Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 January 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 17	January 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus‎. As this is due to relatively light participation, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Lillu

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources 1,2 and 3 are interviews with the subject. 4 is an article generated from her Facebook note/post Jeraxmoira (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:before has nothing significant. Jeraxmoira (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Film, India, and Kerala. Jeraxmoira (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Source 1 is The Hindu article - reliable, independent, secondary and featured article written majority from journalist point of view. Its a 500+ word article.

Source 2 is Deshabhimani article - reliable, independent, secondary and featured article with 6 sentences from journalist point of view. Its a 500+ word article. Source 3 is Times of India malayalam version samayam article. It is based on a work of the subject. Its a over 1000 article. Source 4 is Vanitha magazine article is a reliable news source removed by the afd nominator. Source 5 is Asianet News article which has 5 sentence from journalist point of view. passes notability Mischellemougly (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Interviews and reports of interviews are primary sources. The Vanitha article is generated from the subject's Facebook post. Secondary sources are needed to establish notability for the purposes of deciding which articles to keep. Topics that are only covered briefly or in poor quality secondary sources may not meet the general notability guideline. Jeraxmoira (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As detailed by Mischellemougly, there are reliable secondary sources for this article. Rublamb (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rublamb. Are interviews with the subject considered as a secondary source? If not, could you please explain how BLP passes GNG? I am also open to a source assessment table from any uninvolved editor. Jeraxmoira (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An article that incorportes an interview is a secondary source as it also includes analysis and comentary by the article's author. See also the article that I added to external links. Rublamb (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you saw the Hindu article [1] which has the analysis and commentary by the article's author. The other's are standalone interviews with no analysis and commentary. Source 4 and 6 are articles generated from subject's Facebook posts. Jeraxmoira (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citation 1, 2, 3, and the article I added to external links include editorial content. Rublamb (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ on this. Only the Hindu article contains enough analysis and commentary throughout to be considered a secondary source. Citations 2 and 3 merely provide a gist at the top, which I believe are routine procedures followed by all Indian entertainment news media outlets to include a small brief of the subject. The external link is an unreliable website with no editorial oversight. Jeraxmoira (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: We might have to disagree on Cinema Daddy; it has staff that curate its content and, therefore, appears to be reliable. Regardless, interviews can and do count toward notability. WP:INTERVIEWS says "A multitude of interviews...shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." This is especially so when the interviews are in reliable or noted publications. When the interviews in Deshabhimani and The Times of India are considered along with a feature article in The Hindu, there is enough coverage in major publications to keep this article. Also, keep in mind that not all content from an interview is considered primary; again, I refer you to WP:INTERVIEWS. Rublamb (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Cinema Daddy's about page, they are a entertainment portal that shares film updates. There is no editorial oversight, which makes it similar to the 1000 other entertainment websites that do the same(I would be glad to share some examples). WP:INTERVIEWS also states that However, the mere fact that a person has been interviewed does not automatically mean that interviewee qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article, and an article must still cite a mixture of other types of non-interview sourcing as well. and Anything interviewees say about themselves or their own work is both primary and non-independent, and therefore does not support a claim for notability. I would also like to note last few words of what you quoted, that it is only considered as evidence of notability.
Only the Hindu featured article would qualify under GNG on a source assessment table. The Times of India is generally considered unreliable, see WP:TOI. As previously stated, Deshabhimani does not have analysis/commentary to consider it as a secondary source. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 11 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) 23:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is the only other source I could find [2], not likely a RS. We have one good source and a few non-RS. I don't think we're at notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 20 January 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 without prejudice to any talk page consensus to rescope or even merge. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

List of serial killers by number of victims

AfDs for this article:

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

Per a similar AfD (which looks to be leaning toward delete). I feel similar arguments are raised there, so this might be worth deleting as well.

The list inclusion criteria provided make this list OR (what inherently makes a serial killer from pre-1900 different and worth including in a different list? Why are medical killers treated as something else entirely? Why are entries included if they have no known perpetrator? What defines a serial killer, and which definition does this page use - multiple jurisdictions have changed their terminology). Also, as was raised in that discussion, the list is "grotesque". PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a source of public fascination, perhaps more so than any other category of criminal activity. BD2412 T 00:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of serial killers shows just how many list we have for them. List of serial killers before 1900 does exist for those not on this list, with a column for the number of victims you click on and have it show you the order, who had the most. The information here is spread out in many other articles, based on nation the murders happened in, and lists how many victims they had there. Are people fascinated by how many victims a serial killer in a nation different than theirs has? Clicking the link at the top of the AFD to see how many views this article has had, in the past 90 days its had 606,851. So a lot of people are interested in this information. The media does cover this notable aspect of the criminals. Dream Focus 01:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep: Not very good nomination rationale (especially on the latter point, since Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED). The points about any potential OR would not hold weight because it is not bad enough for a WP:TNT. Selection criteria can be hashed out on the talk page, although, as with anything, if multiple sources call someone a serial killer, they probably are. (It is unlike the familicide page where the selection criteria are largely arbitrary. This is just ordering the total kills of a serial killer.) The problem with separating pre-1900s and medical professional serial killers also has nothing to do with deletion. Those are separate issues. Lastly, while not necessarily a valid point, this is one of Wikipedia's most popular pages. It clearly has interested readers. Why? I Ask (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)][reply]
Keep: You can't delete something just because it's "grotesque". Might as well delete every serial killer's page if that's the case. As others have pointed out there is clearly significant public interest in this page, so it's clearly notable as well. Issues with the selection criteria are an issue for the talk page, not for deletion.--Tulzscha (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject. I would have voted for "delete" for List of rampage killers (familicides in the United States) though. Azuredivay (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see any substantial difference between the list of mass killers by death toll and the lists of serial killers by death toll, in terms of deletion rationale? Both have arbitrary criterions for list inclusion and both are "grotesque". Doesn't make sense for one list to be deleted but keep the other. Just because it gets a lot of views is not a reason to keep it. Serial killers are a notable topic, but is ranking them by death toll notable? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate set of information. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I appreciate the issues raised such as medical personnel being listed separately, I don't think there is a sufficient rationale to delete here. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 20:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This appears to be a popular page, and it's not fair to delete something just because it's "grotesque." I think it could be better organized, yes, but I don't think it calls for deletion. 2603:6080:D141:A700:900A:4D54:D1C7:853E (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to appropriate entries in Lists of serial killers. Something that appears not to have been mentioned here, but is quite relevant -- most "keep" votes simply say that the idea of a list of serial killers is notable, and should not be deleted -- we already have twelve of them.

Here, the issue is not whether we should have a list of serial killers at all: it's whether we should have a separate, additional list devoted to ranking them by high score. I don't think this is necessary. jp×g 🗯️ 03:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reliable sources that discuss or list some of the deadliest serial killers. That fact alone allows it to meet WP:NLIST. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google news search for "sexiest" reveals some hundreds of potential list articles, like List of hotels by sexiness, Sexiest volleyball players, List of sexiest songs, etc -- not sure if these really meet the bar for inclusion. jp×g 🗯️ 07:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference being that "sexiness" is a completely arbitrary metric while the number of victims is a fact of general encyclopedic interest. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By what metric -- the existence of news headlines about it? Did you see the link I posted?

O'Hare, Maureen (January 13, 2024). "Inside the world's best, and sexiest, hotels for 2024". CNN.
"Sexiest NFL players: Wide receivers for Houston Texans, Dallas Cowboys make top 10 list". khou.com. January 19, 2024.
Truffaut-Wong, Olivia (January 19, 2024). "40 Sexiest Netflix Shows You'll Want to Watch with the Lights Off". Cosmopolitan.

