Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 06 February 08 >

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. Liz Read! Talk! 07:57, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Hans Fourneaux[edit]

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

Falls short of WP:NSKATE having only gotten medals in junior competitions below the level of the World Junior Figure Skating Championships. I was unable to find significant coverage in secondary sources online having searched for both members of this duo, despite coming across many photos of the same. With the exact same sources used in each article, we definitely do not need two separate articles for each of the skaters, but ultimately I'm unable to find sufficient coverage to establish that they even meet WP:GNG in aggregate. signed, Rosguill talk 15:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akuma Divine Saningong[edit]

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

Pure self-promotional article and probably paid editing (see the sockpuppet primary author). All primary sources, save 2, which are the barest of mentions of the subject. Some of the sources are academic papers for which the subject is one of the academics credited. Subject is not discussed in-depth in any reliable secondary sources. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article has been thoroughly REFBOMBed, however, in picking through the debris field I'm unable to find enough to help it surmount the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Ranyal[edit]

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

I couldn't find in-depth coverage of the actor showing he meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. No obvious WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No claim or references for notability. Llajwa (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cruis'n (video game). Clear consensus to Merge this article. If you would like to suggest an article rename, please do so on the target article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Fast and the Furious (2004 video game)[edit]

The Fast and the Furious (2004 video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The 2 references in the article are primary sources. Mika1h (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm actively working on expanding the article to incorporate a reception section. No valid deletion rationale given. Notability is a property of the article subject, not based on the current state of the article or it's sourcing. oknazevad (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oknazevad: Can you list the sources that indicate notability? There's none in the article. TarkusABtalk/contrib 23:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on that. The article is under active construction. oknazevad (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cruis'n (video game). Seem to discuss the exact same game, but the Wii version is actually notable. I'm curious what User:Oknazevad means by "no valid deletion rationale". It seems valid enough to me. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The deletion rational is based entirely on the current state of the article. As for the idea of merging, it's a questionable outcome because the assertion that the arcade original (which was a best-selling arcade machine) was not notable while the relatively poorly reviewed port somehow is is begging the question (in the actual meaning of the idiom). Also, the Wii qdaptation is not the only port – the arcade version, complete with the F&F license, and it's first upgrade/sequel have been released as a stand-alone Arcade1Up unit.reviews for that belong in the separate article as well. If anything, I'd say the Wii game should redirect to the original arcade game, because it's the original work. oknazevad (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm open to re-evaluating once you've provided more reliable sourcing, but this approach to merging would be pretty unheard of with the current level of sourcing for each subject at the moment... Sergecross73 msg me 02:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's reasonable that the combined article bear the title of the original version, which I'd estimate has been far more widely played. F&F arcade machines were pretty ubiquitous in arcades, bowling alleys, movie theatres, entertainment centers, etc. while the Wii game was a largely forgotten port. If they're merged, the far more recognizable title would be the F&F name. oknazevad (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have something more concrete to back that claim, maybe, but I'm not sure "arcades are more prominent than Wii games" checks out when we're talking about the 2004 arcade game market, which is beyond the mainstream prominence of arcades from 1980s/1990s. Not so sure the popularity of mid-2000s arcades so obviously extends beyond the popularity of late 2000s Wii market. Beyond that, this sort of thing is generally decided by levels of third party coverage and WP:COMMONNAME. (Though both options would have a tremendous number of false positives with their generic names, so that could be difficult by traditional means as well.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Undoubtedly the Wii, and consoles in general, were more prominent than arcades during the mid-2000s timeframe. But for this game specifically, I'd wager the arcade version was far more played and recognized by the broad populous than the Wii version, as the latter was not a big seller.
    The problem, of course, is that since the turn of the millennium (or even a few years before that), the gaming press, both in the news and reviewing sides, has written almost entirely about console and PC games, while arcade games barely get coverage. The reasons for this are many-fold, of course, and beyond really the scope of this discussion, but the short version is that arcade games require little commitment from players; if one is dissatisfied, the game is over quickly and the player is only out the cost of one credit. In many ways arcade games have more in common with amusement park rides than modern home games.
    Home games, conversely, require investments of money and time, so players want to get more in-depth coverage. That does skew what sources are available to us when writing articles, leading to an inadvertent bias towards console games. Look at the reception section of the Cruis'n Blast article. It's all about the Switch version, nothing on the reception of the arcade version, let alone the fact that the arcade version has over $100 million in sales of arcade units. And that's just sales of the units by Raw Thrills to arcades, not the money put in the machines to play the game. Arcade games are still a big money industry, and yet we have little about it because sourcing is not easy for it. oknazevad (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern is that we're entering the fourth day of discussion and all of your arguments are still anecdotal. I know your stance is that "you're working on it" but it was tagged for notability over half a year ago and you were clearly aware of that. And very little has developed since then. Are we really on our way to having enough third party sourcing to support a separate article? And if that answer is "no", then I can't see a Wikipedia-policy backed rationale to merge into this article either. Sergecross73 msg me 14:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My main concern is the title, less the merger. Merger may be the best course of action, but I think the game, even when considered as one game, is best known by the F&F title. The fact that the latest release of it is using that title speaks to that. oknazevad (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A rationale based on the current state of an article isn't "invalid", as "wrong" (missing sources) and "invalid" (inapplicable for Wikipedia) are two totally different things. In this case it seems to be neither, as you have not demonstrated a source as a counterpoint.
    You are stating the Wii version was "largely a forgotten port" but if the arcade version was so massively important, surely we'd be seeing modern articles on it? Feels like both were forgotten, but at least the Wii version got a large amount of coverage at the time. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:29, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you seen the recent additions regarding the Arcade1Up release? oknazevad (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me like the Popular Mechanics article's the only actual review there. That's one review of the game, which still doesn't pass GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:28, 12 February 2024 (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/2024 February 7. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 23:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cruis'n (video game). Even if sourcing is found, they're essentially the same game, and both articles are pretty short. Probably better to just bulk up the development section of the Cruis'n article. Sergecross73 msg me 23:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cruis'n (video game). It's been more than 48 hours since Oknazevad said they were working on collecting sources. Since then, only two sources about the Arcade1Up re-release have been added to the article. That's not enough coverage to meet notability. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me for having a full-time job. oknazevad (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You had enough time to write the long anecdotal opinion pieces above. In that time, you could have searched for sources and linked them in this discussion. It's an internet journalism-era game, so sources should be easy to find if they exist. TarkusABtalk/contrib 19:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Research takes longer than writing off the cuff. That is, if you want to get it right.
    Again, I don't actually oppose a merge, I just think the merged article belongs at the F&F title, as that's the original title and the version of the game that has better recognition among the general public, and therefore is more likely to be searched for by readers. Plus the way the merged article was written glossed over way too much, like having no mention of the updated quasi-sequels Drift and Super Cars at all, not the Arcade1Up unit. oknazevad (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear you. Please share some sources, because this is your 11th post in this discussion and still 0 sources shared to back your claims. TarkusABtalk/contrib 19:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, it was tagged for notability on June 2023 and redirected the following October, so these aren't exactly new concerns. You should have been far better prepared when you decided to recreate this. Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, for some reason the arcade version article fell off my watch list, so I hadn't noticed. Undiscussed mergers are always a bad idea, in my opinion. oknazevad (talk) 17:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For some reason (probably an accidental click at some point), the arcade game's article fell off my watchlist, so I hadn't realized they had Ben merged without discussion. Had I noticed, I likely would have opened discussion about the merger article's title and contents sooner. oknazevad (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You being busy isn't really the issue here. If you are too busy to find sources before recreating an article, you probably should just avoid recreating it. There's no exemption because you believe sources are there but are too busy to find them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional sports team owners[edit]

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

Firstly, people own sports team all the time. Of course, they need somebody to run them; do we need an unsourced WP:EXAMPLEFARM of who owns who per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Having seen the version after the first failed AfD, has it been any different since? SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wizmut (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be split out, it's a valid topic though. SportingFlyer T·C 09:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete . This subject fails WP:LISTN for a standalone list. Flibirigit (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So it doesn't fit "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability."? I think it's pretty clear it fits "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." SportingFlyer T·C 12:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no valid purpose in having every professional team owner past or present in the world to be listed on one page. Flibirigit (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that it needs to be WP:SPLIT, but given there are already lists of the franchise owners, I do not see the purpose of having all 200 owners in one list. Conyo14 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see a valid deletion rationale here. What does "people own sports teams all the time" have to do with our inclusion criteria? NOTDIRECTORY gets close, but this is in many ways a valid list and not a directory. As others have stated above, though, this should be SPLIT by sport or by league, and to the extent such a list already exists for a given league there is no need to duplicate. Rlendog (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Terrible list that in my view that violates WP:OR along with NOTADIRECTORY. This is practically list craft and we need to stop making these lists which are not encyclopaedic in value. Govvy (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How would it be OR? If you type in say list of EPL owners, list of NBA owners, many different websites have discussed them as a set. SportingFlyer T·C 18:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a difference between List of sports league owners and List of every sports team owners. That total set has to be notable too. Conyo14 (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per NLIST: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. SportingFlyer T·C 21:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As per NLIST, this list fails to assert notability for the grouping or set in general. Flibirigit (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for the NBA: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] It's a common group or set by sport. Even Ligue 1: [6] SportingFlyer T·C 21:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That does not satify NLIST for the "whole" list. Those only apply to basketball, nothing else. In other words, there needs to reliable sources say its notable to have a list of every professional team across all sports on one page. Flibirigit (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NLIST does not have a "whole" list requirement, and you ignored my football link. SportingFlyer T·C 23:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NLIST states "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". There are no reliable sources in this list which state "This is a list of individuals, groups of individuals, and companies who have owned and operated a professional sports organization" for the whole world in every sport. Flibirigit (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or at least convert into a dab for any much smaller/narrower articles. GiantSnowman 19:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Needless trivia. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is a consensus to delete but a consensus that the split up version of this is fine, I would suggest moving this somewhere out of mainspace, but am open to suggestions on exactly where. SportingFlyer T·C 21:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with nomination that article goes against the policy WP:NOTDIRECTORY. 1keyhole (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. As stated, LIST and DIR limits the kinds of things we collect in one place. This can and does get unwieldy. Bearian (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. For individual leagues, there already exist some articles, and not opposed to more leagues having split articles, if and only if they meet WP:GNG/WP:NLIST. But this unwieldy list is not encyclopedic at all. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was skeptical when I saw the title of the article before opening and remember just how many different possible sports teams there are in existence. Agree with earlier ideas that this should split. microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 19:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bars Media[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Possible WP:ATD of redirect to Vardan Hovhannisyan but unsure title is ambiguous enough. Boleyn (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diploid (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Invalid and unnecessary disambiguation page containing the primary topic and only one other topic. PROD removed without a reason given. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I think user:PamD was sport on. - FitIndia Talk (Admin on Commons) 10:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - absolutely unnecessary and against our usual rules for disambiguation. A "see also" or "hat note" would be sufficient. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Centre ARCTUROS[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral I found this [7] but I don't know if that will meet the criteria. Searching Google for ΑΡΚΤΟΥΡΟΣ I found some Greek language sources about the brown bear. Would those be enough? Cornsimpel (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of significant coverage, and to answer the question, no, one source is not enough. Bearian (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom and Bearian. Couldn't find sufficient sources myself, though I am no expert in organizations so I'll leave my vote at a weak delete for now. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dipika O'Neill Joti[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald O'Carroll[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Ireland. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-channyan 22:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any significant coverage. I suspect his books are self-published. The publisher is listed as "Polymaths Press", and it appears to publish his books only. Jfire (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In my own WP:BEFORE, I found (and have added) a number of pieces of coverage relating to the subject. However, it is all relatively promotional (announcements about book launches and the like) and all in local/regional news outlets (primarily The Kerryman). Apart from "letters to the editor" type stuff, I can find nothing relating to the subject in national news outlets (nothing in Irish Times, Irish Examiner, etc). The biographical detail in the article is unsupported by anything at all (nor can I find anything to support it - suggesting that SIGCOV/NBIO is not met). The WP:COI and/or WP:SPA concerns do very little to help. Mine is a "delete" recommendation... Guliolopez (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the coverage is currently local. If you find something wider, ping me. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time-based authentication[edit]

