP2092^talk 12:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and California. DSP2092^talk 12:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In fairness, there has been a development since the first AfD nine months ago (in which I voted). Ms. Erotica has been mentioned a few times by Kim Petras who claims to be a fan. But otherwise, Ms. Erotica still appears only very briefly in articles about people with whom she has a tangential professional connection, especially Slayyyter, with whom she collaborated just once. None of those media mentions are about Ms. Erotica herself or describe her music in any fashion. And finally, one thing has not changed since last time: Ms. Erotica is trying to generate publicity by not making music as some sort of social statement. Good luck with that, but it won't generate reliable media coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ayesha Erotica has expressed and announced her return to music, along with the release in an new album sometime in September. 2603:8000:7643:9EF0:2818:9FC9:C74:B53C (talk) 07:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody in reliable media has reported on that either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per DOOMSAYER520. I agree that this article demonstrates a development since the previous AfD, but also agree this is not a MUSICBIO pass, and per the above reasoning, that woin't change unless and until the artist makes music again (and Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Even if she intends to make music again, the notability will be recognised when she does so and the reception of the music meets notability guidelines). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tadashi Nakamura (martial artist)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Martial arts, Japan, United States of America, and New York. UtherSRG (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject and does not meet criteria for WP:GNG. Lethweimaster (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Pearlman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Promotional in nature and references are suspect. Whitemancanjump23 (talk) 05:42, 6 September 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 September 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has existed since 2009 and appears adequately referenced to confirm notability. I removed hyperlinks. David notMD (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Massachusetts. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prob Delete - I could be wrong because a) my searches are not coming up with much due to several people having the same name and b) the sources on the page being IMO pretty poor. However, my guess is that the coverage is weak. I'm open to changing my mind if a keep !voter shows me some sources that unambiguously meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with JMWt's reasoning. The referencing relies heavily on non-RS, such as podcasts on iTunes and PR, as well as the subjects own work. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a resume, don't see the SIGCOV in RS needed to establish N. Fails GNG Jacona (talk) 18:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naked Truth (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of notability; not clear why this has been kept despite two previous nominations. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Georgia (U.S. state). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The two previous AfD discussions refer to sources named in the first deletion discussion. One source mentioned is the Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music. However, a search on Google Books suggests that the bands only has a single throwaway mention in the entire book. Also mentioned is the Encyclopedia of Popular Music, which mentions the band a single times in what again appears to be a throwaway mentioning without significant coverage of the band. There are three additions mentions of "Naked Truth" or "The Naked Truth", but those appear to be two films from 1957 and 1992, not the band. A user also brought up that the band apparently has released two albums with Sony Records, but I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources confirming that, or indicating notability of those albums. Kerrang, a magazine, apparently covered the band, but I was unable to find the respective article and/or confirm that their coverage there is significant.

The article received a refimprove tag in 2012, and in that decade, editors have failed to bring up sources that significantly cover the band. This article only seems to be around because of some single-line mentions in two books and .WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES Cortador (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked offline since coverage would predate the internet and found only a Melody Maker review. JSFarman (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Independence Building[edit]

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

Only one Independence Building in this set index. The rest are various kinds of buildings named Independence, i.e. partial matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:PARTIAL Only one entry contains the word "building". "Independence" is a common word and not determinate by itself. — Maile (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - only one title listed here is actually called "independence building". WJ94 (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator‎, who wants to try discussion on talk page first. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Hood[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and violates WP:SPORTSCRIT #5.

While an impressive effort, this article is better suited to a genealogy book than Wikipedia; the subject, while having a few dozen passing mentions over the years, lacks the significant and independent coverage required to construct a Wikipedia article. As a consequence of this, we see the article go into excessive background detail to fill it out - detail that we would normally expect to omit.

Of the 80 references, 36 don't mention Leslie Hood in any way, and several more refer to him only indirectly as "son" or "brother". Of the remainder, the majority are not only just passing mentions, but such trivial passing mentions that his name is only included in a list.