Are these not sufficient "facts of general encyclopedic interest"? Surely sexiness is more interesting than murder -- after all, the number of times I've had sex is much higher than the number of times I've committed murder. jp×g 🗯️ 00:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not something is "sexy" is entirely a matter of personal taste, whereas number of victims is an objective fact, hence why one is a fact of encyclopaedic interest and one is not.--Tulzscha (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An objective fact is not an encyclopedic fact. Should we have another separate list of serial killers ordered by height, because height is a fact? jp×g 🗯️ 20:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serial killers aren't known for their height. They are known for killing. Similarly, basketball stars are known for their height which is why List of tallest players in National Basketball Association history exists. Your arguments are not very convincing. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe I should ask a more illustrative question: given that there is already a series of articles that lists serial killers by country, how many duplicate lists, containing the same information, should there be? jp×g 🗯️ 23:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the amount of pageviews it gets indicate it is an important and useful list. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Highly useful list. Carrite (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that the list perhaps should be merged with some others, also inclusion criteria have to be tweaked: I hardly understand what people with 3 possible victims are doing in a list of serial killers. But unfortunately notoriety is a thing, and it is within the scope of an encyclopaedia to provide the information like this. --Base (talk) 21:21, 23 January 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 10:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Retwa

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

Fails WP:N standards, the only source cited is a meager mention, could find nothing substantial Socialwave597 (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Somalia, and Sudan. Owen× ☎ 23:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Ethiopia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What ? Richard Pankhurst clearly talks about it drawing from the primary source which is Al-Makrizi, I linked both secondary AND primary sources, we both know how under-researched Adalite history is, only Richard Pankhurst really adresses these battles of Sabr ad-Din that Al makrizi reports, I asked other wikipedia editors to review all the articles you reported for deletion they said its decent, I really can't see where I failed or did a mistake. Yubudirsi (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cited one source, which just briefly mentions it. Please read WP:GNG before making anymore articles. Socialwave597 (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need to stop creating battle articles based on passing mentions. Adalite history may be under-researched but we have to base our articles on what sources say. I would support merger of this and other similar articles into a broader general article covering Battles of the Abyssinian–Adal war if anyone wanted to create and develop that. Mccapra (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just not enough coverage of the event, the article largely relies on one source. Lack of sourcing is not enough to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 20 January 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 10:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan at the 2010 Asian Beach Games

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jordan at the 2010 Asian Beach Games (2nd nomination)

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

The article is one, uncited sentence with an infobox. I would propose a merge to 2010 Asian Beach Games but the only information not already in the 2010 Asian Beach Games article are links to other years in which Jordan has participated in the Asian Beach Games Vegantics (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are single sentence uncited articles whose information is already covered in 2010 Asian Beach Games:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Vegantics (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Vegantics (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Vegantics (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vegantics (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as lacking everything. Geschichte (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. All of these articles have been PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Mccapra (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom. No article text, therefore nothing to merge. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 19 January 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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 10:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestling Association of Championship Krushers

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

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

Completely unsourced (and tagged as such since 2012 without improvement) article about a shortlived television series, and a similarly unsourced separate episode list for its whopping two episodes. As always, television shows are not "inherently" notable just because they existed, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them, but there's none shown here at all -- and even if they can be salvaged with better sourcing, it would still be remarkably unclear why such a short episode list needed to be a separate article instead of just being a subsection in the main article. Bearcat (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. Mccapra (talk) 02:45, 19 January 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} 07:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of statues in Kollam

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

This seems to be a Commons category rather than an encyclopedic article. WP:NOTGALLERY applies. Most of the statues do not appear to be individually notable and I don’t see anything to indicate that they are discussed anywhere as a set. Mccapra (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and India. Mccapra (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing more to add really, pretty self explanitory. CoconutOctopus talk 12:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; this is really a list of public art – with several reliefs – rather than of statues, and should be renamed. There are several other such lists at Category:Lists of public art. Ham II (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of these link to an article about them, just either an article about the person they are based on, or a location a relief is found at. If coverage can be found about these places, rename the article for public artwork in Kollam or Statues and reliefs in Kollam. Dream Focus 19:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The list has murals, too; I would argue for List of public art in Kollam, like all the examples here. Ham II (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ham II. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is reading like a travel guide and all listed statues are non notable. killer bee  15:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom WP:NOTGALLERY applies.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable pictures this is not commons and NOTGALLERY applies.27.4.112.164 (talk) 07:45, 19 January 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, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joanderson Brito

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

subject is a mixed martial art fighter - Subject fails WP:NMMA and WP:M for not meeting significant coverage of independent, reliable source where by the sources talk about the subject in depth and in length and not merely passing mention. There are sources that talk about subject fight info and there are considered routine sport/fight record and can not be use to meet WP:N. Cassiopeia talk 21:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Brazil. Cassiopeia talk 21:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 21:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete premature creation, doesn't meet GNG or NMMA Nswix (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and WP:TOOSOON. Lethweimaster (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found lots of ghits, but not lots of significant independent coverage. He hasn't yet met WP:NMMA. He may well become notable, but he doesn't yet appear to meet any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG, poorly sourced. Svartner (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:06, 23 January 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Sons of the Serpent

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

Totally non-notable villain group that fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Merge or Redirect, there's a list somewhere this can be merged to. Hiding T 22:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources noted by Daranios and Toughpigs (particularly those being added by Higher Further Faster) or merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations per User:Hiding. BOZ (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While once more this article is in bad shape, secondary sources for improvement do exist: Marvel Comics in the 1970s, p. 193, has commentary and analysis, as does this paper from a Brazilian journal, thus fullfilling the minimum requirements of WP:GNG/WP:WHYN after all. And there are more shorter mentions in various sources, like The Ages of the Avengers, pp. 15, 18, 100, 107. Daranios (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin "Keep" votes without evidence should be completely ignored per WP:NOTAVOTE policy. Daranios was the first one to advance an actual argument. The sources shown by Daranios are a good start, but I'm not sure it's enough to outright convince me it passes GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are existing secondary sources in the article: Marvel Comics in the 1960s: An Issue By Issue Field Guide to a Pop Culture Phenomenon and American Comic Book Chronicles: The 1970s. The nominator did not address why these secondary sources should not be considered sufficient to demonstrate notability. Toughpigs (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence that cites said sources has near-nil in the way of anything beyond the most cursory description, leading me to believe they have only the most trivial and passing of mentions. I would assume if they said anything more, it would have been integrated into the article, or at least brought to the attention of editors on the talk page. Perhaps that is incorrect, but it is the article creator's WP:BURDEN to demonstrate that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While the Keep arguments might be weak, I see no support currently for Deletion. For those editors advocating a Merge or Redirect, is the suggested target article acceptable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While we've been talking, User:Higher Further Faster has improved the page dramatically, with a Reception section that includes a widely-discussed flap on Fox News specifically about whether this villain group is being used in Captain America comics to malign conservatives. I would encourage everyone in this discussion so far to check out the improvement, and see if it changes your opinion on notability. Toughpigs (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reception section clearly meets GNG now. Jclemens (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the sourcing in the article from multiple reliable sources. Curious as to why that didn't show up in the nominator's Before research considering it all seems to be online and User:Higher Further Faster seemed to have no problem locating it. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 20:32, 20 January 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 Christopher Lau. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WWE & Company

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

Non-notable company. I also checked the sources of the article on zh.wp, and there are only PRs. Maybe Chinese-speaking users can find independent reliable sources where I couldn't. Broc (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and China. Broc (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Apart from press releases, there seem to be passing mentions in reliable/independent sources. I can’t find anything that supports WP:GNG here. TLA (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Wharf (Holdings). IgelRM (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It is not a fully owned subsidiary and it is not even mentioned in that article. Broc (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a joint venture, although Christopher Lau might be better redirect according to jingdaily.

WWE & Company is mentioned and linked in history? With company names, I think it is generally helpful to redirect to something associated. IgelRM (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge/redirect to Christopher Lau, a co-founder, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. The article about Christopher Lau doesn't currently mention WWE & Company. A very selective merge using the source IgelRM provided will address that. Cunard (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are multiple Redirect/Merge targets being suggested here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Christopher_Lau#WWE & Company: per source presented by IgelRM 94rain ^Talk 09:23, 21 January 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!} 23:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logan M. Isaac

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. Couldn't anything to satisfy a WP:BLP article. scope_creep^Talk 20:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article reads like a self-promotion piece. Concur with nom that standards aren't met. Intothat darkness 15:15, 19 January 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!} 23:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haby Baldé

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a Senegalese women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions (2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Senegal. JTtheOG (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:46, 19 January 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} 07:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LeverX

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sourced to lists of system integrators, SAP vendors, and trivial coverage of the company moving to Miami. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, California, and Florida. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Good coverage from editorial staff from editions of the American City Business Journals. Needs cleanup, for sure. TLA (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Good coverage" is not a criteria for establishing notability and the reference from American City Business Journals is a profile provided by the company. Hard to miss as it even says it is "in their own words". Fails ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:17, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google and ProQuest search results are routine coverage (moving headquarters, press releases, etc.). American City Business Journals is local coverage so fails WP:AUD and all I found what routine anyway. S0091 (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I appreciated the information about this company when I stumbled upon them months ago in course of my professional work, searching for sources and references I cannot get past the thought that it is just another software company. --Ouro (blah blah) 04:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:17, 22 January 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, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NAVCO Business Security Services