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

Un-sourced content, redirect to Authentication?. Similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Location-based authentication by the same author was closed as delete, so bringing disputed PROD to AFD. IgelRM (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Musicadium[edit]

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

I couldn't find enough significant sources to prove it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misfits Boxing (promotion)[edit]

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

I believe this page has no relvenve for existing simply due to the fact that all the information can be found on other pages. Pages including KSI; includes the PPV information, 2022 in Misfits Boxing, 2023 in Misfits Boxing, and 2024 in Misfits Boxing; include information on the resulting bouts and the fighters that have partaken. GhaziTwaissi (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Misfits Boxing is popular enough to have its own Wikipedia page that acts a hub for all events, champions, and fighters. This page then makes it easy to access the Misfits Boxing major events and yearly Wikipedia pages. It is also easier to search for "Misfits Boxing" on Wikipedia with this page present. 2A00:23C6:D584:5B01:B83F:C7F6:D960:CE9D (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Misfits Boxing as a company separated from KSI is not popular enough to warrant a whole dedicated page. Other than Manchester News and DAZN, there aren't any credible sources that talk about Misfits Boxing, the company, not the events. That, and the company has only existed for 2 years, the only significant that's happened is the DAZN 5 Year partnership that again, doesn't have a source other than DAZN.
There is already a redirect for Misfits Boxing which takes you to KSI#Misfits Boxing which has the DAZN 5 year deal announcement and the timeline. The only "unique" thing this article has that isnt copied from other pages is the list of fighters, which uses YTBoxRec as a source. GhaziTwaissi (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is a huge mess and has no reason to exist since 90% of the information is just stolen from other articles. KSIvsJakePaul (talk) 10:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is written poorly and definitely doesn't hold to the standards that Wikipedia holds. This should have never left the drafts. Afrique0512 (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sidhant Kapoor[edit]

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

Musician lacking significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources (artist's own website and YouTube videos are not reliable). Key assertions unsupported by reliable citations. Paul W (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Odin, Oslo[edit]

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

The only source is a stock image site, already non-RS, but also makes no such mention. The article is unsourced, basically. I cannot find anything about this supposed statue. Aintabli (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay this article managed to get labeled by all these three templates:
{{Multiple issues| :{{refimprove|date=December 2023}} :{{one source|date=December 2023}} :{{unreliable sources|date=December 2023}}
I say delete. 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 10:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Very likely a hoax. The head in the linked image clearly does not belong to a statue "10 meters in height". I can't find any other sources. The creator has been indefinitely blocked for... creating hoaxes. I'm surprised this had to go to AfD. – Joe (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 PaRappa the Rapper 2#Soundtrack. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Say "I Gotta Believe!"[edit]

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

Not notable enough. This is just a singular song on PaRappa the Rapper 2. It's pointless to have this page separate. RteeeeKed💬📖 20:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Michigan Republican Party. There is a consensus that the subject does not meet notability guidelines, with most editors agreeing on redirect as the outcome. No argument was advanced as to why the page should be deleted before redirection, so I'm interpreting that !vote as advocating WP:BLAR rather than interpreting it literally. signed, Rosguill talk 04:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malinda Pego[edit]

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

Chairing a state party doesn't automatically make you notable, and even then, Pego was never recognized as chair. Don't see any reason to think she satisfies WP:GNG. No national in-depth coverage of her as a person. The chairmanship struggle is noteworthy, but she would fail WP:1E. I'd support a redirect or merge to Michigan Republican Party. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a state party chair does make you a notable person. This is widely known situation going on. WavyPhoton (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite the Wikipedia policy that says being a state party chair is notable, or give a more detailed explanation? Also, Pego never officially became chair. The chairmanship dispute is indeed noteworthy, but that's already covered in detail at the Michigan Republican Party page. How is Pego notable enough on her own to get a separate Wikipedia page? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Sundowners (series)[edit]

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

I can't turn up a single review of any of these books (or the series) for WP:NBOOK. Checked PW, Kirkus, School Library Journal, and Booklist. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This apparently is a different book [8]. Nothing found for a Western book. NO reviews anywhere to be found, buckaroos. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find anything either - I searched via Newspapers.com, ISFDB, and a few other avenues. This was published around 2001 so it's possible that there was coverage that didn't end up on the internet but there's nothing to hint that this is the case. Bookverdict didn't want to come up for me - if any reviews were to exist they'd be there, if anyone wants to check. There was nothing on ALA's Booklist, in any case. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ephraim ibn al-Za'faran[edit]

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

I was not able to find any sources about the existence of this individual, let alone in relation to Ma'ad al-Mustansir. It has been marked as completely unreferenced since 2009. The Arabic-language article likewise lacks any sources and was made long after the English-language article, and putting the text through Google translate gives me the exact content of the English-language article. However, my search is limited by the fact that I do not understand Arabic or Hebrew. If anyone that speaks Arabic or Hebrew can find some reliable sources about the existence of this individual, I will be happy to withdraw the nomination. Jaguarnik (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in the European Union by Muslim population[edit]

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

This list, as a standalone article, fails WP:N guidelines, and would be better suited as a subsection of the Islam in Europe article. This type of listing doesn't make sense as a separate article. There's also no reason for this list to only be covering the European Union rather than Europe as a whole.

In addition, this article is in a terrible state despite years of existence. Most of the items on this list are uncited. Much of the items that ARE cited use information from outdated or inappropriate sources. For example, books (especially decade-old ones) generally aren't a reliable source of information for demographic data.

I propose this article be deleted and a new, higher quality list be inserted into the Islam in Europe article. 296cherry (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Youprayteas (talk to me? | contribs) 13:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This has the hint of a WP:CONTENTFORK from Islam in Europe, and the article's contents are best amalgamated into that entry or "Islam in [country]" articles. I'm still shocked by this sentence: some [figures in this article are] estimating the percentage of Muslims by using the percentage of Asians in those cities. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, none of the statistics in this list are consistent in how they are produced. Some use "percentage of Arabic speakers", others use "percentage of Asians". What a disaster. 296cherry (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Star Wars: Jedi Apprentice#Books in the series. Redirecting per consensus with history preserved under redirect. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Only Witness[edit]

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

Fails WP:BOOKCRIT, no WP:RS available Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kapamilya Channel acquired programming[edit]

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

Fails NLIST and NOTDIRECTORY. Long list of acquired programming. A few entries have sources, but Wikipedia is not a TV guide and this list fails NLIST, Kapamilya Channel acquired programming has not been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources.  // Timothy :: talk  16:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shares (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are PR, routine annoucements and routine business news, funding. scope_creepTalk 14:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nomination and following arguments by the nominator raises valid concerns about the state of the article and potentially harmful effects of its editorializing. However, while keep voters failed to do more than assert that coverage exists, analysis of man-eaters does exist as a topic of scholarly literature (e.g. [10], [11]), and thus this is a conventional guideline-based keep outcome and not an IAR. signed, Rosguill talk 04:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man-eater[edit]