This can be seen in the following source analysis table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=RRShAQAAQBAJ&pg=PAPG130&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false			Significant coverage of Landau, No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=VRMtAQAAMAAJ&pg=PAPA771&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false	Primary source		no significant coverage - mention on a list	✘ No
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=xF0rAwAAQBAJ&pg=PAPP147&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false			Significant coverage of his brother, William Wells Hood, No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://archive.org/details/1900olympicgames00mall/page/162/mode/2up			No significant coverage of Hood, only mentioned in a list of players as "L Hood"	✘ No
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015020212380&seq=874&q1=Hood			No significant coverage of Hood, only mentioned in a list of Taylor Bro's and Co employees	✘ No
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924104258136&seq=205			His maternal grandfather is mentioned in a list; no mention of him	✘ No
https://archive.org/details/b28053382/page/58/mode/2up	Consists of a letter from him, and a table of his physical measurements		~ Letter might be significant coverage, although it doesn't focus on Leslie, but it lacks independence	✘ No
https://www.alpinejournal.org.uk/Contents/Contents_1908_files/AJ%201908%20Vol%2024%20287-292%20AC%20Proceedings.pdf#page=3	Club publication writing about its members		Passing mention, only says that he and two others were balloted and elected members of the club	✘ No
https://www.alpinejournal.org.uk/Contents/Contents_1948_files/AJ56%201948%20386-402%20In%20Memoriam.pdf#page=20	Club publication writing about its members		Significant (though not independent) coverage of his brother; only a passing mention of him, saying "His younger brother, Leslie Hood, was also a member of the Club (elected 1908) and died in 1932 (A.J. 44· 329)."	✘ No
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1243/JILE_PROC_1920_010_060_02?journalCode=jila			No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://archive.org/details/sim_the-lancet_1870-03-05_2427/page/362/mode/2up			Non-significant mention of the marriage of his parents, No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://archive.org/details/thelancet18982/page/n1337/mode/2up			Non-significant mention of the marriage of his sister, No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000687/19540114/065/0004	Paid advertisement		No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k423824s/f644.item			Game recap; considered WP:ROUTINE that doesn't contribute to notability per WP:NSPORTS. Only mention of Hood being "No, because Gautier sets off on a lightning sprint and reaches L. Hood 2 metres from the goal."	✘ No
https://issuu.com/stpetersyorkalumni/docs/10-85_apr_1890/10	School magazine	?	Passing mention in a list of team members	✘ No
https://issuu.com/stpetersyorkalumni/docs/12-113_dec_1894/4	School magazine	?	Game recap; considered WP:ROUTINE that doesn't contribute to notability per WP:NSPORTS. Not significant coverage, with only a passing mention in the recap ("Hood also got a try, which C. Whincup converted") and a mention in a list of players	✘ No
https://issuu.com/stpetersyorkalumni/docs/12-114_jan_1895/6	School magazine	?	Game recap; considered WP:ROUTINE that doesn't contribute to notability per WP:NSPORTS. Not significant coverage, with only a few passing mentions in the recap.	✘ No
https://issuu.com/stpetersyorkalumni/docs/24-253_jul_1926/58	School magazine, writing an obituary on one of its former students	?	No significant coverage as it is an obituary of his father and only mentions him in passing ("His four sons were all Peterites, and were all in the School at the same time while in recent years his two grandsons, R. H. and C. Metcalfe were also with us")	✘ No
https://issuu.com/stpetersyorkalumni/docs/26-272_dec_1932/8	School magazine, writing an obituary on one of its former students	?		✘ No
https://issuu.com/stpetersyorkalumni/docs/40-319_oct_1948/14	School magazine, writing an obituary on one of its former students	?	Doesn't mention Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002627/19130208/381/0067			Passing mention; "The winners were Miss chio and Mr L. Hood".	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002627/19160304/469/0080			Passing mention; "France: Mr Hood, blue satin Pierrot" and "second place to Mr Hood and Miss Muckelt."	✘ No
https://www.yrc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/YRCJ-2-6-1904-5.pdf#page=46	Published by a club he was a member of	?	Mentioned only in a list of newly elected members	✘ No
https://www.familyhistory.bdm.qld.gov.au/details/b15dd3592cb448d4d960e7481e73fc9cc5d8327236ef85f77b0d1949c0671f8c			No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://www.cresta-run.com/about-the-smtc/history-of-the-club/			No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Darlington_Forge_Co		?	No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://manchestervictorianarchitects.org.uk/index.php/buildings/ice-palace-derby-street-cheetham-manchester		?	No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://www.museotorino.it/view/s/1e9d3aef61e24c96bb7f78f41d432066		?	No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://livesonline.rcseng.ac.uk/client/en_GB/lives/search/detailnonmodal/ent:$002f$002fSD_ASSET$002f0$002fSD_ASSET:378126/one?qu=%22RCS%3A+E005943%22&rt=false%7C%7C%7CIDENTIFIER%7C%7C%7CResource+Identifier	A college of surgeons writing about one of their members is not an independent source.		No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://www.warwickandwarwick.com/resources/articles-library/unique-boer-war-world-war-i-dso-group-to-rnas-armoured-car-squadron	Auction listing of the belongings of his brother	Auction listing	No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
World Rugby 2020 - https://www.world.rugby/news/575375/five-forgotten-facts-about-first-ever-olympic-crunch			No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://www.calmview.eu/SheffieldArchives/CalmView/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=ESC%2F31			No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