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Georgia (U.S. state). Owen× ☎ 20:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or even speedy delete. Absolutely nothing in my searches. Geeraarts (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kablammo (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing in the article that would constitute a meaningful claim of notability, there are no sources in the article to support such a claim, nor could I find anything more useful in a Google search. The article is in its 14th year and there appear to be no other articles linking to this one, which doesn't help build a case for notability. Alansohn (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very weak coverage, does not meets GNG. Bikerose (talk) 20:11, 24 January 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 Yekutiel Adam provisionally, though of course further discussion may take place regarding the best redirect target. However, there is a consensus that this topic is not sufficiently notable to warrant a standalone article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yekutiel Ravayev

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

Fails WP:BIO. Israeli martyr. He has a memorial on an Israeli Ministry of Defence website, presumably because of his relationship to Yekutiel Adam. Schierbecker (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Schierbecker (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete. He was killed in a battle while protecting his home village. That's not the definition of a martyr (as far as I know). In particular, in the “Arab Battle” section, sources were cited and neutral terms were used. There is no reason to delete this article. He was the grandfather of Yekutiel Adam, a former IDF chief of staff. Ravayev is also mentioned on this page. If we have sources, why don't we use them to create a page so people have more information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OctoGreeko (talk • contribs) 20:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hashomer, the organization Ravayev was a part of when he was killed, pending additional RS, which I do not currently see. Longhornsg (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yekutiel Adam, where the history of Yekutiel Ravayev is justifiably mentioned at sufficient length (hence do not merge). Yekutiel Ravayev is not individually notable by WP:NEXIST (meaning that I actively looked for sources out there). Hashomer is not a good redirect destination as for outgoing links and, strictly speaking, Revayev should be deleted also from there if not kept in the AfD. In the intro, I would not make the following assumption: He has a memorial on an Israeli Ministry of Defence website, presumably because of his relationship to Yekutiel Adam. Any Israeli soldier, security personnel, or terrorism/war victim can have a bio at the general Yizkor site. Exactly why we can use such data but not source notability from here. The same Ministry of Defense operates multiple museums that carefully curate data of people of greater notability, battles, operations, methods, systems, etc. gidonb (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close note for the record (in case we're back here again in the future) - the article's author, OctoGreeko (who also !voted in this discussion) is the sock of a blocked user. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:30, 1 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 El Salvador women's international footballers. ✗plicit 23:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leyla González

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

Redirect to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions (2011, 2021, 2022, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and El Salvador. JTtheOG (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of El Salvador women's international footballers: Per above, subject does not meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 00:52, 25 January 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. If anyone wants this userfying for improvement, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Estrin

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything on Newspapers Extended on either the books or on Estrin himself. No obituary, nothing. The magazines look self-published. Fails WP:GNG. BBQboffin^{grill me} 00:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait - Even though I’m the editor who started this page back in September 2010, I agree that as the article now stands, it does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG and it is justifiable to propose deletion if these issues can’t be fixed. I’m going to try to fix these issues in the coming week, if possible. But if after that it is the consensus that the article should face deletion, I’m going to suggest merging this page or redirecting it to Laura Moriarty (poet and novelist) who was Jerry Estrin’s wife at the time of his death and Moriarty is the executor of Estrin’s estate and thus an important part of Estrin’s legacy and notability. I think a redirect page Estrin~~>to Moriarty is a good faith compromise. Obviously these issues with the Estrin page would need to be cleaned up so an not to move the same housekeeping issues involving WP:BIO & WP:GNG over to Laura Moriarty (poet and novelist) page. - Christian Roess (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Laura Moriarty (poet and novelist) seems to suffer from the same notability issues and lack of sourcing. Maybe draftify both until sources can be found? BBQboffin^{grill me} 23:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the Laura Moriarty page has issues, too. But that’s probably an easier fix. Jerry Estrin is a tough one. It’s difficult to establish notability. I’m surprised that he’s kind of fallen off the grid in the last decade. But yes, I may have to follow your suggestion and re-do these as drafts, so we can get additional input and hope they don’t get deleted. Christian Roess (talk) 03:24, 21 January 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, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elene Kakhniashvili

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a Georgian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. All I found were passing mentions (2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Georgia (country). JTtheOG (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:45, 19 January 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 references added, nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure)‎. Ouro (blah blah) 22:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bret Simon

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

~~I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSICBIO? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extensive coverage available at Newspapers.com; I've added a few sources to the article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to the sources added to the article, not to mention the sources available on Newspapers.com and elsewhere. Clear GNG pass here. JTtheOG (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination Happy to accept I'm wrong here. Thanks for your input. Boleyn (talk) 20:15, 18 January 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 withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaicans of English descent

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

What little this article has is very likely already covered in British Jamaicans and its sister articles. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is going on here, Omnis Scientia, why are you moving the article and AFD page? This should have been done before putting together an AFD, not during an AFD. Now, this AFD page title includes an article title that is different from the article named in nomination. I think this should be procedurally closed and a new AFD filed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, I'll be honest, I have no idea what I was thinking when I did that. Will open a new AFD. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both titles (Jamaicans of English descent and English Jamaicans) to British Jamaicans. BD2412 T 00:44, 19 January 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, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tetsuo Shimada

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a Google search in Japanese for news and came up with nothing that would show notability. If there are decent reviews of his books in Japanese he might be notable as an author, but I could only see book selling sites and UGC. Mccapra (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Did a search on .jp websites, there are a few scientists with a similar name, but nothing for a sports personality. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to justify itself biographical vailidity, usefulness to Wikipedia as an encyclopedic-nature overview, or via notability or language-specified citation checks - not even the linked Shimada Corporation notation on the page provides even remotely enough information to justify this page's existence. Furthermore, none of the subject's publications, affiliations or contributions to his field suggest that this page provides meaningful or useful information from which readers can benefit. As such, all the evidence points to the deletion of this page; I can't see how it could be improved in the foreseeable future, nor does it seem worth scraping together reviews of the subject's generally insignificant output of work. TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 18:30, 22 January 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. Daniel (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franke-Schenk

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

No indication that subject is notable. No refs. PepperBeast (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Germany. PepperBeast (talk) 17:22, 11 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) 19:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think art galleries are often hard to find third party sources for but I literally can’t find any for this. The business has closed down in recent years, I don’t see any news coverage at all, and while there are book refs (inaccessible online) they all seem to be produced in association with the gallery. It looks like it was a major gallery and dealership but I can’t see any sourcing that would meet our requirements. Mccapra (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated above, the Franke art gallery (founded in 1913), the Dr. Schenke gallery and the Franke-Schenk gallery (apparently closed in 2020) were major galleries. There are plenty references of important art work acquired through these galleries. I have found some references that establish notability. I think we should keep it.
Comment of the five sources added to the article, (1) is published by the gallery so not independent (2) also published by the gallery (3) passing mention of travelling exhibition dates, not in-depth coverage (4) Brief passing mention, nothing substantive (5) is a company press release shared on a full-service PR portal. On that showing it is most definitely not notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and Mccapra source eval. Fails GNG and NORG, nothing from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 19:08, 26 January 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 10:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Kitara

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

The topic of this article does not exist. This article conflates 4 things: legends of "The Bachwezi", a legendary group of "ghost people" said in the local oral tradition to have had an empire and then "gone away", (as an absolutely last straw maybe this article could be converted to articles on the mythology of the Nyoro people), the Kitara historical sites, which have been analyzed to some degree but are not the same thing, the Kitara language, and the similarly-named-but-completely different Bunyoro. There are no reliable sources discussing an "Empire of Kitara" (outside of sources referring to the Bunyoro, which are again, a whole other thing). This whole article is just WP:SYNTH. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Democratic Republic of the Congo-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:32, 11 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) 19:25, 18 January 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, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MKM Aboobakar

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom does not WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG.Tame Rhino (talk) 13:32, 19 January 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!} 23:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heksis