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

This article is heavily WP:SYNTH, and just lists out animal attacks on people, which are already detailed in the separate article animal attack. "List of animals who have attacked people" might be a more correct name for the article, but the SYNTH nature of the article means it's probably best off deleted. Classifying any animal as a "man-eater" is scientifically faulty, since most animals just go after what prey is in their immediate vicinity. There may be some specific members of their species that are acclimated to eating humans, but this article goes for broad generalizations. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It doesn't seem redundant to me, at least in principle; attacking humans and habitually eating humans are two quite different things. I can get the hell scratched out of me by a raccoon or a stray housecat, for example, but these animals are not really "man-eaters". Nor are the humans who attack other humans in wars (well, most of them anyway). jp×g🗯️ 00:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know, there is no animal whose main food source is humans. The most you will get is specific creatures whose territory has been deliberately encroached on and have been provoked. This article relies mostly on tabloid headlines that call certain animals "man-eaters" in a misleading manner, as well as synthesis of other places where they are not called man-eaters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely not redundant, animal attacks vs. those that would willingly consume humans calls for a distinction. 2601:18C:8085:1180:A1FE:99EE:AAD:DE (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost any carnivorous animal could willingly consume humans if forced to, that doesn't really mean anything. Similarly, this is only about cases of animals who have, many times randomly, attacked a human, but implies they somehow always prey on people. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Man-eater refers to an individual predatory animal that has become habituated to eating people. LittleJerry (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as this is very useful to have, as many people are unaware of what animals eat people and what animals don't eat people, as well as how often that it occurs. I have now added some sources to some of the sections that had none. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a separate (more specific) topic from animal attack. It's handy to have a hub for information on anthropophagy as distinct from anthropo-beat-uppery, which can serve as a location for material on taxa where this is less well-documented (e.g. hyenas) and as a summary and pointer for those where we have more in-depth material elsewhere (e.g., big cats) Some of the sources in the article are admittedly rubbish, and the unreferenced sections need to go. Otherwise I think this is fine. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.11.113 (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, what? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would like to keep this page. I think it is topic that people are interested in. In addition, I agree that it is should be edited with better sources added, and more details given about each attack. Suncheon Boy
  • Keep Then describe the Champawat Tiger case. Why was she going after people? Would you describe this as an ordinary animal attack or as something far more terrifying? While regular animals attack humans in self-defense, man-eaters actively seek out and hunt people. See the difference. Many reliable scientific literature supports the term "man-eater". Try searching it up on Google Scholar. 20 upper (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin Since AFD is WP:NOTAVOTE, any keep vote that doesn't demonstrate the separate notability of this topic should be ignored. All of them so far have been WP:ITSUSEFUL or a variation therein. Misleading material shouldn't be kept under the guise of usefulness. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reaching a bit, are we? Notability is NOT the only criterion for retaining an article; otherwise we wouldn't have the many "overview of" types (super-topic), nor things like Research history of Mosasaurus (sub-topic). We are trying to organize an encyclopedia here. That requires a certain amount of infrastructure elements, and this article is one such. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When everyone is against you, just insist their votes don't matter? Dream Focus 22:11, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be useful to see more policy- and guideline-based views here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tenuous keep. Should be renamed to some sort of list if kept but I'm not sure either. "Man-eater" as a concept probably could warrant a broad overview type article but it would take quite a lot of work to assemble. This article is basically a list of animals known to kill people, which I suppose is notable? I wouldn't bet on it though. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tenuous keep: Man-eating is a real phenomenon where an individual animal becomes habituated to eating people. There's certainly room for improvement in the article, like adding a discussion on its causes. LittleJerry (talk) 20:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per all above. Svartner (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There is a difference between animals that attack humans and animals that actually eat humans. This article documents incidents of individual animals that have eaten humans as well, such as the Tsavo man-eaters, and such a distinction of being a man-eater has been enough to warrant an animal being given an article. Velociraptor888 00:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any time any animal eats a person, it makes news, this is something notable that gets coverage. People then study the reasons why and publish articles about that. https://www.fieldmuseum.org/blog/what-makes-man-eater-check-teeth Also the Encyclopædia Britannica has an entry about this: https://www.britannica.com/story/6-real-life-man-eating-animals Dream Focus 22:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I get it, people like the topic and think it is notable, but that is not the issue raised by the nomination. For a policy-based consensus to keep, participants in this AfD need to address and rebut the nominator's contention that the topic and the content are WP:SYNTH.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: trying to address the issue of WP:SYNTH which starts Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources.: the question for me is what is being taken from Source A and Source B to imply erroneously Conclusion C in this page. I don't see it; what conclusion is the page trying to state? There is a bunch of information which is unsourced and could/should be removed, but to me it is undeniable that many sources have described individual animals as a quote unquote "man-eater". To me the more questionable aspect is around WP:OR and whether such a page could ever be created without substantial selectivity of available data by editors and orginal research. JMWt (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a list article. It links to the main articles for different species attacking. Valid navigational list, as well as a valid information list. List of man eaters, List of animals that kill humans for food, or whatever you want to call it. Dream Focus 18:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well maybe, but it isn’t arranged like a navigational list at present JMWt (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The conclusion it's trying to draw is that certain animals, as the article claims, "prey on humans as a pattern of hunting behavior". This would appear to be promoting hysteria and misinformation/disinformation, as while many animals do prey on humans, it's not a "pattern" except in rare cases. The article claims, for example, that "lions have been recorded to actively enter human villages at night as well as during the day to acquire prey", while using weasel wording that makes it sound like all lions do this from time to time. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A man-eater is an individual animal or being that preys on humans as a pattern of hunting behavior. It clearly states individual animal, not the entire species.
    As for lions, in the same paragraph you quote it reads "Lions typically become man-eaters for the same reasons as tigers: starvation, old age, and illness". It does not claim this is a common thing all lions do. Dream Focus 06:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the article really means to implicate single animals, it does a poor job of it, as it discusses entire species, rather than being a list of all notable single animals who have attacked (and eaten, though I am unsure why this is even relevant) humans. That is why I said that the topic could be notable under an alternate name and with more clear delineations between killer animals and their species at large, but the article itself is SYNTH and violates WP:NOT in clear fashion. "Individual animal" can also read as "individual species". This isn't even a "cleanup is required" issue, it's a "blow it up and start over somewhere else as a pure navigational list" situation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most people don't have a problem understanding it, and have already stated it should be kept.
    It is a valid article for discussing man-eaters. India has official government documents which use the terminology "man eater" and defines it clearly.
    https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/wildlife-biodiversity/what-is-the-exact-procedure-to-remove-a-man-eater--62059
    “The declaration of an aberrant tiger / leopard as a man eater requires considerable examination based on field evidences. At times, the human beings killed due to chance of encounters may also be eaten by the animal. However, such happenings are not sufficient for classifying a tiger / leopard as a man eater, which can best be established only after confirming the habituation of the aberrant animal for deliberate stalking of human beings, while avoiding its natural prey" Dream Focus 14:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with animal attack. There is useful information presented within the article but it is not worth a separate article in and of itself. "man eating" is a subset of animal attack - a pattern of continued animal attacks and I believe it should simply be a section within the more general animal attack as the information is best presented there. EvilxFish (talk) 06:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing as keep per consensus. Merge can be discussed separately in the talk page outside AfD if it is more appropriate. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhajir culture[edit]

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

There is no such thing as "muhajir culture", none of peer-reviewed academic journal articles treat a mixture of Indian cultures as "muhajir culture". This is a perfect example of WP:SYNTH. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep seems to be an umbrella term for Muslim immigrants to Pakistan after the partition. If anything article needs a significant rewrite but there can be larger "ethnic groups" which are comprised of smaller ones. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Horton (Days of Our Lives)[edit]

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

Page is unreferenced (excluding a link to an entry at a fansite) and consists entirely of a plot summary. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Loytra (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly fails notability guidelines; no independent coverage, solely plot summary, etc. Merge with List of Days of Our Lives characters (1960s) ''Flux55'' (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Stonebanks[edit]

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

I am a bit on the fence about this person's notability as it pertains to Wikipedia's guidelines. It seems he is best notable for his controversial firing but even then, I am not seeing in-depth sources on him. His Google Scholar score is very low and I don't think he passes WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. I am absolutely willing to pull this AfD if sources do show up and it is clear the article can be improved, but I am currently not seeing anything that would indicate this is possible. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria of Portugal (nun)[edit]

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

From what I can tell, this individual did not in fact exist, and this article is a hoax. Two things that first caught my intention- first, this page has been marked as unreferenced since December 2009 - over 14 years. And when I looked, there was no sources about the nun that I could find (however, someone who speaks Portuguese and is familiar with Portuguese history may be able to find something, assuming Maria of Portugal really was a nun). Second of all, there is no Portuguese wiki page for this individual, which for a princess/infanta of Portugal is odd. There are 4 interwiki pages, but they all seem to be direct translations of the English page, and likewise have no sources. Next, the article claims that this nun was born in 1264, died in 1304, and was the daughter of Afonso III of Portugal and Beatrice of Castile. They did have a daughter named Maria of Portugal, who was in fact born c. 1264/1265, but died in 1266. Jaguarnik (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no evidence that this person existed & indications are that they did not, as above.TheLongTone (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unfortunately, not much help regarding this person (or non-person, as the case may be) on wikidata. There is one reference at the British Museum that cites the same years of birth/death as our article (Q: Do the folks at the British Museum use Wikipedia without attribution?), the rest mostly leads back to enwiki. None of the other wikis have any good references that I can see (and most refer back to our article too). What's curious is that the creator of the article (who also created some of the other linked articles about Afonso III's progeny), as well as some of the early editors, all seem to be genuinely knowledgeable and have done a lot of work on Portuguese royals/nobles, etc. Puzzling too that this seemingly innocuous little article could turn out to be a longer standing hoax than Jar'Edo Wens. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Assuming no airtight evidence confirming the existence of this person surfaces, my vote is Delete (and add to WP:HOAXLIST). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Portugal. Skynxnex (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If this turns out to be a hoax, it would be the longest-running hoax article in Wikipedia's history at 18 years, 5 months (see WP:HOAXLIST). Worth noting that all of actual information in this article came from its very first edit from an anonymous user on 25 August 2005‎. Every edit since then has been things like formatting/rewording. A quick Google search for the convent where she supposedly lived ("Convent of the Lady Canons of Saint John"/"Convento das Donas Cónegas de São João") turns up no results other than ones that clearly came from this article. Do we have any sources prior to 2005 mentioning this person, or this convent? Crystalholm (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous. 170.76.231.175 (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update I've found something that makes this even more puzzling. There are two mentions of her from texts from the 1700s, one from historian Francisco José Freire (https://books.google.nl/books?id=7gJmAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA173&lpg=PA173&dq=infanta+maria+1264+1304&source=bl&ots=CS7ZXlS6eb&sig=ACfU3U159moyXpTsvU76ktnZxD0E00xW5w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjmnZHa8Z2EAxXwcvEDHY6nDpg4ChDoAXoECAkQAw#v=onepage&q=infanta%20maria%201264%201304&f=false) and one from historian António Caetano de Sousa [pt] (https://www.google.com/books/edition/Historia_genealogica_da_casa_real_Portug/feBktjyBb_wC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=infanta+maria+1264+1304&pg=PA191-IA4&printsec=frontcover). However, this text written by a Portuguese historian in 2009 (https://www.google.nl/books/edition/D_Afonso_II/yUwsAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=beatriz+de+castela+dinis+sancha+maria&dq=beatriz+de+castela+dinis+sancha+maria&printsec=frontcover) lists Maria as a child of Beatriz and Afonso that was born in 1265 and died in 1266, and we have the historian's text from 2010 that repeats the same thing from heir wiki pages. So we have conflicting sources on this daughter of Afonso and Beatriz - some sources say she was a nun, some say she died as an infant. I'm not sure now that it's a hoax, but my current opinion is this page needs to be either deleted or redirected to Afonso or Beatriz' pages with a note that sources conflict on who this individual was. Jaguarnik (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The first source from Jaguarnik Methodo breve e facil para estudiar a historia Portugueza formado em humas taboas chronologicas e historicas dos reys, rainhas, e principes de Portugal, filhos illegitimos, Duques, Duqueças de Bragança, e seus filhos matches the article exactly so this is not a modern hoax. What needs to be tracked down is why the modern sources cited in her father's article say she died in infancy but this old one says she lived 40 years and become a nun. And that needs an investigation by a professional level historian. I can't decide whether the article should be kept or redirected to her father in the interim. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 1876 Historia de Portugal says that Maria was born in late 1264 or early 1265 and is mentioned in one document with no discussion of later life (if any) that I can find. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not clear why we'd want a redirect given that the "(nun)" in the title is dubious. Further discussion as to whether this was a hoax or just an error can continue on the talk page for this deletion discussion but I don't see a compelling reason to keep this discussion open until that's resolved, as it's entirely possible that it won't have a conclusive answer. signed, Rosguill talk 03:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Clearly an uncited hoax, IMO. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 F.C. Indiana. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2012 FC Indiana season[edit]