Master of the Supreme Court 1933	Estate documents		? Not available online	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000033/19000120/029/0009			No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Perspective:%201900%20Olympic%20file%20-%20Mystery%20of%20the%20Olympic%20team%20from...-a065476854			Passing mention only in a list of players	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000764/19540116/003/0003			No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0003369/19001103/088/0006			Passing mention only in a list of players	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000337/19001011/027/0003			No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000385/18961113/158/0008			No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/BL/0004909/19040903/003/0003			Not significant coverage; "Leslie Hood of Lond, who did not appear, on the evidenoe of PO Noakes fined 10s for indecent bathing in the river Wey on afternoon August 21st"	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000183/19110629/189/0011			Passing mention only; "Mr. Leslie Hood was best man to his brother."	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002446/19020111/314/0049			Passing mention only in a list of players	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002446/19110225/244/0053			Passing mention only; "The Bott Handicap took place on the 15th and attracted fourteen starters; it was won by Mr Kempton Cannon, who beat his own record in his last course, and thus just managed to defeat Mr L. Hood by 2 sec. on three courses."	✘ No
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k2853078/f3.item			No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0004660/18971002/126/0006			No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0003066/19001103/103/0006			Passing mention only in a list of players	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000206/19121202/113/0009			Game recap; considered WP:ROUTINE that doesn't contribute to notability per WP:NSPORTS. , No signficant coverage; limited to two short sentence, the second of which he shared with two other players: "For a short period Mancehster were without Leslie Hood, who recieved a nasty cut on the bridge of his nose. The feature of the game, apart from the display of Dr. Bythell, was the splendid form shown by Hood, both before and after his accident, he often pentrating the London defences, and the excellent work of Haig on the Prince's side."	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/BL/0000206/19130310/089/0010			Passing mention only, "The other placings were: Miss Muckelt and Mr. Hood, 2; Miss and Mr. Wood, 3; Miss and Mr. Marshall, 4; Miss Irwin and Mr. Cormack, 5."	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/BL/0000272/19270926/004/0004			Primary source; court reporting on his conviction for dangerous driving with analysis or other components that would make it secondary. Longer than most other sources, but being primary prevents it from contirbuting to notability.	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000272/19301029/007/0007			Passing mention only in a team list	✘ No
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/150797163			No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k4127941s/f2.item			No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k4130447n/f6.item			No significant coverage; "Dr. N. L. Hood, of London, and his two brothers, who have been at the Bear for about a fortnight, have climbed about every peak in the immediate region: among others, the Matterhorn, Jungfrau, Moncli, Eiger and Finsteraarhom." - Leslie Hood isn't even mentioned by name, and it's possible it was the other two brothers	✘ No
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19120110.2.29.1			No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19240603.2.22			No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBH19240604.2.81			No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0004049/19480410/108/0009			No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://www.retronews.fr/journal/le-soleil/18-decembre-1898/661/1817807/2			No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/BL/0000653/19001110/008/0002			No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000893/18981003/063/0003			Passing mention only in a list of players	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000893/18991130/003/0001			Passing mention in a list of people from Middlesex awarded a prize, saying "Leslie Hood (extra prize)" - he appears to have come ninth	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000893/19000120/140/0006			Passing mention only in a list of players	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000893/19000122/138/0008			No mention of Hood	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/BL/0000893/19010208/069/0004			Game recap; considered WP:ROUTINE that doesn't contribute to notability per WP:NSPORTS. Not significant coverage; two sentences in a game recap.	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0001055/19120201/095/0006			Passing mention only; "L. Hood (a very powerful wing three-quarter)"	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000437/18961009/061/0002			Game recap; considered WP:ROUTINE that doesn't contribute to notability per WP:NSPORTS. Not significant coverage; two sentences in a game recap.	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000437/18971008/036/0002			Game recap; considered WP:ROUTINE that doesn't contribute to notability per WP:NSPORTS. Not significant coverage; single passing mention in a game recap.	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/BL/0000437/18980401/049/0002			Game recap; considered WP:ROUTINE that doesn't contribute to notability per WP:NSPORTS. Not significant coverage; single passing mention in a game recap.	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000437/19080320/109/0007	Written by his club		No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/BL/0000632/18941005/058/0003			Passing mention only in a list of players	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000499/18720622/047/0008	Paid advertisement		No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/BL/0000499/18760916/143/0005	Paid advertisement; not independent.		No significant coverage; only mentioned as "a son".	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000500/18910514/059/0007			Passing mention only. Was a child at the time of the report; WP:YOUNGATH also applies	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000500/18940202/004/0002			Passing mention in a list of graduating children only	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000632/18930429/049/0003			No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000266/18941222/033/0008			Passing mention in a list of children given school awards	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000687/19311114/379/0012			Passing mention in a list of resigning directors	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000687/19321212/046/0002	Paid advertisement		Passing mention	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000687/19321212/046/0002	?		Not significant coverage; announcement that his estate was worth £9,507	✘ No
https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000687/19341113/315/0007			No mention of Leslie Hood	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