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing how this meets GNG, it just exists. If the author woudl create it on much more inclusionist pl wiki, it might survive there, but sadly, they did not. Trying to promote it on English is not a good idea, we have higher standards. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 24 January 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. Per Timothy I haven't redirected as an AtD, but if anyone wishes to create the redirect if they're sure they're related, please feel free to do so editorially. Daniel (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SAPSAN

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Irtysh Air as both appear to be related. Minor airline, fails notability criteria. Geeraarts (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NORG, nothing from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. I think this may be related to Irtysh Air, but I can't find a WP:RS for it. What I did find was database style records that were very probably sourced from this Wikipedia article. I found material (not showing notability) for a SAPSAN airlines in the Kyrgyz Republic.[3]. With the sourcing in and out of the article, I can't tell if there is a relationship. If RS can be found showing a relationship to Irtysh Air I have no objection to a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 19:27, 26 January 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 delete‎ per WP:CSD#G5. ^Complex/_Rational 21:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Dakes

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

A. Would need a big rewrite. B. Sources include WP:CIRCULAR, WP:MEDIUM, WP:YOUTUBE, and ones that don't even mention this rapper (or barely). TLA (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've requested G5, just to save the busy AfD debating what is now essentially WP:SNOW. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:09, 18 January 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 nomination withdrawn following improvements to the article(non-admin closure)‎. Ouro (blah blah) 19:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Light Bearer

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Was AfD'd in 2006 and kept, but standards were then significantly lower. Boleyn (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and History. Owen× ☎ 16:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did not find any refs --PeaceNT (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC) Changed to keep per below. I was concerned about the Publishers Weekly source as it is a trade magazine, but not a big issue, and the new added sources look great. Meet notability. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Why are you not counting the two existing independent reviews already present as citations in the article? Publisher's Weekly has one; this syndicated review originating in the Washington Post is another. Doesn't that meet WP:NBOOK? Toughpigs (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also added a third review from Kirkus Reviews. Toughpigs (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing dead link and adding refs!--PeaceNT (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination per excellent points above. Thanks for your work on this, Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Was tempted to close but there is still an entire section that is unreferenced or at least it is unclear where these things come from. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ouro: Having unreferenced material on a page doesn't matter for notability, see WP:SURMOUNTABLE. The only thing that matters for AfD is whether enough sources exist to indicate whether the subject is notable or not. It doesn't actually make a difference in this case because the OP withdrew the nomination, just FYI for future cases. Toughpigs (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: Thank You for this information. I kinda suspected as much, but erred on the side of caution. Cheers and thanks! --Ouro (blah blah) 19:56, 19 January 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. Star Mississippi 14:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bader bin Saud bin Mohammed Al Saud

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

A resume and advert page. Except for [4], no other independent source can be found. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Military, and Saudi Arabia. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a resumé-type article about a subject of no clear notability created by an SPA. Mccapra (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a resume and has no sources to support its claims. That is problamatic for a BLP. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. DrKay (talk) 09:29, 20 January 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 14:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darlene Jones

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

Minor league sports executive. Fails WP:GNG Hirolovesswords (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and United States of America. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Women, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, the Concho Valley piece is best here, but is relatively limited. Others are passing mentions, failing WP:GNG. Some claims aren't sourced. TLA (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 13:07, 23 January 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie Street

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. Owen× ☎ 15:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Business Standard source appears to give decent coverage (something related to Chinese goods being sold there) [5] (though the full article is behind a paywall), the same thing was covered by The Hindu [6], also a couple of paywalled sources by The Hindu, [7] (business and the pandemic) [8] (about the street reopening). There are a few sources in Tamil as well (I'm not a Tamil speaker but google translate shows coverage), asianet [9], and a local paper Daily Thanthi [10]. Times Tamil also reported on the possibility of the street (shops) being relocated [11]. Bingobro (Chat) 17:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on BingoPro analysis above. Bikerose (talk) 20:13, 24 January 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 14:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds hip hop

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and England. Owen× ☎ 14:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm typically unsympathetic to WP:TNT votes, and there is some sourcing available [12], but I'm quite confident that this article is useless now, was created by somone who made the term up, and see no evidence of a distinct "style" vs. routine coverage of regional artists in the genre. No reason to think this needs a standalone article. Mach61 (talk) 15:39, 18 January 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 Croatia–United States relations as a proposed AtD. Daniel (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Zagreb

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

The scant information on the embassy building, which appears entirely unremarkable, is already present word for word in Croatia–United States relations, of which this is a content fork. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Croatia, and United States of America. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as embassies in Croatia go, this is probably the largest and most odd one, so it sounds like there's at least some WP:POTENTIAL. --Joy (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a fair point. On the other hand, as long as everything we currently have fits into the article on the bilateral relation, it seems like this article is not quite necessary. Perhaps a redirect is the solution? Biruitorul ^Talk 15:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary content fork of bilateral relations article. LibStar (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the bilateral relations article, if there is any content to merge. I find the argument that this is an unnecessary content fork to be compelling. Carrite (talk) 03:42, 23 January 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Carter (priest)

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

No reason to think this cleric is considered notable JMWt (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and England. JMWt (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's from the 17th century and the article has three sources on him, that's already a pretty good suggestion of notability; here's two more on a quick search. — Moriwen (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These all look like mentions. None of them appear to be at the level of significant coverage needed to meet the notability criteria for inclusion JMWt (talk) 08:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, do not delete, per Moriwen. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: Christianity Atlantic306 (talk) 20:00, 21 January 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 14:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Flatter

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Australia. Owen× ☎ 14:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Journalism, Television, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Nevada, New York, Texas, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST. Seems run of the mill, and only 1 article links to this article. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 23 January 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) Let'srun (talk) 04:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nelo

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

~~I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, and Portugal. Owen× ☎ 14:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This company appears to be notable. I understand this is not a nom's fault. It is just hard to search in local languages, but I managed to do that with Google CSE. Here's some reliable coverage: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. There is a lot more out there. Use search terms: "Nelo" AND "caiaque". Geeraarts (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination thanks, Geeraarts, that's much appreciated. Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 19 January 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 14:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BiFest

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:N. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sexuality and gender, and United Kingdom. Owen× ☎ 14:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find anything online and the events maxing out at 150 attendees makes it seem unlikely it would have enough coverage in offline sources to sustain an independent/notable article. AlexandraAVX (talk) 20:15, 24 January 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. There seems to be a clear consensus formed after the first relisting, with the Delete opinions both more reliant on P&G and more numerous than the Keep opinions. Owen× ☎ 14:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shadows at the Door: The Podcast

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

The subject does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NPODCAST. The available sources are either unreliable or trivial, and the Audio Verse Awards is non-notable. TipsyElephant (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Entertainment, and Popular culture. TipsyElephant (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am unsure why this course of action is being pursued so diligently.

- I would dispute that the available sources or unreliable or trivial, particularly as one of the additions yesterday is the primary fantasy convention for the country of Luxembourg, and another is the notable entertainment website Screenrant.

- Shadows at the Door is jointly distributed by notable media company Realm (formally known as Serial Box).

With regard to the notability of The Audio verse Awards, they are cited as awards on the pages of many peer podcasts such as The White Vault, Wolf 359, Dark Dice, The Call of the Void etc.