2012 FC Indiana season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Incomplete article with no citations, it is the only season article of FC Indiana and really doesn't add anything to Wikipedia Idiosincrático (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Hill (point)[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable spot height. Unsourced except for https://trip-suggest.com/united-states/florida/rock-hill whose only "interesting facts" are a copy of the Wikipedia article. Appears originally to have been a hoax: the 2005 first version asserts that is is the "sixth highest point in Florida.", which does not correspond with our List of Florida's highest points which has 10s of hills higher than its 193ft. Note that this article has been the subject of attention as part of the WP:FEB24 unreferenced backlog drive: this one looks like an article whose deletion would benefit the encyclopedia. PamD 14:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete topomaps seems to imply the exact location it says to be should be above 200 feet as well (see this Florida topomap). And even if the height is correct, there seems to be nothing notable and not coverage of this point so if a reliable enough source of the height/is it a real, named hill, then a redirect/entry could be added to List of Florida's highest points. Skynxnex (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This is a real train wreck on the maps: somehow a physical feature label in older topos shifts over and turns into a populated place label, attached to a small cluster of houses which I would question constitute a town of any sort. There's thus no GNIS entry for the hill, only for the pop. place. The hill, named or not, is taller than 193 ft. but its not clear how tall it is. I should note that this article was originally at Rock Hill, Florida but was moved. Given the confusion I'm really dubious this can be reliably sourced. Mangoe (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the three sources, two are not about this subject and the third is a mirror of this very article and circular. No sources turn up. But I did find that this has successfully masked for 2 decades the real Rock Hill, Florida that is a private nature conservancy near to Chipley, Florida in a different county that has a handful of biological and botanical sources. It was going to be a state park like Falling Waters State Park but never managed to become it and is private instead. I might steal that redirect, although none of the edit history behind it is required to start afresh, thank you. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 09:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I got nothing on this.James.folsom (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Amsel[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG, or a good WP:ATD. Possible WP:ATD of merge/redirect to Mattachine Society, but he hasn't been even mentioned in that article so far, though it is his claim to notability. Boleyn (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge can be discussed separately outside AfD if appropriate. Closing as keep per consensus. !voters and nominator can refer to WP:MERGEWHAT for more ideas on merge !votes and how to proceed further. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allegheny Land Trust[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD of merge/redirect to Sewickley (though it isn't currently mentioned there, it is where the group are headquartered) or one of its other incoming links, but it may unbalance those articles. Boleyn (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per reasoning provided by @Jfire; new references still do not demonstrate national coverage. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. signed, Rosguill talk 03:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radhika Gupta[edit]

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

person does not seem notable, seems purely promotional. User4edits (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The language and tonality have been revised to meet the Wikipedia content norms/guidelines. Notability has also been improved. Sources have been added as well. Abhi1705 (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the sourcing in the article seems to show the notability of the subject. The article needs substantial cleanup to remove WP:PEACOCK and promotional content. I would like to read other editors' opinions with respect to notability.
I do not find her notability as per WP:NBIO or NBASIC/GNG, she has been mentioned sparsely for several reasons as any businessman would. Secondly, where there is any coverage dedicated on the individual such as this, it appears to be paid and even if not, does not establish her notability as a businesswoman.User4edits (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Some coverage about her on the Shark Tank show [19]. This isn't the greatest but it's about her in a RS [20]. Oaktree b (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page in not to be like a promotional. She has a public life and sufficient media coverage. Srander (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP : Definitely notable Business Woman, had incredible journey and have created space as global leader in Respective field. Sources needs to be replaced for now article can be shortened with only reliable sources maybe in future secondary sources can be added. Systumm (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ravindra Kumar (editor)[edit]

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

Non notable journalist, only depend on one article, also failed WP:JOURNALIST. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. signed, Rosguill talk 03:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Brodie (singer-songwriter)[edit]

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

Autobiography of producer who so far lacks notability, one local source[22] reproduces aggrandizing claims like "working with Grammy winners" even though the artist in case, The Last Artful, Dodgr, hasn't won a Grammy yet as far as I can tell. Fram (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as TOOSOON - Young fellow sure seems like he's on a good track - he's been signed by a small label, has produced for some pretty successful artists, I think there's a good chance he'll be notable eventually. Not yet. BrigadierG (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey - thanks! I've signed a 50/50 partnership with Sony Music Publishing UK which is the biggest music publisher in the entire world. I've produced for Grammy-winning, Billboard charting, Platinum selling artists. As far as notability goes - I don't know who decides or quantifies but I have tens of millions of streams on Spotify, many articles mentioning my name and more. Sambrodie (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. I would suggest reading WP:YOURSELF, WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC and returning with a policy-based argument for inclusion. Having a Wikipedia article about you is not a reward for how successful you may or may not have been in your career, it is a measure of your value as an encyclopaedic entry. BrigadierG (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:YOURSELF - "Independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability; it is natural for people to exaggerate in writing about themselves" : I wasn't aware how strongly Wikipedia discourages writing about yourself but regardless of that, everything I have provided in my references and citations are verifiably true. You can't fake credits on Spotify or fake eligibility for an Album Of The Year Award or fake an album that I've worked on going #1 on the Spotify Charts. I agree, a Wikipedia article about you is not a reward for how successful you may or may not have been in your career because success is subjective however I'm providing real statistics and references for every claim and nothing is being aggrandized. I've worked with Grammy-Winners, Billboard Charters and Platinum Selling Artists, that's just an objective fact whether that equals success to whoever reads this or not. I actually as I'm writing this just charted on Billboard myself believe it or not, as in today right now. It's still updating because Billboard updates every Tuesday but you can see on 03 Greedo's Billboard Page that my song "No Use" that I produced for him just went #1.
WP:GNG - "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected" : I was initially told that the reason for the deletion of my Wikipedia article was for a lack of notability, that only one local source covered my career and that it had aggrandizing claims like working with Grammy-winners. I want to clarify that A: I have worked with Grammy-winners, and the article didn't aggrandize anything. B: It doesn't matter if I have been covered by one source, or one hundred sources, It just depends on the quality and the depth of coverage in those sources. C: There are at least 8 independent sources that include my name and that's not including any Chart coverage. D: There is a lot of depth of coverage in my "local" source, and that local source actually covers news for the entirety of Scotland.
WP:GNG - "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. : I have never paid for a press release or for advertising, and the only autobiographies I have are on Spotify and now here. The sources I have included are independent, and the conclusions or coverage of my name within those sources are independent too. I was not involved in the creation of any article about me, and I have never paid for anything to be created for me. I have been asked questions however, and answered them honestly and everything I've said is verfifiable.
Here is my policy-based argument for inclusion: Everything included below qualifies me as a notable musician based on Wikipedia's guidelines for notability
WP:NMUSIC - "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" : I have been included in multiple sources that include my name (Sam Brodie or $am Brodie) that aren't self-published, completely independent of myself and written by others. Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4 Source 5 Source 6 Source 7 Source 8
WP:NMUSIC - "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." : I have over 150,000 monthly listeners on my Spotify page for my personal music as an artist. I have achieved that independently of a record label's support - but I don't want that to be confused with my publishing deal with Sony Music Publishing UK. Sony Music Publishing UK have nothing to do with my personal Spotify, and only help with the publishing of the music I produce for other artists. This makes me the biggest independent artist in Scotland (arguable I suppose, and hard to verify but that's to the best of my knowledge) and one of the biggest artists in Scotland. If that can't be proven, I'm definitely the biggest in Fife. Here is my Spotify for verification of my monthly listeners.
WP:NMUSIC - "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." : My Wikipedia page speaks for itself here, all the information is there. I have had #1 charting albums and #1 charting singles with a credit for writing or co-writing. Here are some sources to prove that: Source 1 Source 2 Source 3 Source 4 Source 5
WP:NMUSIC - "The recording has appeared on any country's national music chart." : I think this helps my last point even more. I have had a #1 Album in Russia, #9 Album in Ukraine, #1 Single in Luxembourg (Daily and Weekly), #1 Single in USA (San Francisco).
WP:NMUSIC - "The recording has been certified gold or higher in at least one country." : I have left the link attached to "Certified Gold" so you can read about the different types of certifications. I worked on the album "12" by FACE which has been Certified Gold by IMPALA, the photo I have used for my Wikipedia page is a photo of me with the Gold plaque which you cannot get without the certification. I can show the actual certification too if needed, but I would argue this grants me notability on this point alone by the guidelines set out from Wikipedia. I also want to add here that you can find credits for any of the song's I've mentioned on Spotify by going onto the song and clicking "Show Credits" - here is the Song I'm mentioning that is apart of the album that was certified gold. IMPALA is on the list of Music recording certification.
WP:NMUSIC - "A good online source for recordings is the AllMusic search engine" - Here is my AllMusic Profile with some of my credits. I believe they only cover certain regions however so many of my credits are missing.
Thank you. Sambrodie (talk) 05:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the effort you put into reviewing policy. I will dig in more shortly, but I will say that one thing that makes your claims of notability especially hard to evaluate (and something I would strongly discourage) is a tendency to position yourself close to things that you've definitely not achieved - for example "working with grammy winners" not-so-subtly positions you as "grammy-adjacent" for want of a better term. A lot of your claimed accomplishments feel from an outside perspective like trying to ride on the tail of more successful artists to carve off a little piece of the associated fame that goes with winning a big award.
It's true that producers and session musicians get less coverage than the main artist on a track, but that's because it's also generally recognised that the contribution to the track's success is less.
Right now, here's where I stand on the new claims of notability:
1. The additional coverage linked is generally WP:ROUTINE (announcement) or not in-depth WP:SIGCOV (you're a passing mention in an article about the singer).
2. The claims about "working with" certain successful artists is generally not enough. The records themselves need to be independently notable for that to be relevant - producing for a grammy-winning track or album would get you much closer here but from what I understand that's not the case.
This is neglecting the fact that I think producers have much higher standards than artists in terms of achievement in songs they work on. Subject-specific notability guidelines are really just heuristics for WP:GNG and the coverage you get as a performing artist is (as I'm sure you're aware) significantly more than for producers.
I'm voting to draftify and not delete because it's clear you're on the right track, but I don't think you're over the line yet. BrigadierG (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough. I want to stay away from subjectivity as much as possible here because it truly doesn't really matter.
On the point about Grammy Winners and working with them - I'm truly not trying to bite a piece of someone else's success or fame because I know in due time I'll get there too. I was simply just responding to the reason for deletion which was initially that I didn't work with Grammy Winners, but I have. I haven't won a Grammy yet, that is true. I was simply referencing the article which mentioned that I worked with Grammy Winners - I didn't write the article or ask for that to be mentioned in the article however it is an interesting fact about my story.
As a producer and songwriter there's not much more I can achieve, I have Billboard #1's now, Platinum selling records, some chart success. Yes, I could get more of them, and different types of them but generally the only thing left is a Grammy. I suppose my argument there would be: as a songwriter are you only notable when you cross the threshold of winning a Grammy?
Because unfortunately, and to your point, producers don't get the recognition. But have you ever heard an A cappella #1? an A capella Grammy?
I believe songwriters and producers are just as vital to the process of song making as the artist is, but obviously press will always favor the artist. Sambrodie (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While this is probably unfortunately true, Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in terms of credit given to various parties. Olympic medallists, startup founders, and astronauts are recognised, while the coaches, early employees and engineers that were instrumental to that success are often not. Wikipedia isn't here to set norms about fairness, we're just here to report on the ones that exist. BrigadierG (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes people need to push back on the norm and change it - protest it. Coaches should definitely be recognized if a boxer becomes the best in the world.
Josh Taylor is a good example - Terry McCormack his early coach is mentioned, but not a profile on Wikipedia himself.
However, I think generally music producers get more notability than coaches and deserve a Wikipedia page more because yes a coach helped a World Champion Boxer to the ring, they didn't win the Title.
If I win a Grammy, I get either a Grammy Award or certificate (and credit on the song) Sambrodie (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough coverage about this person. This [23], which I'm not sure is a RS and it's not very helpful in establishing reliability. Otherwise, there's an article in the Sun, which isn't a RS, and that's it. Oaktree b (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first source you link is for a different person. BrigadierG (talk) 14:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's an even better case for the deletion then, I don't find any coverage at all about this young person. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey thanks for all this feedback - my name changed in 2023 hence the lack of new articles. I've updated that in my Wiki, and I would argue this gives more of a reason for my Wikipedia page to stand because there is confusion between me the music producer and "Sam Brodie" the big brother contestant and many people will associate me with him.
    As far as not enough coverage goes - a lot of coverage for music producers specifically aren't entire articles dedicated to your career. It's very rare to have that unless you've won a Grammy or are at the very peak of your career. I do however have 5-10 articles including my name, and one semi-local article explaining my career. I do however believe I'm notable enough for a Wiki page giving that I am one of the biggest artists from Scotland with 150,000+ monthly listeners, worked with many major record labels, have had multiple #1 singles and albums (in the US and Europe) and much more detailed in my Wiki page. Sambrodie (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey - The Last Artful, Dodgr has won a Grammy. Her real name is Alana Chenevert and she has songwriting credits on the song "Make It Better" by Anderson .Paak & Smokey Robinson which was apart of the album "Ventura" by Anderson .Paak which won Best R&B album at the 62nd Grammy Awards. The song I worked on with her was titled "Asi9ine" for her album released by Interscope titled "Hits Of Today". This is all public knowledge, accessible by Spotify credits or any other website that showcases crediting on songs.
The local article was not aggrandizing me in any way. Everything in that article is completely accurate and wasn't written by me. Sambrodie (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, just like you don't win an Oscar for being part of an Academy Award winning movie, you don't win a Grammy for being part of a Grammy-winning record. And also no, just because you changed your name to be the same as that of a BB contestant is not more reason to keep your article, Wikipedia is not a vehicle to prevent confusion you created. Fram (talk) 08:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, you are completely wrong. My government name is Sam Brodie, I can't change that sorry.
I have also worked with Derek Ali on the song "No Use" by 03 Greedo, he has won 4 Grammys and is a mixing engineer.
Another example: Blair Ferguson is a Scottish Music Producer and Songwriter, he just won a Grammy with SZA.
Here are some articles and photos to educate yourself. You can delete my Wikipedia if you think it should be deleted, but I won't let you lie about me. You are wrong, and that's okay sometimes as long as you apologize.
I have worked with multiple Grammy Winners - I'm not aggrandizing anything.
Derek Ali (MixedByAli) - https://www.grammy.com/artists/derek-ali/17733
Blair Ferguson, with his Grammy https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-grammy-winner-blair-ferguson-32096202
More information from the Recording Academy: https://www2.grammy.com/PDFs/Recording_Academy/Producers_And_Engineers/Producer_Definitions.pdf Sambrodie (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another source for you: https://www.quora.com/Do-music-producers-get-their-own-Grammy-separate-from-the-artist Sambrodie (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First "my name changed in 2023 hence the lack of new articles.", now "My government name is Sam Brodie, I can't change that sorry." If you don't want people to be "completely wrong", don't give such contradictory replies. Fram (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have contradicted yourself twice. And if you read my Wikipedia page instead of just trying to delete it for reasons that aren't true you would know that I changed my artist name from $am Brodie back to my government name Sam Brodie. Sambrodie (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. Working with notable people does not make you notable. You become notable by being discussed as yourself by reliable sources. A simple mention of your name in a list is also not sufficient. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - There may be notability to be found, but this is an autobiography that isn't helping itself by over-stating notability. It also relies way too much on linking lists and primary sources on Spotify. So I think put it back to a draft, and let someone who isn't the article subject write neutrally about him, citing sources where the subject is actually discussed, instead of listed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Delete. I've tried improving the article in a hope that it might yet prove keepable, but the article creator isn't interested in being helped and keeps reverting. It's not suitable as it is currently. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was reverting the improvements because some of the edits were messy, that's all. There were words and numbers mixed together, sources being jumbled up and things weren't accurate anymore. I have changed it now to be accurate, and improved. Sambrodie (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source."
What did I write subjectively about, that can't be objectively or neutrally proved? Sambrodie (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion here is not about what is objective or provable, but but whether the article subject is notable. Primary sources, i.e. content published by the individuals themselves, or by their record companies, do not really help to prove notability. As has been explained above, notability is not established by working with notable people, and while lists mentions may be accurate and cited, they do not demonstrate notability. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:50, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content that you are referring to is Published by Spotify, Apple Music and Billboard Charts. This is a way of establishing notability. I'm not posting Spotify links to random things, or songs with no relevance. They are to prove I have charted, which is apart of the establishing notability process. Sambrodie (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My friend, you are WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. You've said your piece, I suggest letting it lie now. BrigadierG (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sambrodie Spotify and Apple Music aren't relevant. "Charting" in the WP:NMUSIC guideline refers to national charts. -- asilvering (talk) 09:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"They may occasionally be mentioned in article prose if special circumstances warrant it. "Special circumstances" include notable controversies alleging chart manipulation, or cases where eligibility requirements prevented standard charts from recognizing the sales."
There is no Billboard or Nielsen Soundscan chart for Russia, because of the war in Ukraine it was removed or was non-existent in the first place.
There is no chart in San Francisco on Billboard or Nielsen Soundscan because it is a city, but there is on Spotify.
There is no album chart for Ukraine on Billboard or Nielsen Soundscan because they only publish weekly charting songs.
Other than that, I do reference a Billboard charting song too which is verified through Nielsen Soundscan in my article. Sambrodie (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Similarly, some charts representing the home country of the artist or composer (this can mean country of origin, country of residence, official nationality or any country where the artist or composer has lived for a substantial part of their lives) or releases with a strong link to the country in question (e.g. Eurovision entries), can be included if no other suitable charts can be located." Sambrodie (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apple Music and Spotify streams aren't audited and we don't use them for notability, simply for the fact people have streaming farms to boost their numbers (literally walls of ipods, streaming the same song). Nothing has been found we can use for reliable sourcing, nothing extensive covering this individual either. Oaktree b (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudhry Abdus Salam[edit]