BilledMammal (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Ice hockey, Rugby league, and United Kingdom. BilledMammal (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of Bob Short[edit]

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

Either not notable or needs a rename. For example, the ESPN source[23] doesn't even mention Bob Short, while the first source, Defector[24] doesn't mention a "curse". Looking for better sources gave only 6 Google Hits in total[25] (!), which for such a high profile sport in the US is ridiculously low. Fram (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and Texas. Fram (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a lack of reliable sources demonstrates there is no notable topic for a "curse of Bob Short". – Muboshgu (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Rangers are the very definition of an 'okay' baseball team and the 2011 team needed better pitching in that Game 6 situation; it has nothing to do with their former owner or the move of their franchise, and this is all fanlore. It's more like 'the curse of mediocre ownership through decades' (and really bad contracts) than one guy's curse. Nate • (chatter) 16:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- After close comment two months later Even if there was proof of the curse, it now no longer applies...did I un-curse the Rangers?! 😂 Nate • (chatter) 04:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Check weigher. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In-motion scale[edit]

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

I think this article may be redundant:

We have an article for checkweigher, and the in-motion scale article says is in-motion scales are "also known as" checkweighers. The checkweigher article says that automatic checkweighers are also known as in-motion scales. The checkweigher article is the older of the two, and it has sources.

What do you think? HenryMP02 (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Checkweigher and redirect to Weigh in motion. From some cursory searches, I can't actually find much use of people calling checkweighers in-motion scales online. More often, this seems to refer to a completely different device used to weigh trucks. Since that's the more common name, either a redirect with a hatnote 'or' potentially a disambiguation page would be sufficient. Definitely not worth the duplicate page though, since I can't find any distinction and duplicate pages are discouraged. Aamri2 (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Aamri2 (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Merge with Check weigher.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Check weigher. There's no point in having two articles on the same subject, and of the two, check-weigher is in much better shape. There is really no material here that needs to be merged. I don't favour redirecting to Weigh in motion as this is a completely different application and scenario. Better to treat that as a "see also". Elemimele (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have contradictor guidance here on Merge and Redirection. Just seeking an opinion or two to settle this difference of opinion on target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to checkweigher, that seems like the more reasonable option to me. I don't really see much that would be worth merging. Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 10:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to checkweigher makes perfect sense to me. Jacona (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Possible renames can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2–0 lead is the worst lead[edit]