This podcast has also featured high value talent such Rahul Kohli (SAG-AFTRA), Dave Fennoy, Jamie Flanagan (WGA) frequent writing partner of Mike Flanagan, Sacha Dhawan (SAG-AFTRA) and Professor Elemental -- all of whom can be linked if IMDB can be used as citations. AchtungWiki! (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the person who started the article, I think this has passed notability since the page was created. PODCAST is an essay which suggests what might indicate notability. Without placing too much weight on it, included amongst the indicators is being distributed by a notable company; of course notability is not inherited, but Shadows at the Door does tick that box as it is distributed by Realm. It also says that "Being nominated for such [a notable award] in multiple years may also be considered an indicator of notability" which has also happened with the Audio verse Awards. Winning an AudioVerse award may not be enough to demonstrate notability on its own, or being nominated multiple times, but it is another indicator of notability. The general notability guidelines are of prime importance, specifically the topic must have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The K. W. Moore source is a longer version of a piece published in Intentions, the magazine of the Wildean Society. So it easily meets what we need for sourcing. We need multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability, and I would argue that Kendall Reviews website is also a reliable source. It has a team of writers and a policy on how it conducts its reviews which I believe satisfies the reliable criterion in WP:GNG. At just shy of 300 words critically engaging with the podcast, that counts as significant, and it is independent of the subject. By my reckoning we have multiple independent reliable sources covering the subject. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Name dropping does not contribute to notability. Affiliated sources that lack independence do not contribute to notability. Passing mentions and directory or database listings do not contribute to notability. Blog posts on Wordpress contribute nothing to notability. What is required are references to significant, in-depth coverage in multiple, published reliable sources that are entirely independent of the topic. From what I can see, not a single one of the references now in the article meets that standard. If I am incorrect, lease let us all know which of the 20 sources now in the article meet that standard. Cullen328 (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Audio Verse Awards, that is a pay-to-play scheme that requires nominees to pay the award organizers in order to be considered. That kind of scheme undermines the credibility of all such awards. The Screenrant source is a classic example of a passing mention. It is a single sentence. Cullen328 (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many legitimate awards require an entry fee, including the Emmy Award, Grammy Award, and the Pulitzer Prize. 5Q5|^✉ 12:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a publication for the Wildean Society should count as a reliable source independent of the topic? Richard Nevell (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The arguments for deletion are inconsistent with other examples across Wikipedia. For example The White Vault has 41 references the majority include IMDB, online blogs of similar repute, the podcast's own webpage, Audio Verse Awards, the podcast's own Patreon etc. I agree with Wikipedia that The White Vault is a notable podcast but fail to see why Shadows at the Door is any different when it ticks all the same boxes. The requirements listed by Cullen328 would exclude many audio drama podcast pages that exist on wikipedia. - In response to previous arguments: Listing actors and writers who are part of the production is factual declaration of cast and crew. Name dropping is defined as mentioning famous people one knows in order to impress -- by definition these are different. - Furthermore, the comment about the Audio Verse Awards undermining all other awards is an opinion being presented as fact. While this is certainly an opinion that can be debated and discussed, it is improper to treat it as a fact here. To summarise, the notability concerns have been addressed, particularly the distribution by notable broadcaster Realm Media, sources of notability have been added such as the appearance at Luxcon in Luxembourg, multiple nominations in the Audio verse Awards and all of the above much like other podcast pages such as the aforementioned White Vault, Wolf 359, Dark Dice The Call of the Void The Magnus Archives(of which dozens of their citations are simply links to Acast). Like another user has stated, the PODCAST pages mentions all these as things that might indicate notability and I would argue that meeting many of these requirements does indeed do so. I'm concerned at the particular scrutiny this page is receiving in respect to the standards met in similar podcasts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AchtungWiki! (talk • contribs) 22:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AchtungWiki!: the sourcing for The White Vault is terrible, feel free to nominate it for deletion as well. Granted I'm pretty sure better sources exist for that show. For now I'll add some maintenance tags and take a closer look later. The argument that other pages of similar quality exist is an example of WP:OTHERSTUFF. To keep the article you will need to provide reliable sources that are independent of the subject and contain more than a trivial mention about the subject. Most editors expect at least three sources. See WP:RSP for a list of sources and the Wikipedia community's consensus on their reliability. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your response only strengthens my concerns that this appears to be an oddly targeted campaign. You speculate that better sources exist for THE WHITE VAULT which implies you feel that show is notable based on your perception of it, which further implies that your perception of SHADOWS AT THE DOOR is at play (and that's with benefit of the doubt). And while my comments can be perceived purely as an example of OTHERSTUFF, I raise them out of concern as to how much time and diligence has been put into submitting this page for deletion while you are seemingly not policing the many other pages that have set a valid precedent.

Furthermore, you only addressed one of my points raised and ignored the others which still stand as to why this podcast is notable. Three + sources do exist, myself and another user have argued that they fit the multiple criteria and cited in WP:NPODCAST. AchtungWiki! (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. It's not uncommon for editors to feel that an AfD is targetting a subject they care about. You can check my AfD stats and see that I've nominated dozens of podcast articles going back to February 2021. In regard to name dropping, notability is not WP:INHERITED by people associated with the subject. And the sources that have been provided are either unreliable or trivial. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a distinct lack of independent sources to establish notability. The majority of sources are IMDB links, blog posts, or primary sources. Cortador (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is about the only mention in a RS I find [22]. Rest used in the article are non-RS or listings where you can find this podcast. Oaktree b (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Scholar of No Importance (2022). "Pleasing Terrors: A Review of Shadows at the Door's The Picture of Dorian Gray Podcast". Intentions. 122. The Oscar Wilde Society: 11–13. ISSN 1742-3368. is a reliable source, and I suggest that Sullivan, J. A. (27 November 2020). "{Scary's Voices} Sound Bites: This weeks recommended horror podcasts. (Week Ending 27th November 2020)". Kendall Reviews. Retrieved 2022-11-10. is too in this context. Richard Nevell (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: it looks like that source discusses a podcast about law with a similar name called The Shadow Docket.

@Richard Nevell: Kendall Reviews is a self-described WP:BLOG, and I don't see anything indicating that Gavin Kendall or J. A. Sullivan have any training in journalism or writing. TipsyElephant (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still a !delete from me Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Confirms to podcast notability an individual podcast is likely to be notable if it has been produced or distributed by a notable broadcaster, in this case Shadows at the Door is distributed by [Media|Realm]. In addition to this, a reliable source that seems to be agreed upon by contributors to this discussion is the Oscar Wilde society: A Scholar of No Importance (2022). "Pleasing Terrors: A Review of Shadows at the Door's The Picture of Dorian Gray Podcast". Intentions. 122. The Oscar Wilde Society: 11–13. ISSN 1742-3368.. The notability essay also states Podcasts are also more likely to be notable if they have won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization Ideally, this award itself is also notable and already has a Wikipedia article. Being nominated for such an award in multiple years may also be considered an indicator of notability. While the Audio Verse awards notability is itself up for debate, the essay do not insist upon this. And finally I cite the last note in the essay It's also more likely that a podcast is notable if it has reached a high position on a notable podcasting chart that updates at least weekly. Shadows at the Door is regularly in the top 200 podcasts for Drama and Fiction on Chartable for Apple Podcasts internationally (especially USA, UK, Canada, Sweden and Norway), at the time of writing this note, the podcast is ranked 158 for drama in the United Sates and in rank history you can see this is a regular occurrence -- you can also note the show has ranked as highly as 6 for Drama in the Untied States.AchtungWiki! (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: to closing admin. The above is a duplicate keep vote by one of the participating editors. 5Q5|^✉ 12:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate !vote struck. Daniel (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: There is not enough independent sourcing at present to establish notability imo. There are many TV series and radio shows that don't qualify for the same reason and have had articles deleted. The way professional productions gain notability is to hire a publicist or have one in-house. Wikipedia's purpose is not to serve that role. My advice is to save the content and republish the article when reference sufficiency has been obtained. Instructions for how to do this are at WP:RADP. 5Q5|^✉ 12:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cullen328 and Oaktree b, this fails GNG as the sources are not independent and reliable. Daniel (talk) 21:03, 26 January 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 14:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NK Krško players

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

Completely indiscriminate list of players for a lower division club, 90% of entries in this list are red links and not notable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a directory, so random lists like that are pointless. Snowflake91 (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Slovenia. Owen× ☎ 14:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no added value in the list as such. If the list had some chronology, number of goals, selection of players with at least some caps, etc., that would be another story. But still it is not the top-tier club, so the notability is lower. --Tone 16:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no demonstrated value over Category:NK Krško Posavje players – red links could have its justification if the club weren't somewhat fringe in the football world. Geschichte (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to NK Krško Posavje once trimmed and sourced. Giant Snowman 18:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The list does not contain any statistical information and the club is completely irrelevant even in Slovenian football, failing in WP:NLIST. A category for the club's players already is sufficient to coverage. Svartner (talk) 21:38, 19 January 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 14:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stagestruck: Theater, AIDS, and the Marketing of Gay America

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

UPE spam for non notable book. Lacks reviews, none of the awards are major. UPE and notability tags removed without explanation or improvement so brought it here for discussion. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and New York. Owen× ☎ 12:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found entries at CNN and LibraryThing. ~~Will add something later.~~ --Ouro (blah blah) 13:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ouro: LibraryThing doesn't provide any coverage that meet WP:NBOOK. The content seems to be user generated. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ARandomName123: Right, I figured that out by now. But even if it doesn't count as a WP-worthy source, it's still some kind of information that the book reverberated somehow in the wild. I was encouraged by the fact that LT has its WP article. I won't include it. Thanks for the heads-up. --Ouro (blah blah) 17:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is it a bit better now? --Ouro (blah blah) 13:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Review in CNN above, and reviews in the Library Journal and The Booklist is enough to meet WP:NBOOK (both via TWL). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above sources. Toughpigs (talk) 15:28, 18 January 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 12:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 outstation murder-suicide