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

Non-notable advocate. There is no reference that is directly about him. A person doing his job without any significant achievement. Fails WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Asif Saeed[edit]

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

Non-notable advocate. There is no reference that is directly about him. Fails WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Monal[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable company. Fails WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trulan A. Eyre[edit]

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

Article reads live a curriculum vitae with only one primary cite from 2007, doesn’t meet WP:GNG. Article has been heavily edited including text on post 2007 events by User:Trueyre, a single purpose account (possibly the subject matter themselves based on the similarity to the subject's name) without adding any cites. Kemeryty (talk) 04:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was edited by myself, Trulan Eyre user name trueyre, because I found numerous errors from whomever originally posted it. The basis is from the National Guard General Officer biographies as you can see listed at the bottom of the article. I merely cleaned up the original with more accurate information. I hope you will leave it on here as what is on here now is absolutely accurate, and I am frequently asked to provide a biography, and I point them to this Wikipedia Article. Thank you. Trueyre (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL WP:MERCY Brachy08 (Talk) 05:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources found. Brachy08 (Talk) 05:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Reads like a resume, no independent sourcing found for this person. [24] is about all I see, which is trivial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Tso[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:JOURNALIST. Sources provided and most of the limited gnews hits are from her employer CNBC. LibStar (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Searches of NewsBank and WikiLibrary returned several results but nothing I could find that establish her notability per WP:JOURNALIST. Because she's a reporter there's a lot of results but mostly it's articles by her, rather than about her, and of those, nothing substantive that I could find. Cabrils (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Highly prominent journalist in the Asia Pacific region with an article since 2006. That should speak volumes about the long-standing significance of her in Wikipedia. Evaluating the notability of journalists using WP:RS needs to be handled with care, as journalists by policy tend not to make themselves the center of reporting, so one cannot expect coverage of them on the same scale as, say, a business leader or actor. - Fuzheado | Talk 02:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any sources to back your argument? The fact that the article existed since 2006 has zero bearing on notability. LibStar (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Risen Christ Church, Peravallur[edit]

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

No non-primary sources found. Sohom (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kinder Scout#Landmarks. ✗plicit 12:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob's Ladder, Derbyshire[edit]

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

I don't see that there are enough sources to show that this footpath/bridleway meets the inclusion criteria on en.wiki. Incidentally the majority of the page covers other topics which already have pages so it doesn't seem like anything much would be lost if deleted. JMWt (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page gets an average of 13 views per day. So it is proving to be useful to people and it would be disappointing to deny such people access to an interesting article. Douglal (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Vale of Edale, where it is already mentioned. I found plenty of sources mentioning Jacob's Ladder, including both guidebooks like [25] and historical texts like [26], but none that covered the subject directly or in detail beyond stating that the path was apparently built by one Jacob Marshall in the 18th century. I believe it's best covered in a more general article about the area. Vale of Edale seems like the best fit, but other possibilities are High Peak Estate (the land management area to which it belongs) or Kinder Scout (which has a "Landmarks" section where it could fit, although I believe Jacob's ladder is properly speaking a path to Kinder Scout rather than in it). Jfire (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to the "Landmarks" section of Kinder Scout, as mooted above. Jacob's Ladder is fairly well known as the first significant climb on the Pennine Way and one of the most popular routes onto Kinder (and the bridge at the bottom is a listed building), but even as a local I'd consider it a minor geographical feature and probably not notable. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Nkounkou[edit]

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

Not a notable sprinter. Hasnt won any medals. Only sources are sports Wikipedias. F.Alexsandr (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. F.Alexsandr (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This athlete was selected to not one, not two, not three, but four Olympics, albeit only competing at one. I would be stunned if such an athlete did not have significant coverage; alas, our ability to access sources from African nations like the Republic of the Congo is extremely poor... BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, thank you for nominating the article because it gives us a chance to improve it. From what we know, the subject was a silver medallist at the 1981 Central African Games in the "main event" of athletics, the men's 100 metres. He almost won the gold, too, as he was assigned the same time as Théophile Nkounkou. At the 1972 Olympics, his team didn't do so bad, as they ran sub-40 seconds twice and advanced to the semifinals. His silver medal makes him a clear WP:NATH satisfier, meaning we can presume that coverage is likely to exist regardless of WP:SPORTCRIT.
There are also signficant naming details to consider in this AfD. In short, the subject may have been named by any or all of the following in order of decreasing likelihood: Antoine Nkounkou, Antoine Ntsana, Antoine Kiakouama, Pierre Antoine. This is the number one reason why coverage is so difficult to find for the subject, while all of his Olympic peers are easily searchable. In his profile at Tilastopaja (registration required), he has Kiakouama's name and a matching DOB, meaning that some of Kiakouama's myriad achievements are likely attributable to the subject. We haven't even checked the Congolese papers for one of these names, let alone all four that would be required to invalidate WP:NEXISTS. --Habst (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bingo! I found an in-depth article focusing on his life from the newspaper Le'Patriote; it seems he died in 2017 and the article notes that "Antoine Ntsana Nkounkou is indisputable as one of the big names in Congolese athletics." This is sufficient to pass WP:SPORTCRIT, which, in addition to his pass of WP:NATH, is enough to keep this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you know how reliable that source is? I agree it has depth. Let'srun (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its a newspaper... BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 FasciaBlaster. ✗plicit 12:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Black (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Good marketing, nothing significant to cover her on Wikipedia. If her business is notable then create a separate article. Fails WP:GNG. Fhektii (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arlet Gomez[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Also, WP:COI per [27] Fhektii (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2024 (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/2024 February 7. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 10:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Cuba, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the sourcing on this article is primary (interview), or trivial mentions/name checks. An online BEFORE search reveals only social media, user-submitted content or more trivial mentions, rather than significant, in-depth coverage. Does not pass WP notability criteria WP:GNG, nor WP:NARTIST. Being in a few non-notable shows is not enough - that is simply what hundreds of thousands of artists do; a substantial exhibition record plus coverage such as reviews, articles or book chapters on their work does not seem to exist, nor does it seem her work is in any notable museum or national gallery collections. Netherzone (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rodolfo Flores (sport shooter)[edit]