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

I'm just not sure how this merits an article per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and I don't think the terminology passes WP:GNG either. Primary argument is INDISCRIMINATE, however. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Ice hockey. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep: Sources cited appear to be non-trivial and reliable (some of them, anyway). I concur that WP doesn't need an article about every idea anyone has ever had but that isn't the standard around here. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the sources are now dead links or were self published, but the remainder include reliable outlets and show this meets GNG. Sure it's a cliché and we don't need articles about every phrase (e.g. if it could be a glossary entry), but this one cuts across multiple sports, has sources in multiple languages, and includes refutations of its premise. That seems worth having a short article about. The nomination seems to be more WP:IDONTLIKEIT than anything that falls under INDISCRIMINATE. Modest Genius ^talk 10:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sourcing seems to be sufficient to show notability. I might instead suggest a rename to e.g. 2–0 lead in sports or similar? Giant Snowman 20:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Clear topic of imterest with sourc.es Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 05:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Article clearly demonstrates notability. The Kip 00:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Robbery Under Arms#Film, TV, or theatrical adaptations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robbery Under Arms (1943 radio adaptation)[edit]

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

A 1943 Australian radio adaptation of an 1882 novel, there is no evidence that the adaptation was in any way notable or had any enduring impact or RS coverage beyond programming announcements. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Australia. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Robbery Under Arms § Film, TV, or theatrical adaptations as WP:ATD. Perhaps rename the target section to just "Adaptations". —siro χ o 06:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Siroxo suggests. We shouldn't be removing information currently in a notability-requiring pigeonhole when there is another pigeonhole it can usefully fit in instead. Thincat (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BC Rail#CN era (2004– ). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moran, British Columbia[edit]

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

Non-notable railway point. –dlthewave ☎ 04:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. –dlthewave ☎ 04:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to BC Rail#CN era (2004– ). Thryduulf (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gauthier, Ontario#Northlands Park. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Northlands Park, Ontario[edit]

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

Non-notable railway point. –dlthewave ☎ 04:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. –dlthewave ☎ 04:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gauthier, Ontario#Northlands Park --papageno (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chandramukhi. I don't see a clear consensus here but I'm closing it as Redirect as I don't think it needs a third relisting. If someone feels that it's appropriate to Merge some content, feel free as long as there is attribution. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chandramukhi (fictional character)[edit]

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

First and foremost, see Wikipedia:Notability and fiction. This page adds nothing that is not in Chandramukhi or Chandramukhi 2. Most, if not all, of this article is only about the first film. This character is not original because the first film Chandramukhi is a remake of Manichitrathazhu (1993) and Apthamitra (The 2005 Tamil film is a scene-to-scene remake of this 2004 Kannada film by the same director).

Note: This move is a direct response to the consensus at Talk:Chandramukhi_(fictional_character)#Requested move 26 August 2023. Do the originals not matter? See the awards won at Manichitrathazhu#Awards, Shobana#Awards_and_recognitions and Apthamitra#Awards.