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

Just another news event. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Australia. Owen× ☎ 13:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A murder suicide is rather routine. I'd expect more coverage of the aftermath, where it's mentioned that the police didn't release much info about the event, but even that barely has a mention in media. Two years on and I can't see much of a lasting impact from this event. Oaktree b (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:EVENTCRIT "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance". TarnishedPath^talk 11:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as True Crime, per NOTNEWS. My condolences to the families and friends of the victim. Carrite (talk) 03:43, 23 January 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)‎ JBL (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hartmut Jürgens

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

~~I couldn't establish that this meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and Germany. Owen× ☎ 13:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning keep, as he appears to have authored significant books in his field,[23] and led significant institutes within his university, as well as having a large and well-regarded research output;[24]. I'm fairly convinced he meets the standards of WP:NPROF or possibly an author. There is a better source for his obituary at his old university.[25] Elemimele (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. May pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. His books on fractals are well cited, as above, but they also have enough reviews for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per excellent points above. Thanks for your input, Boleyn (talk) 16:45, 20 January 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 12:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Walter

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. He was connected to notable musicians and there are small mentions, but not enough. Boleyn (talk) 12:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Indiana. Owen× ☎ 13:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely any coverage from this book [26], which is only sourced to his obituary. Does not appear to have left a lasting musical legacy. Other than the book, there is nothing I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 18 January 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 12:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monaco race results

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

Do we need another list of winners when we have one at Monaco Grand Prix and Monaco Grand Prix support races. Unnecessary list that is only good for the most obsessive motorsport fans. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't need a separate page for results. NavjotSR (talk) 08:49, 19 January 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 12:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Millar

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

No indication of significance. References are clickbait, event listings, listings and listicles. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable musical performer. This is about all the coverage I can find: aboutinsider.com/devin-millar-and-his-life-as-a-famous-music-producer/, which is a blacklisted site here, so not an acceptable source. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, aboutinsider is a paid seo dump. On that note, I previously removed a ton of paid placement/SEO sites from this article, so we need to be very careful when evaluating sources on this topic as there's obviously been a rather sketchy PR campaign. Sam Kuru (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, nothing in RS or even allmusic. Her name comes up in Ultratop but I cannot confirm that she has charted. dxneo (talk) 05:30, 22 January 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gestione Governativa Navigazione Laghi

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

Fails GNG and Before doesn't yield anything except primary sources and routine coverage. I did not find more sources in Italian language edition either ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Transportation, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTS. Regional transportation company, serving the three biggest lakes in Lombardy. --Broc (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Broc are there secondary sources required to satisfy NTS? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shushugah (talk · contribs) just a very quick Google News search from the last few months brings: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. The company has been around since 1957 (see [34]), I'm sure plenty more sources can be found. --Broc (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely significant transportation company. Plenty of sources available. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This book chapter [35] provides excellent coverage of the company (in English). Eluchil404 (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eluchil404 thank you for this! I will withdraw my nomination. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 04:44, 26 January 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmette Wilbus

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are ultra-local. Fan page by single author. scope_creep^Talk 10:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Illinois. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep public-private company that was part of the local infrastructure -- clearly plenty of sources in newspapers for the region. This has historic value for that geography, and if not keep as independent, minimally needs to be integrated into a larger article about transport in that geography, Sadads (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage fails WP:AUD, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGTRIV. It is a village bus service and to say it has historic value is a completely disengenous. scope_creep^Talk 12:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage of public transit agencies is always by the local newspapers. This holds for the major metro systems and suburban systems later taken over by the Regional Transportation Authority. Please see the sources in the articles about these large US agencies Chicago Transit Authority, New York City Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

and this article about small town CyRide in Ames, Iowa. There may be a rare cite to Railway Age or Mass Transit Magazine, two industry publications for the very large transit agencies. Keep in mind that the New York Times is a local paper when it writes about the MTA. Major newspapers in other US cities do not pick up the local transit agency articles, nor write about other cities. It is a weak argument for deleting this topic, with its long list of newspaper citations. The news articles cited are legitimate secondary sources.

Further, the plan is to add sources after the article is up in Main space. That brings in more potential authors than the original two authors. The sources of interest are transportation journals about bus transit, to position this successful venture properly in the scheme of US bus systems. - - Prairieplant (talk) 01:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commment @Prairieplant: This is the area to to create the discussion. Please make your case based on policies as they apply to the article and quality of references. scope_creep^Talk 23:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will move the comments here that are now at the Talk page. Thank you for your help. - - Prairieplant (talk) 01:48, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article

This article is up for speedy deletion. Please add your views. It is the story of a successful local bus service, initiated by a suburban town in 1974. Such success is not common. - - Prairieplant (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbus was a classic example of local government filling a hole created by the bankruptcy of a private company. Private bus services were failing in the early 1970s. Wilmette and several other Chicago suburbs created bus services to replace what the private sector could not do. The result was the preservation of bus service until the regional service provider was established. Deletion does not make sense for an article that is well documented by local newspapers and government records. Bobbustransit (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important historical story of grass roots efforts to bridge the gap in public provision of transit services. The setting is suburban, where public transit was, and continues to be, a wasteland because resources are limited and directed toward high population density areas and places where it is assumed that auto availability is the lowest. But this suburban market (different in demographics from the location itself) comprises people who largely cannot drive - do not have cars, or access to them, are too young or disabled. A creative service design, coming from transit expert volunteers, filled a critical gap, carried more riders than some medium size city transit operations, and helped show the public sector that quality service could draw a substantial market needing mobility services. Importantly, the key actors were themselves young, committed, and unconstrained. This became a de facto training ground leading to life-long careers for many of those involved. it is a story needing to be told. 2601:246:5F02:2320:F4BD:5A1C:C0EF:491F (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Prairieplant: How goes it? I came across your bus article. It seems to have a lot of excessively intricate detail in the article,almost like a fan page, that is perhaps is not suitable for Wikipedia Do a you have a connection with them? scope_creep^Talk 10:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep The article is about the success of a local bus system initiated by a small suburban town that really wanted good local bus service after the private bus company was bankrupt. The town attracted interest from recent college grads trained in civil engineering who successfully bid the route design to the Village — rather than a long established consulting firm winning the bid. Not many towns have a success as this one did, success measured in rapidly growing ridership. The elements of that success are what interest me.

About 50 years ago, I had a summer job driving a bus there, no other connection. About 50 years ago in a different summer, I worked as a mail carrier — two good summer jobs prior to my professional career. The story of this suburb has always been of interest to me, long after my summer job.

Transportation, energy and the environment are some of my major interests, though most of my Wikipedia edits thus far are about literature or novels. This article follows from those major interests. I read the article about CyRide bus service in Iowa, used that as a bit of a model or guide as to the infobox and other aspects. I read other Wikipedia articles about large and small transit operators as well, all having the same detail about vehicles, routes, ridership, and fares and subsidies, with photos of the vehicles included. The difference is that the Wilbus routes were taken over by the regional suburban operator formed years later. I am hoping others add more detail, not less, including photos of the vehicles and a map. I have not learned how to add an appropriate map to a Wikipedia article, myself. I feel this is a notable topic, with references from news articles documenting the success. Further, the story is tied to active present day service I have not yet looked for suitable articles in transportation journals concerning bus system success.

Of course others may copy edit, find a clearer or more elegant way to make a point, that is inevitable and welcome.

Large transit agencies across the US have a similar history but on a larger scale. CTA in Chicago, MTA in New York City, among others, bought up failing private bus and rail companies, and then operated the transit service as units of local government in the era when the US turned so aggressively to private cars, public parking lots and large subsidies for streets and interstate highways. The private operators could not make it financially. Subsidy was unbalanced, limiting options. Those are stories I know well, issues of US transportation policy and the choices for travel in urban areas. It is a major topic in the fields of transportation, energy and the environment, how to run a successful transit operation.