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

Not a notable sports shooter. Havent won any medals, competed in one Olympic competition. Does not have anything else notable about him F.Alexsandr (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anindya Das[edit]

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

His notability is questionable, WP:NPROF. The page contained major overstatements of his sole significant prize, claiming that it was "the" most significant in India. In fact it is for Indian scientists under 45, and 12 are given each year -- far less notable; I have corrected this. With (Google Scholar) 81 articles, which includes preprints and conference papers, and an h-factor of only 22 he is at best marginal. I suspect that he may have passed the WP:AfC due to bloated claims. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me what C2 of WP:NACADEMIC says. User4edits (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop overstating the case. The top award is Bharat Ratna. The prize is relevant, but is a junior prize not a lifetime achievement or similar. While, perhaps, he meets C2, he fails C1 and C3-C8 and there are no indications of major impact on the international stage. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. I did not say top prize, again, as I said top national science prize, which I quoted verbatim from WP:RS given at the end.
2. As per WP:NACADEMIC, "Academics meeting any one of the following", and as you said, he meets C2.
3. SSB Award passes a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." (C2, as you said).
Lastly, please, I did not overstate. A bit more of reading before accusing, if possible. User4edits (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel, Karnataka, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NPROF. Award is not the top prize in the nation. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @UtherSRG passes C2 WP:NACADEMIC, you may want to see my reply above. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User4edits is correct that C2 does not require the award to be a nation's top award; the exact wording is highly prestigious academic award OR honor at a national or international level. I have not looked into this particular award so will not comment on that. Curbon7 (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The wiki page for the award itself makes it sound quite significant though. BulgarianCat (talk) 07:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With 9421 cites on GS a clear pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Having an upper age limit does not disqualify an award from being significant; consider the Fields Medal. The one on question here is not in the same league as the Fields but still seems to be a significant national-level award, possibly enough for WP:PROF#C2. I don't think the Young Nanoscientist India award 2021 [28] is even at that level, but it adds to notability even if it does not by itself ensure it. And I think the citation record is also strong enough for WP:PROF#C1; two first-author publications with four-digit cites on GS, and enough others to make it clear that those were not a fluke. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pass of PROF by both criteria #1 and #2. Should not have been nominated. gidonb (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John "JD" Durairaj[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) like Jessie and Meghna. Sources are all film reviews which simply mentions multiple characters from the film. Only the first source isn't. Merge all information to Master (2021 film)#Themes and influences if deemed necessary. DareshMohan (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: One time character. Hasn't appeared in any sequel, spinoff or remake. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge. The information is extremely unnecessary for a single page, and since Vijay doesn't have information on his own page, I say that we can merge it. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Martial arts, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The statement overlooks the potential significance and impact of JD's presence in a standalone narrative and fails to consider its cultural or narrative contribution, as seen with iconic one-time characters like Hannibal Lecter from "The Silence of the Lambs" or Tyler Durden from "Fight Club." ஸ்டீவன் ஸ்கால் (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Checkuser note: The !voter above is the same person as the blocked socks below. --Blablubbs (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hannibal Lecter and Tyler Durden are by no means one-time characters. And don't compare JD to them. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It appears that the concept of a "one-time character" is somewhat ambiguous, especially considering that many such characters have their own wiki pages. Deleting JD's wiki page might not align with consistency given the existence of other one-time character pages. Additionally, if JD's page isn't violating any rules and there are other contributors invested in its development, it suggests a level of community interest and relevance. Comparing JD to other one-time characters like Tyler Durden and Hannibal Lecter, who haven't appeared in sequels, spinoffs, or remakes of fims, underscores the notion that JD merits inclusion and recognition within the wiki. NativeTamilan (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Blablubbs (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Master (2021 film) - There are no sources that would indicate that the character is notable outside of simply being the star of a notable movie that has its own article already, nor has any real analysis or discussion separate from the reviews and discussions of the movie as a whole. I don't think merging is really necessary here as the vast majority of this article is simply a summary of the movie's plot, which the main article on the film already has, and the one section for analysis of the character is completely unsourced. Rorshacma (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sock arguments and !votes --Blablubbs (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Why would that even matter for a character wiki he is not a real life historical figure like Mohammad or Jesus where you need sources if you look at that angle half of the movie characters have no impact other then Instagram and Tik Tok edits. ManOfJusticekk (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you should review Wikipedia's policy on original research and the general notability guideline to understand why sources do, in fact, matter even for a fictional character. And you are absolutely correct with your second point - most fictional characters that appeared in a single movie and have no significant coverage in reliable sources demonstrating any kind of independent notability shouldn't have an article, such as this one. Rorshacma (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:It is imperative to recognize the significance of fictional characters within the context of their respective art form and assess their notability accordingly. In the case of the character JD from "Master," his inclusion is warranted as he is an integral part of the movie's thematic elements and narrative arc. Dismissing JD's importance as a one-time character would be a hasty judgment, overlooking the depth of his impact on the storyline and the dynamics among other characters. It is essential to enhance JD's representation by integrating relevant information into the broader discussion of themes and influences within the film's main page. Deleting JD from the discussion would deprive readers of potential insights into the film's themes and character development, which could significantly enrich their understanding. Therefore, it is crucial to maintain the integrity of the character while addressing concerns about page redundancy and notability. DonParlo (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Brother, when we delve into the matter at hand, we must ponder deeply upon the essence of significance and relevance. Now, if we were to reflect on the character in question, we must acknowledge that its prominence primarily stems from its portrayal in a notable cinematic masterpiece, correct? However, my dear friend, does this portrayal in and of itself grant inherent notability outside the realm of the film? One must wonder, for without independent analysis or discourse separate from the broader discussions of the movie, can we truly assert its individual significance? Now, merging, my brother, merging is not merely a matter of necessity but a strategic maneuver to consolidate redundant information. The bulk of this article merely reiterates the plot already expounded upon in the main article on the film, leaving us with a solitary section bereft of substantiated analysis. Verily, my dear brother, it is imperative that we uphold scholarly standards and substantiate our claims with credible sources lest we dilute the discourse with unsubstantiated assertions. SwamyAyya566 (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It doesn't seem to hurt anything and it doesn't seem like it breaks any of the wiki laws that I have read. But I guess that's just my opinion. But hey I feel like we should get editors to edit this page instead start up deleting it or put it in a subsection in the Master (2021 film). — Preceding unsigned comment added by சரோகம (talk • contribs) 21:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As per nomination and heavy involvements of SOCKS --~AntanO4task (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One presumes that if there were good arguments or sourcing, socks would be unnecessary. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hairbangers Ball[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NMUSICIAN. Edwardx (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was snow keep‎. This has been up just short of 7 days with no delete !votes thus I feel a snow keep is reasonable at this point. (non-admin closure) GSS 💬 05:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karmeeleyah McGill[edit]

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

Fails GNG (only primary souces cover him) and especially WP:SUSTAINED; ProQuest search brought up no mentions in the last ten years. NFL rosters, when combined with the call-ups and injury replacements from training camp, are far too large for every player to be notable; this one is not. Mach61 (talk) 05:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com shows zero mentions in the 21st century Mach61 (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since his career was in the 20th century, that is the more apt search parameter. SUSTAINED does not require coverage to cross multiple centuries. Cbl62 (talk) 07:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Netherlands, Scotland, Florida, Indiana, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A quick search of his full name (unsure if there was a nickname or short form) at Newspapers.com turns up SIGCOV in multiple sources. E.g., [29], [30], [31], [32]/[33], [34]. Cbl62 (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV from multiple publication over a period of several years, as can bee seen in the above sources and this from 1991. Alvaldi (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG with sources above. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG. And SUSTAINED does not require coverage of earlier subjects to extend into the 21st century. Rlendog (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Plenty of coverage as already used in the article and in the few comments above this one. I wouldn't expect to find coverage for him now, he's well past his playing days. Notability isn't something that goes away as time passes, as far as wiki is concerned. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You'd think it'd be best practice to talk with an AFC reviewer about why they accepted a submission (especially one they added sigcov sources to) before immediately going in and nominating that new article for deletion, but oh well. Anyway, this topic very clearly passes the general notability guideline. Mach61, be aware that the NFL is covered much more than you think. Basically anyone who plays even one game in modern times will have enough coverage for notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: While I agree it appears a proper BEFORE wasn't conducted here, there is no requirement that someone consult with the AFC reviewer before bringing an article to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said it was a requirement, only that it was a decent idea for subject areas one is unfamiliar with. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. Referencing is impressive. gidonb (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asha Singh[edit]

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

non-notable individual, WP:BLPRELATED User4edits (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ahamir massacre[edit]

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

I don't even know what this article is referring to. I can find no mention that this even happened besides the singular external link, which is Michael Yon's blog. If this can be verified then maybe mentioned somewhere, but I can't find anything else on this PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with Lolekek. This should be deleted. I don't see much of the massacre even being talked about on the page, and scrolling down to the bottom page, not enough sources to confirm any parts of the incident.
NoobThreePointOh (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Keshav[edit]

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

non-notable, claims notability by participation User4edits (talk) 04:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page seems to be lacking recent references. Added 2 new ones. 2001:FB1:7D:504E:C939:F7F2:5EB1:20DE (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean towards Delete. Dubious notability. Only notable source article that covers him at lenght is Times of India article. F.Alexsandr (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOI can not be used to prove WP:N -- User4edits (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Hindu is a good option, although it may not always provide in-depth coverage on this page.CSMention269 (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: One thing is the passing reference about him but no significant coverage about this racer and not won quite notable races. Though it's participation is mentioned. CSMention269 (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Did a bit more googling on him. Seems there's more recent coverage based on his recent F2 test. Need to link those to the article 2001:FB1:7D:504E:F112:A450:4DF3:C64E (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:NMOTORSPORT; Also, has it being mentioned that Arjbox maybe is LK, a WP:COI AND WP:SPA case having seen his editing history. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like it. However that contributor hasn't edited the pages in years and seems inactive. Are there any motorsport contributors here? 2001:FB1:7D:504E:F112:A450:4DF3:C64E (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Reyes[edit]