For context, watch these two videos [26] and [27]. They came before this [28] which regards the article in question. The article was not written based on those characters since they only had one film appearance which makes me wonder why the third version/second remake version is notable. DareshMohan (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is about a well known character in Indian film industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.185.219.179 (talk) 07:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chandramukhi. No reception section, just casting information. I don't think that's sufficient, casting is more related to the actors/movie. Ditto for awards, it's not like the character won them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: When created, it should've been Nagavalli as that is the O.G. and most notable version. This adds nothing beyond what we already have in Chandramukhi and its sequel. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chandramukhi, which the article is primarily focused around at the moment. It's pretty clear from the deletion rationale that there's a bit of a content dispute going on here, so if lacking a merge consensus, keep pending a consensus around how to handle the topic. —siro χ o 04:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Chandramukhi (character) which is about a completely different character. Perhaps redirect this to that? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can add disambiguation/hatnotes as necessary. —siro χ o 05:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom. Beside, the creator is not P. Vasu, as it is a remake with only the name changed. Now, if someone creates an article for the original Nagavalli who appeared in four films with the same name and portrayed by four actresses, then we will have two articles for the same character.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Known to be a prominent character in the Kollywood film industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavya.Subramaniam (talk • contribs) 06:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Request admins not to consider the views of a sock, whose comments are similar to this IP's here: 101.185.219.179 Kailash29792 (talk) 08:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank:@Kailash29792: How about a redirect to Chandramukhi#Production where there exists info/picture about this character?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dandenong Thunder SC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George Andrews Reserve[edit]

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

Fails GNG and GEOFEAT. Except a single external link to the obviously non-RS and rotten My Space link, this article is completely unsourced. My before search found trivial mentions (e.g., 1) and non-SIGCOV listings (e.g., from the local council). As such, I am proposing a redirect to Dandenong Thunder SC. However, a previous BLAR was contested (see history), and a previous incorrect A7 tag was declined, so AfD is better than BLARing again. I am surprised that this also passed NPP. VickKiang (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. VickKiang (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Australia. Skynxnex (talk) 04:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Article doesn't currently meet GNG and I can't find any substantial sources. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 09:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dandenong Thunder SC as possible search term. Giant Snowman 19:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Badly constructed article, as the article should be about the whole reserve, the nominator posted the link [29] which shows this should be a WP:GEONATURAL, WP:GEOPURP article. Article needs a total rewrite. Govvy (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But both GEONATURAL and GEOPURP still require proper sources, which we're still not seeing. The link there is a database listing from the local government, so doesn't really count for anything. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 23:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think WP:GEONATURAL applies since this appears to be a sports reserve with mainly artificial features outlined in the facilities (Basketball Court, Pavilion,Picnic Area, Playground, Public toilet, Soccer Fields, Tennis Court), so IMO GEOFEAT applies more, which requires a GNG pass, instead applies. I agree that natural reserves and natural parks should be evaluated using GEONATURAL, but this is not one of that case. VickKiang (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you've not been down there, seen the trail, woodland, birds, wildlife etc? It's a massive area. Govvy (talk) 08:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is the fact that I've not been down there relevant? (btw I had a look at Google Maps at a scale of 200m and got a completely different impression that it's a "huge area"). But in any case, reliable sourcing meeting SIGCOV is required to meet both GNG, GEOFEAT, and even if we apply GEONATURAL the sourcing I can find are IMO inadequate. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 00:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we do apply GEONATURAL, that doesn't guarantee notability. It just says these features are often notable. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 07:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 programmes broadcast by Big Magic#Mythological series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maa Shakti (2017 TV series)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2022 DonaldD23 talk to me 02:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Mythology, and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programmes broadcast by Big Magic#Mythological series, where the series is listed.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 02:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Mason (wrestler)[edit]

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

Despite the length of this Wikipedia article, apart from a claim to have been interviewed for a 1990s book, this wrestler seems completely unnoticed by the media. The article is entirely cited to a wrestling stats website. I can't find any coverage online, apart from an occasional mention in relation to an event. Wikipedia isn't the place for fan pages, time for this article to go IMO. Sionk (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will do a research, maybe I can find something. The issue is that British wrestling has been very popular in the last years, so many wrestlers get articles. Sad part, reliable sources doesn't cover them, so probably, many of them will have their articles deleted. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly an unhelpful and misplaced level of enthusiasm to write articles on Wikipedia, but that's not matched by any strong evidence of being popular, outside of niche websites. Sionk (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references in the article are, as per the sources section of WP:PW, not reliable. A Google search turns up various social media hits and non-independant sources. If the references were removed, then there would be none left. Thereby the article doesn't even pass even GNG. ArcAngel (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only hits on people with similar names, nothing found for this wrestler. Sourcing used in the article is mostly red, orange or not identified per sourcebot, so not helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Dench[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He's a young professional at Charlton Athletic and is reliant. There are links included in the page that show him signing for the club and he has also made his full first team debut for the team. Not sure why he is being considered for deletion. SKennedy157 (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not reliant. I meant relevant. SKennedy157 (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 20:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft seems to have played at the U21 event, but isn't quite at notability. Confirmation he's signed with Charlton, that's about the extent of the sourcing I find. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Not quite notable yet, but likely to meet GNG at some point in the future. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 15:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