What do you consider excessive detail in an article about a bus transit service? The article is up for others to edit, not to delete it, that was my notion. Prairieplant (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent it to Afd because it is ultra-local news and its bus service which comes under WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not in the business of supporting local bus services. We are not a webhost. scope_creep^Talk 12:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbus marked a significant change in the way suburban cities responded to a transportation crisis. A regional option was not available and many suburbs jumped in as the private companies went bankrupt. This is a reasonable documentation of historical events, something that Wikipedia relies on and is in most of the Wikipedia articles. If you delete this one, you should delete the rest of Wikipedia that has any historic content. There is no way wikipedia is supporting local bus service. The service ended in 1985. Bobbustransit (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In January 1995, a long time ago. - - Prairieplant (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ This article includes the Chicago Reader and the Chicago Tribune as sources, as well as the Wilmette paper that is tied to the Chicago Tribune through Pioneer Press. The term ultra local means nothing to me. WP:NCORP wants reliable sources, and those are reliable sources. - - Prairieplant (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

— Duplicate !vote: Prairieplant (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

~~KEEP~~ Wikipedia is full of articles about cities, towns and villages. It is also full of articles about every public transit operator in the US, both large rail and bus systems, and bus-only systems that are providing service now, usually including the history of the service as well. Wilbus is the story of a past success; the lessons learned have been picked up by other bus networks, including the one in Ames, Iowa, called CyRide as one example among many college town bus systems. This objection to local places seems spurious to me, possibly specious, a thin reason for deleting the article. I consider the article a step up in improving the coverage of urban public transportation issues in Wikipedia. - - Prairieplant (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

— Duplicate !vote: Prairieplant (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

You've already !voted to keep above. One !vote per editor, please. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well developed and referenced article. We should have more of these! gidonb (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:AUD, significant coverage in media with an international, national, or at least regional audience (e.g., the biggest daily newspaper in any US state) is a strong indication of notability, and the major Chicago papers cited seem to support this. Ultimately, this article fills in gaps in the history that might otherwise be included at Regional Transportation Authority (Illinois) and/or Pace (transit). There are some issues with tone and detail that make portions read like a WP:FANSITE, but that can be addressed via cleanup. The statement above that "Wikipedia is not in the business of supporting local bus services" is somewhat of a non sequitur, as the service no longer exists. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:03, 24 January 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. Despite being redirected during an ongoing AFD by the author, WP:IAR clearly applies here. ✗plicit 12:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway to Southeast Asia

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

Does it make sense to have a "disambiguation" for a marketing term used by countless countries, regions, and cities? Apart from the four places named at the current page, the term is used for or by Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Myanmar, Labuan, Yunnan, Laos, Bangkok, Vietnam, Assam, Taiwan, The Philippines, Guwahati, Hong Kong, Tripura, Mizoram, Binh Duong Province, Indonesia... Fram (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Asia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and India. Fram (talk) 09:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. Geschichte (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's no longer a disambiguation. It's turned into an article, having numerous independent citations from diverse sources. --Haoreima (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SYNTH is no longer applicable to the article because just after the deletion nomination, massive development has been taken place in the article, with the addition of different independent citations and sources. Thanks! :-) --Haoreima (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, rename to India's gateway to Southeast Asia, as the current title fails the recognizability and precision WP:CRITERIA. No one looking at the current title will know that it's about the Indian context of the term. I can also see a case for merging to Look East policy (India), as all the discussion about is within the context of said policy. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find anything related to the topic, apart from the citations which are who-said-what news articles. The two journal articles India's Northeast: 'Gateway' to Southeast Asia? and Is Northeast India Prepared to be the Gateway to Southeast Asia and Pacific Countries? are asking the question but not declaring that it's the gateway. This is WP:SYNTH — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 19:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why the article's topic is already clarified as a sobriquet. I think independent citations already disprove the claim of WP:SYNTH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haoreima (talk • contribs) 22:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "independent" citations that you're talking about, I believe, are news reports of who-said-what. They're news reports, not articles discussing the topic, sobriquet or not. To be qualified as a sobriquet article, there needs to WP:GNG coverage that discuss exactly that. And I find none. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 11:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you restored the "notable remarks" content that I removed and added further content based on who-said-what articles in a Wiki-voice. If you don't see how that's a WP:SYNTH, I'm afraid to say I see a lack of understanding of the policy. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 11:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DaxServer If that page is redirected to a certain relevant page, will it be a solution instead of permanent deletion of the page? --Haoreima (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is still a WP:SYNTH — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 15:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current page structure is not what I'd expect about a sobriquet. It's possible that relevant information may be better placed at Look East policy (India). CMD (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dax and nom. TrangaBellam (talk) 01:29, 23 January 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's concerns about merging were not refuted, despite several relists. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hennig Wichmann

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

Delete Cannot find ANY reliable sources for this person existing that are dated to before this article was created. The sources that the German wiki cite, at least for the English language book, Piracy, does not seem to mention Hennig, or at least I could not find it. Even if there are one or two sources that mention him, he seems to fail notability generally. If anyone can find sources for this pirate, I would be willing to withdraw my nomination. Tooncool64 (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, History, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. This is scary. An IP created the de.wiki article with no sources. Sources were added later and the article translated into other languages. From Wikipedia this content has jumped from book to book published in the years since, often repeating verbatim what the article says. As Tooncool64 says there is nothing to support the existence of this subject, let alone its notability, before 2007.Mccapra (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If true then this needs to be reported to Wikidata and other projects.★Trekker (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Victual Brothers#Likedeelers. It's certainly not a hoax as there are pre-2007 sources that mention Wichmann in connection with the Likedeelers or Störtebeker, e.g. [36], [37], and [38]. For an English source, see [39]. However this particular individual seems to be of marginal notability, so I think a redirect is warranted. Jfire (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Jfire. Well done for finding those sources. That’s a relief! Mccapra (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I was all ready to close this with a Merge to Victual Brothers#Likedeelers but when I looked at that section, it was a lot of "citation needed" tags and almost completely unsourced. So, I'm wondering if this is the best possible outcome for this article and I'm extending the discussion for a little while longer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not entirely clear if the mentions detailed above (and a few others I've seen) even refer to the same person, so in my view the best thing to do is to improve another page and then if/when sufficient sources are found expand into an article. There's just not enough sourced to merge here and we might just be encouraging misinformation. JMWt (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 18 January 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. The debate has been sparsely attended, but the basic result is those advocating deletion made stronger arguments and adequately showed insufficient quality sources exist to write a suitable article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marnie Alton

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an actress and fitness entrepreneur, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for actresses or fitness entrepreneurs. The notability claim here essentially boils down to "person who has done stuff", which isn't a free inclusion pass in and of itself -- the bridge between existence and notability travels through WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage. But of the seven footnotes here, four are her own self-published primary source web presence, one is a directory entry in an IMDb clone, and one just briefly namechecks her existence within coverage of somebody else -- and the only source that's actually both third-party and about Marnie Alton in any non-trivial sense comes from a digital magazine of debatable GNG-worthiness, and even if we accepted it, it still takes a lot more than just one GNG-worthy source to pass GNG. There's just nothing here that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have a lot more RS coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Television, and Health and fitness. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparenly I created this article back in 2013, but I can't for the life of me remember whom this person is; thus, I really have no opinion. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 04:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Erpert interesting. I added some new citations, so check again and vote please. Royal88888 (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have found and added several new sources. She meets WP:BASIC. These are the new sources:

racked.com, womenshealthmag.com, Insider, eonline, bodyandsoul Royal88888 (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Racked is not a reliable source at all, and the rest of those all just briefly glance off the existence of Marnie Alton while being fundamentally about Drew Barrymore, which is not at all the kind of sourcing we require. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat If you gonna claim a publication is not reliable, you need to explain your reasoning. It is not listed on WP:RSP. While it went out of business in 2016, it doesn't appear to be a small shop or one-man blog/publication. There are multiple writers and it had hundreds of original articles. A backlink search on majestic.com shows the site has 18,000+ unique backlinks. So this is not your small mom-and-pop blogger. In addition, to current citations, there exists dozens of other citations for the subject that I didnt add. My main reasoning for keeping is WP:BASIC which states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." Royal88888 (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RSP is not a definitive list of all possible websites in the world and their status as reliable or unreliable — it's a consultable summary guide of a specific selection of sites that tend to come up for repeated debate, in the hopes of avoiding "the 768th revival of the same debate we've already had 767 times before". So a site not being listed there is not proof in and of itself that it's a reliable source: it's just proof that there haven't previously been 767 arguments about its use, and says nothing whatsoever about whether that lack of debate is because the site is uncontroversially reliable, uncontroversially unreliable, or just doesn't tend to even get attempted for use in the first place.