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

Completely unnotable politician holding unnotable positions. No good sources found. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:42, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hammadid expedition to Tlemcen (1058)[edit]

Hammadid expedition to Tlemcen (1058) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this article is a combination of embroidery and original research. The background section does not relate specifically to the topic and is in any case unclear in meaning. The substantive content of the article is the two sentences “ The Hammadids launched a campaign against the Ifrenids, seizing Tlemcen in the process. However, they opted not to retain control over the city and instead focused on consolidating their holdings in the eastern regions.” This carries three citations, of which two are offline but the third does not support the existence of a Hammadid expedition to Tlemcen in 1058. The aftermath section, like the background, is just generic padding. There is very little substance here, what there is is not supported by the accessible source, and a search for “hammadid tlemcen” and “tlemcen 1058” brings up nothing at all to support the existence of this expedition, never mind its notability Mccapra (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Algeria. Mccapra (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I forgot to add that source five provided by the creator is meant to support the statement “ The remaining Banu Ifran in Tlemcen were massacred by Yusuf ibn Tashfin” but it us actually a scholarly catalogue of beetles. Mccapra (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought this would be yet another passing mention somewhere being turned into a military history stub, but I can't even find any mention of this anywhere, even in passing. For the three cited sources: 1) Ibn Khaldun doesn't say this; 2) Ferchain isn't accessible but a Google snippet search ([36]) doesn't even find the date "1058" inside; and 3) a historical atlas (Lugan) is unlikely to mention an evidently minor event in any detail. A brief search of other books and articles yields nothing. No way this meets notability, even if it were accurate. R Prazeres (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion as a recently-restored article (redirect was reverted).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Eventify by draft‎. Consensus lean towards shifting the focus to the event which itself is notable. Closing discussion by moving the article to draftspace for 'eventification' per discussion. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Predrag Koluvija[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, specifically WP:PERPETRATOR. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as nom. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Crime, and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Batmanthe8th (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the individual in question seems non-notable by himself, but the case seems to have received significant coverage: [37], [38], [39], [40], among others. Would it not be an option to rename the article to Predrag Koluvija case or something along those lines and expand a bit on the criminal case itself, while retaining a brief subsection with Koluvija's basic biographical details? Ostalgia (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eventify. The case itself seems to have quite a bit of significant coverage (even English language coverage of subsidiary cases exists). As WP:1E notes, When an individual is significant for their role in a single event,... [t]he general rule is to cover the event, not the person. The event is clearly notable—it's a major national case in Serbia—and I think some of this text could be used to get our article on that case started. This might be best done by a draft, or alternatively by bold editing in the mainspace, but I don't think deletion is the option here.— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion of rename and event notability should be further explored and refined.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, just shift focus onto event. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Title suggestion: maybe something like 2019 Serbian drug farm case? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 22:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider delete vs 'eventify' (what a word).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) asilvering (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Outcast Band[edit]

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

They exist, but I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No real claim to notability. Llajwa (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have just seen this AfD. Can I request another relist please, to give me time to look for sources? There is RS coverage here stating significance:[41]. ResonantDistortion 06:48, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep After digging-up several more sources (including both independent coverage and album reviews) I have added these citations to the article, and also cleaned up the text and the general tone. There is now sufficient independent WP:RS coverage that the subject has WP:V evidence to meet WP:NMUSIC#7, most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city, and also the Outcast Band should meet WP:NMUSIC#1, Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. It should also be noted that the band was very active in the early 1990s, and we can therefore presume there is high likelihood of offline coverage. ResonantDistortion 23:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looked around, seems like a non notable local band Timber of Neutrality (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep after ResonantDistortion's work. Geschichte (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to consider ResonantDistortion's submission.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after ResonantDistortion's additions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ — Paper Luigi T • C 03:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Carpenters' Very First TV Special[edit]

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

Article is mostly a plot summary of the first television special for the musical duo the Carpenters, but the subject doesn't present much else for being noteworthy. It fails to cover how the special was critically received or how it affected the careers of the musicians or the production's staff. After researching it, I didn't find anything of value to justify its own article on WP. — Paper Luigi T • C 04:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are all full-size reviews, not capsules or trivial mentions. This satisfies WP:NTV, which says "Multiple reviews or other reliable, independent, non-trivial commentary demonstrate notability for a television episode." Toughpigs (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Herman[edit]

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

Unnotable politician holding unnotable positions in a small city. No sources found to indicate notability. Previously nominated in the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, closed as procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Tainer[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years. It was tagged as the sources only give him a passing mention. Boleyn (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think fails NPROF, but passes on GNG. The article has:
Lojeski, Karen Sobel (2009). Leading the Virtual Workforce: How Great Leaders Transform Organizations in the 21st Century. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-42280-9.
This WP:RS says, inter alia: Steven A. Tainer is one of the first students of Tibetan Buddhism in the West. He has studied Eastern contemplative traditions intensively for forty years with many Tibetan, Chinese, and Korean masters [...] Steven has served on the faculty of the Institute for World Religions and the Berkeley Buddhist Monastery since 1995. He is a faculty member of the Kira Institute (www.kira.org), which explores the interface between modern, scientifically-framed perspectives and matters involving human values. He is also the co-founder and Editor of WoK (www.waysofknowing.net/) (Page 24). Now being the founder and editor of a website is not enough for GNG, and serving on faculty is not enough for NPROF, but this write up itself looks like SIGCOV in a reliable secondary source. It is not just this one, either. The IAS, no less, mentions him [43] which also tells us: Steven Tainer is in the unique position of being trained as a philosopher of science (at the University of Michigan), before starting on a dual career in computer science and philosophy. In his first capacity, he was director of the product design and training departments for Cubicomp Corporation, a computer graphics company. There are plenty more. This person looks notable to me, and there appears to be plenty to say about him in an article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! Steven Tainer is a person whose biography describes those of this century who are integrating Eastern thought into Western culture. He is an exquisite example of this phenomenon and has substantial credentials to qualify him, as listed in his biography. ( Do we need a new category for this?) Also, as described in his biography, Steven's personal philosophy embodies humility, and he has not acted to raise his personal profile or gain recognition and praise... he has avoided such activities. But please don't let this 'low profile' confuse the issue. He is a notable part of a fascinating cultural phenomenon and philosophical/spiritual renaissance in our country, in our culture, and is a person of great influence (his contributions delineated in this Wiki article), important in our time and going forward. His details elucidate this cultural phenomenon. JeanneCourtney (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome to Wikipedia JeanneCourtney. His own low profile won't count against him. The article will be kept or not based on what others have said about him, particularly in reliable secondary sources (books, research papers, documentaries, etc.) As above, I think others have said enough, but we will see if anyone disagrees. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 18:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • :Keep, his contribution appears to be quite significant, it is just that his profile lacking sufficient resources Rapanomics (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]
    Welcome to Wikipedia. AfD is not a vote, it is a discussion of what makes someone notable. Who is writing about Tainer? Where are they writing it? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete: The two sources found by Sirfurboy are the best case for keep, but I think they are quite borderline and would prefer a bit more substantial coverage. The IAS source only has a short paragraph on Tainer, and he seems mainly to be covered as background to a collaboration that they planned to work on together. The other source is from a reliable publisher, but the author is not really in the same field, and the coverage is again not massively in-depth. I tried to find other supporting sources but could only find passing mentions. Shapeyness (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Consensus is against applying WP:TNT. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otjiherero grammar[edit]

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

This article is mostly a grammar manual, and has been tagged for reference manual concerns for more than six years without improvement. It looks like a manual mainly because it extensively referenced from a self-published book called Otjiherero: Grammar Manual by User:Tom.m.rose, one of the co-authors of the book. The subject is certainly notable, but I'm nominating it here for deletion to start over because of the conflict of interest, self-published source, and self-promotion issues. Mikeblas (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe there are any conflict of interest or self-promotion issues with this article. I do not host, distribute, or profit in any way from this "book", so I don't see the "conflict of interest". I also have no social presence to "self-promote" related to this topic. A simple Google search could confirm all of this.
On the other hand, there is great information on this page. The co-author and I would have benefitted immensely from access to this knowledge 15 years ago when we were living amongst the Herero people. Do we really think someone is going to put all of this information back onto Wikipedia? I wouldn't be qualified to at this point, as I haven't spoken Otjiherero in 13 years.
Moreover, this is Wikipedia: if it's wrong, someone can just come correct it.
Is it a perfect situation? No. But I hope this knowledge doesn't get lost, especially without a good reason. Tom.m.rose (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about its policies, but if you want to ensure that this information/knowledge doesn't get lost perhaps Wikibooks would be a suitable location for it, regardless of what happens to Otjiherero grammar on Wikipedia? Shazback (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think this is a good application of WP:BLOWITUP. Even if the self-published source doesn't measure up to our requirements, taking out all content referenced by it would still leave a somewhat useful start-class article. Moreover, there isn't much literature on the subject, and the little there is (the work of Kavari and the Embo Romambo), is already part of the references. Generally, an author of a monograph on the subject editing Wikipedia is a good thing, not a bad thing. As the article is not about Tom Rose or their book but about the topic of their book, there is no COI. --Pgallert (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - as per Pgallert. Taking everything into account the balance of benefit seems clearly in favour of keeping the article. Ingratis (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as per the above points. One further comment though: perhaps rename the article Herero grammar, if Herero is indeed the WP:COMMONNAME of the language (as evinced by the title of the Herero language article itself), with a redirect as appropriate of course. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary DeCesare[edit]

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

This doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. The refs are all sponsored or contributor articles, and I couldn't find better sources on a WP:BEFORE. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed a Forbes contributor blog post; click on the author or the little icon next to her name.Sam Kuru (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. None of the existing sources are useful, as per Mr. Apples; it's all PR, advertorials, self-created directory listings. Searching for others leads to an amazing amount of PR and puff interviews, including many blackhat SEO blogs that are a pretty solid canary-in-the-coalmine for a manufactured presence. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) asilvering (talk) 04:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Savely Govorkov[edit]

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

No evidence this fictional character meets WP:GNG. What we have is a pure pot summary, and a strange listing of further sources that gives this a veneer of academic respectability, except that as far as I can tell those sources do not contain any SIGCOV meeting discussion of the character. I did find a sentence of analysis at [45], but the snippet view prevents me from checking if this is in-depth or passing comment, nor from figuring out what article in this journal collection is relevant (the text of that snippet is not indexed by Google or Google Scholar). Can anyone find anything to rescue this?

The usual disclaimer applies: sources may exist in Russian, although ru wiki article is very bad (reads like a bad fandom article, filled with quotes and trivia).