S.G. Public School[edit]

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

Previously declined speedy otherwise I would have prodded this. Only a primary source provided. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uttar Pradesh. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks references to support. - Indefensible (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet NSCHOOL — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of United States political families (N). Feel free to Merge content to other relevant articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson family[edit]

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

Prodded by IceBergYYC with "See WP:NOTGENEALOGY, only significant source discussing the family as a whole is arguably primary." and removed by author. I would agree that the main source, [30], a family member's own work building a family tree, is not independent or adequately reliable. The other sources are about individuals, not the family as a whole. The notable members are several generations apart and likely did not know each other, so this is really just a non-notable genealogy page rather than a cohesively notable family discussed together. Reywas92^Talk 01:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I'm allowed to nominate a template here, but also nominating Template:Nelson family. The people listed here are merely distant cousins of each other so a navbox is not warranted. Reywas92^Talk 01:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failure of GNG and NOTGENEALOGY. Depending on your definition of a list, failure of WP:NLIST as well. IceBergYYC (talk) 01:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of United States political families (N) I'm not seeing any sources that establish the notability of the family to warrant a separate article. Since many of the members were politicians, I think that merging to this list of other political families is a valid ATD. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The notable ones were second cousins of each other, not sure that belongs as a "political family" where most listed are more closely related. Reywas92^Talk 14:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the proposed merge target and other letters, there are several people listed whose relationship is given only as "cousin" (no indication of to what degree of kinship). Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really evident that the Nelson family has formed a cohesive unit (passing down resources, influence etc.) except in the strictly genealogical sense. Choess (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to determine whether to Delete or selectively Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to either Polycarpus Nelson or perhaps List of United States political families (N). Best to use an ATD here to save history because many of the minor (verifiable) details could be useful an across a variety of biographies. —siro χ o 03:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fenton Communications[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This PR firm fails WP:COMPANY. Independent reliable sources are lacking. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, California, New York, and Washington, D.C.. Skynxnex (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Was not expecting coverage in the New York Times [31] but it's there. Company profile in a book for internships [32] and this [33]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That NYT "article" is labeled advertising. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that means it's coverage of the world of advertising, like "sports" or "restaurants", but to be fair it's paywalled, so I have no idea. The book sources still seem decent. Oaktree b (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If not kept, could be !merged into the Alar article, they seem to have been instrumental in the subsequent kerfuffle about the food usage of the chemical. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, I read it as covering the advertising business (after all this is an ad agency), rather than as an advertisement. Here's an archive link. — Jacona (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so we're back at notability then. Oaktree b (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added 2 sources, one of which (Human Events) offers significant coverage, to the extent that the article can be greatly expanded using it. It is a partisan source however, so care must be taken to present the information in a neutral manner. Regardless, this firm's track record in influencing public debate on environmental and social issues seems to be unquestioned. Just take a look at the sources found in the first AfD linked above. StonyBrook _babble 10:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to others listed above, especially Human Events, there is a lot on newspaperarchive.com. - I'm finding it very difficult to clip there, the interface is kludgy, but this and this provide WP:SIGCOV in addition to the above. Jacona (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can read the articles, via the Wikipedia Library access; interface is clunky. Oaktree b (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, Thanks. Also, this WSJ article could be helpful, needs a direct link. — Jacona (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant expansion, probably meets WP:HEY. - Indefensible (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has been significantly expanded, includes 2 NYT sources, 2 Chicago Tribune, 1 WSJ, and numerous other new sources, many of which contain significant coverage which could be used for further expansion. Jacona (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. The sources added since the Afd was initially posted are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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