If nobody can find sources that show how this meets GNG, WP:ATD-R would be to redirect this to the creator, Viktor Dotsenko. A more complex solution might be to create an article on the book series he features in, but this would need to be done mostly from scratch, and neither this article nor the stub about their writer even tells us what this series might be called. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Russia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The journal collection is questionable, but there are certainly instances when he's discussed in detail as an archetypal protagonist of post-Soviet detective novels: 1, 2. Not opposed to a move to an article about the book series. PaulT2022 (talk) 02:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If the character is as described on the page, a breakout character, then a redirect to the author may not be sufficient, and in Russian culture this would be a character that potentially is like Tarzan or James Bond, breakout characters sensibly treated in their own articles. The question is whether he does have that reach, and there are a list of "further reading" sources on the page. The first of these, Eliot Borenstein (2008) Overkill: sex and violence in contemporary Russian popular culture, says a lot about this character (spelled Savelii) and certainly meets all the requirements of an independent reliable secondary source. The second book on the list I tried was Michael L. Bressler (2009) Understanding contemporary Russia, and I couldn't find any mention in that one, which is disappointing. I don't have access to the other books, nor the periodicals, but based on Borenstein, I would be surprised if there is not already information on the page to fully meet GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first source just mentions him in the context of plot summaries, but I did not see any analysis there? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. For instance, what looks like plot summary on page 92 is, in fact, analysis on the subject of the re-emergence of prostitution in the context of the section, "Perestroika Prostitutes" (because prostitution was supposedly eradicated in the soviet era). So on page 92, "A prostitute named Natasha is also crucial for the redemption of the hero of Viktor Dotsenko's best-selling series of action novels, Savelii Govorkov" and following summary is analysing the plot to further the thesis of the book, which is about sex and violence in contemporary Russian popular culture. The same is true of other mentions. E.g., chapter 6 is about Men of Action and focusses closely on this character. The whole chapter is about this character, but is analysing the plots to make points about violence in the culture, discussing tropes and themes etc. Page 176 has a section about the character's metaphysics. It is a lot more than just plot summary. Chapter 6 alone, all about the character, is 35 pages of both plot and analysis. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Super Aguri F1#SS United Group Oil & Gas Company. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SS United Group Oil & Gas Company[edit]

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

A virtually fictitious company best known for promising sponsorship monies to a F1 team that never existed, leading to their collapse. Their internet presence was nowhere to be seen on Google, not even back in 2007. The sources don't help either. Fails WP:ORG on its entirety and WP:GNG too. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:26, 30 January 2024 (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) 03:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 04:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avalum Naanum[edit]

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

Fails the general and television-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2024 (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 02:38, 31 January 2024 (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) 03:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. signed, Rosguill talk 03:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caddebostan, Kadıköy[edit]

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

Declined draft moved out of AfC by creator. Longer discussions here, here and here. I think a merger to Kadıköy#Composition would be fine (this is where Caddebostan already redirects, but Youprayteas wants a standalone). The issue is while source volume exists, the depth does not indicate this should be a standalone rather than covered in the larger article. Neighborhoods rarely meet GEOLAND, and NOPAGE applies here. Bringing it here for larger discussion, Star Mississippi 02:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Hi Star Mississippi, I would like to indicate that Caddebostan has a large population, a history, and important places inside. Before you try to delete my article, I suppose you should delete the thousands and thousands of village and neighborhood stubs with only population information and nothing else. Youprayteas (talk to me? | contribs) 04:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have a history of thousands of them being either poorly sourced or outright false, so that's actually a process that is happening. You really do not want to rely upon that as your sole argument. The other stuff that exists is crap that we gradually actually are deleting. Uncle G (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well good I guess because all categories like villages in x place for Turkey contain random villages no one cares about. That is definetly not my only argument and as you can see many people also agree that Caddebostan is notable enough. Youprayteas (talk to me? | contribs) 13:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Caddebostan, as no disambiguation is necessary. I would agree with the initial AfC declines in January as the article was just a stub with questionable sources that weren't showing notability. However, I don't understand the basis of this AfD; the article is actually in pretty good shape with good sourcing, having been expanded following the discussions linked in the nomination statement. Sure the formatting is wrong, but Ref 6 is actually a peer-reviewed journal article on the history of the neighborhood. Maybe these don't automatically pass GEOLAND as populated places, but a historic area in a very large city is bound to have some sourcing to be notable. Some high-quality sources include (two already in the article; just formatted improperly):
Some others can be found on subtopics like transportation and geology etc. but that's not really relevant for here. I believe there are enough reliable sources with significant coverage on the topic that demonstrate the notability of this neighborhood. As for its depth and NOPAGE; I believe the article is (and was) long enough to warrant its own page. It's not a stub by far as it's long enough to run on DYK (in fact, right now there are three articles on the main page shorter than this). I don't see a merge to Kadıköy being a good option as #Composition just "lists" all the neighborhoods without any text, so covering only Caddebostan there with several paragraphs while none of the others have anything is just off. A merge would likely cause the text to be cut and result in the loss of encyclopedic information anyway. Styyx (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would also want to indicate that according to GEOLAND, quote "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." Caddebostan is 1. legally recognized 2. has a big population 3. has coverage in secondary, reliable sources (per Styyx) 4. has a history, and the Byzantine period section includes a peer reviewed high quality source and finally 5. has notable places, some of which already have an article. (ex: Ragıp Paşa Mansion and Bağdat Avenue) Youprayteas (talk to me? | contribs) 19:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Caddebostan as Caddebostan is a well-known neighborhood in Istanbul. As demonstrated above, there is significant coverage of the neighbrohood by RS, and it is also notable according to WP:GEOLAND. A disambiguator is unneeded as there is no other Caddebostan as far as I know, or if there was, this one is clearly the primary topic. Aintabli (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move per above. Appears to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woodcrest Baptist Academy[edit]

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

I was unable to find secondary or tertiary sources about the subject that cover it at all besides niche.com. Therefore, I believe that this article is suitable for deletion because being a school offers it no inherent notability. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 01:51, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, there is nothing lost with deleting this article. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 0 indication of notability. Using PROD would have been more appropriate. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Beverley Mahood#Albums. ✗plicit 04:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moody Blue (Beverley Mahood album)[edit]

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

Fails the requirements of WP:NALBUM. Has been lacking any sources since 2011 (WP:GNG). I have searched and can’t find any reliable independent secondary sources required to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Benson[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE shows no reliable sources that would allow this person to continue to pass the notability guidelines. Note: This person has changed their name to reflect their non-binary status. Please refer to them as 'Lucky Benson' or they/them :) - RichT|C|E-Mail 01:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and United States of America. - RichT|C|E-Mail 01:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04pf :01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can find and cite significant coverage of this person in reliable sources that are entirely independent of this person. I looked and could find nothing compelling. Of the three references in the current version of the article, one is a dead link, another is controlled by this person, and the third is a school promoting one of their students, and therefore not independent. The recent name change is irrelevant. If the article is kept in the end, the title can be corrected then. Cullen328 (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article fails all the notability guidelines - @Cullen328 I believe @Rich Smith included the name change so we don't misgender this individual. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On WP:BLP grounds and at the apparent request of the subject, I have moved the article from Lily Benson to Lucky Benson and updated this AFD to reflect that, as much as I can without breaking things. The WordsmithTalk to me 00:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed with Cullen. The newest reference is a press release announcing their being hired by Audience, not independent. Nothing else has come up. JoelleJay (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or Draftify My WP:BEFORE on Google Books, Google News, newspapers.com, and JSTOR is unable to locate WP:SIGCOV WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject's employer. However, my understanding is there was a recent name change involving the subject and, without a full naming history, my BEFORE may not be sufficient. I'd, therefore, be open to draftifying this for a period of time to permit the originating editor, or whomever, to work on it. Chetsford (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inspired by a post on Wikipediocracy, I brushed up this BLP with information from the existing sources plus what else I could find. (The sources I found were all under their former name.) I was unable to find extended coverage: the longest I found is the Baruch exhibition write-up that we were already using. They have made several experimental videos; I amplified the filmography. But I see no evidence that their work has attracted enough notice to meet either the GNG or WP:NARTIST. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Azizi Bank. Liz Read! Talk! 01:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farhad Azizi[edit]

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

This has been a mess since day one. Creation by a WP:UPE. Moved to draft space a few times in need of incubation. Sources reflect an active business, but provide no notability about the business owner, the subject of the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 00:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge a lot of this is just boosterism but some of it could be merged into Azizi Bank. Mccapra (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: a properly source short summary into Azizi Bank. BLP, per nom Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. Sourcing is all focused on the merge target, with interviews with subject. Fails WP:IS, fails NOTINHERITED. While it does not have sourcing for a stand alone article, it can be summarized into the target, and if sourcing develops, it can be split out. Above history shows SALT might help.  // Timothy :: talk  04:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 casualties of the Smolensk air disaster. Redirect as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 01:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Ziętek[edit]

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

No evidence of this meeting WP:NBIO. Non-notable Polish airforce officer who died in a high-profile crash. Pl Wikipedia article is a bit longer but also has nothing suggesting notability except some obituaries. A posthumous award of Order of Polonia Restituta, likely mass-awarded to everyone who died in said tragic event (~90 people) is not enough. WP:ATD-R would be to redirect this to List of casualties of the Smolensk air disaster. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect: Indeed I can find only obituaries, which alone aren't enough to establish notability. NicolausPrime (talk) 04:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It looks like there are some sources around link. 50.237.173.2 (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I see is WP:OBIT and please be precise, what soruces? WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 00:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing this as Keep after the nomination was withdrawn and improvements were made to the article, getting participants' support. Liz Read! Talk! 01:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zdzisław Król[edit]

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

No evidence of this meeting WP:NBIO. A priest, medium-ranked in Catholic hierarchy, who died in a high-profile crash. Pl Wikipedia article is a bit longer but also has nothing suggesting notability (just some obits). A posthumous award of Order of Polonia Restituta, likely mass-awarded to everyone who died in said tragic event (~90 people) is not enough. WP:ATD-R would be to redirect this to List of casualties of the Smolensk air disaster. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect: Indeed no sources supporting notability except for some obituaries, which isn't enough. NicolausPrime (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the role of Father Król in the investigation of the murder of Father Popiełuszko, and later in his beatification trial, is worth emphasizing. The same goes for the murder of Father Niedzielak. Besides, he was a member of the Council for the Protection of Struggle and Martyrdom Sites, which was an elite, significant group.Marcelus (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus I see you found a good source and expanded the article. Thank you - at this point my cncerns are null and I am wirthdrawing this nom. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 00:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the crash casualties list, unless any sources implied by what Marcelus mentioned can be dug up. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus, @NicolausPrime, @PARAKANYAA: I have expanded the Król's bio, leave it to your judgment whether the article meets the requirements now Marcelus (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The one source looks good, but it would need a few more ones that are different sources. Having one good high quality one is a sign that there is probably more significant coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA If we add the weak sources (obits etc.) from pl wiki, I think this would meet SIGCOV now. Disappointingly, pl wiki claims there was an article/obit about him in major Polish newspaper (Wyborcza) but the link is broken and I cannot locate it... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I see no issues with keeping this now. Changing vote to keep. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_February_7&oldid=1207559941"