One of the requirements for a web publication to be considered a reliable source is that its editorial masthead is named on a page so that we know there was, and who was in, a defined editorial chain of command. This is because some web publications are just user-generated content, which lets anybody submit anything without any editorial judgement or fact-checking at all, so we have to be able to determine which side of that line a publication falls on by seeing evidence that they had fact-checkers and an editorial hierarchy. On Racked, I cannot find any such masthead page at all.

I didn't say the problem with your other sources was that they're short, I said the problem with them was that they aren't about Marnie Alton, and just briefly namecheck Marnie Alton in the process of being about Drew Barrymore. Several distinct sources to overcome lack of depth is for "the sources are about Marnie Alton but they're kind of short", not for "the sources briefly mention Marnie Alton but aren't about her" — the latter falls under trivial coverage that cannot support notability at all. And, in addition, since they're all just about Drew Barrymore's exercise regimen, even if we accepted them as being "about" Marnie Alton they'd still all just make her a WP:BLP1E rather than a person who had achieved sustained coverage for anything of ongoing significance. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The articles focus on Drew Barrymore's weight loss and improved health happening as a direct result of Marnie Alton's ability as a fitness trainer. Marnie's credibility as a fitness expert is connected to Drew Barrymore's weight loss. There are multiple sources where Marnie Alton is the focus of the article or segment as a fitness health expert and of course Drew Barrymore is also talked about throughout because she is a global celebrity. These include magazine articles, tv appearances and online articles. Here are some examples:

https://nypost.com/2020/02/26/meet-the-trainer-responsible-for-drew-barrymores-20-pound-weight-loss/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAIao3Vs5Ac

https://www.instagram.com/reel/B9PdMt1npTd/

https://people.com/health/drew-barrymore-santa-clarita-diet-trainer/

https://edit.sundayriley.com/marnie-alton-lessons/

https://www.womenshealthmag.com/fitness/g32454003/drew-barrymore-workout-routine/ 2603:8000:D001:385E:71BA:EA41:1502:E927 (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube videos and Instagram posts can't support notability, Sunday Riley isn't a reliable source at all, and what's left isn't changing the equation. We don't care about Marnie Alton's "credibility" as a fitness expert, we care about her notability as a fitness expert, and her notability as a fitness expert requires sources that are about her, not sources that are about her clients. Bearcat (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She could at best get a one sentence mention in the Drew Barrymore article, nothing she helped lose the weight. I don't see much beyond that to be honest. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – WP:TOOSOON Indeed, lots of reliable sources mention her and credit her for helping people in fitness, but not much about her, thus not fully meeting WP:GNG. TLA (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: PR newswire items, PopSugar and the Daily Mail are what comes up. Helping Drew Barrymore lose weight isn't notable. I can't see any sourcing we can use either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Racked article has nothing to do with Drew Berrymore and is a good one for notability. Royal88888 (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been addressed above why Racked isn't "a good one" for notability. And even if we overlooked that and accepted it anyway, passage of GNG still requires a lot more than just one acceptable source. Bearcat (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Royall88888. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:03, 19 January 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. There is clear disagreement over whether or not WP:BLP1E applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shorouq Dwayyat

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

BLP1E, fails BLP, GNG and NBIO. The entire basis for the article is their involvement in and punishment for the 1E attack, sourced to routine news. The event itself is not notable, the victim sustained moderate injuries, no deaths. // Timothy :: talk 03:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the following reasons:
1. Not BLP1E: Shorouq Dwayyat is recognized for multiple significant events beyond a single occurrence, including her 2015 stabbing attack [40] [41] [42], trial and imprisonment [43] [44], and her release as part of the 2023 Hamas hostage deal [45] [46]. These events have been extensively reported by reputable sources.
2. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: There has been sustained coverage by reliable sources from 2015 to the present, underscoring her ongoing relevance and historical significance. Note that her name has various alternate spellings such as "Shurouq Dawiyat״, "Shurooq Dweiyat" or " Shuruq Dweyat", not to mention Arabic and Hebrew spellings.
1. The WP:DIVERSE coverage by established media outlets globally such as The New York Times [47], Al-Jazeera [48], Financial Times, Irish Times [49], [50] and The Times of Israel among many others, clearly indicates that Dwayyat meets the GNG.
2. BLP1E suggests redirection to an incident article if the individual is notable for a single event. Thus at most, this argument (if accepted) calls for a rename to Stabbing of Daniel Rosenfeld, rather than deletion. Marokwitz (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the policies listed in the intro – BLP1E, BLP, GNG and NBIO – are at the core of notability for biographies, in the case of Shorouq Dwayyat these are reasons to keep rather than delete. Marokwitz makes that case already above me. gidonb (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This definitely looks like a case of WP:BLP1E which is defined as "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." All references to her are in the context of the 2015 stabbing - the trial is about the stabbing, and therefore by definition, in context of that single event. We normally cover both the crime and its subsequent trial in the same article. Likewise, her release from prison is in again in connection with the 2015 stabbing - why else was she in prison? VR _talk 22:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's an essay about such cases that refutes your argument: WP:BIO2E. gidonb (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BLP1E says We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met and the third condition is The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. I don't view the stabbing as a "significant" event (the knife intifada was but not this particular attack), and the prisoner exchange was a significant event but she did not have a substantial role in that event (being one of many prisoners exchanged) and she only gets a brief mention in the prisoner exchange coverage. I don't see a merge target. Levivich (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More broadly: this topic area has far too many articles about every single documented incidence of violence, in a conflict that has an extraordinary number of documented incidents of violence. We could do this also for every murder in the West, but we don't. I do not believe this particular stabbing meets WP:NEVENT, nor do many of the killings by Palestinians or Israelis, as it doesn't have WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH coverage. The sources hit two of those criteria but not all three, e.g. GEOSCOPE coverage (like NYT) isn't LASTING or INDEPTH; LASTING, INDEPTH coverage isn't GEOSCOPE, etc. Levivich (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the third point, she didn't have a big part in the prisoner exchange; she isn't some high-ranking person in the military or a well-known criminal such as Al Capone. Person that did bad things, went to prison and got moved around as part of a larger conflict in a prisoner exchange. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course.

It's clearly not a BLP1E as she is known for multiple events and has coverage from being 18 years old in 2015 when she tried to kill several people until now and the coverage is in English (2016, 2016), Hebrew, Russian (2023, 2023), Arabic (2015, 2020, 2023), etc. A simple Google search reveals that she is known for the 2015 violence act (an example). In 2020-2023 it was mentioned that she has spent 16 years in prison (1, 2). In 2023 she got wide coverage again in multiple regions and languages on her release. For example Novaya Gazeta at the end of 2023 has covered her bio with details on arrest, noting that she got the longest sentence period in prison among Palestinian female prisoners in Israel correction facilities and she expressed a desire to die as a “martyr” (the source). The interest was not only in her act of stubbing in 2015 as well as her early release in 2023 but her prison life in between got wide attention as well. One can read for example this very detailed editorial on her life in prison and there are other materials as well. She became a celebrity for her actions. BBC considers her to be one of the most famous female Palestine prisoners.
No problem with BLP. There were no points mentioned regarding issues with BLP just a general "fails BLP" when it doesn't fail. Plus I can now expend the article since I saw quite a few new sources which were not yet cited in the current version. See #1 for more info.
No problem with GNG as even with select sources brought here and in the article we can see that there is a significant coverage in reliable multi-country, multi-language, multi-year sources that are independent of the subject. See #1 for more info.
No problem with NBIO as provided sources such as Novaya Gazeta and BBC provide additional uniqueness of her case. See #1 for more info. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great answer, Oleg Y. Marokwitz (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Full agreement with Levivitch. -- asilvering (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An interesting article. It needs a bit more work, but many articles need that. Bduke (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the nom: a pretty exemplary case of WP:BLP1E - with biography based on a single event that itself has little to no case for notability (and so has little case for a page about the event either) - indeed fails GNG and NBIO. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:10, 13 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, NotAGenious (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments/sources brought up by Oleg Y and Marokwitz. S5A-0043^Talk 07:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The crime she was convicted of isn't notable; I'm not sure being part of a prisoner exchange is notable either. She could be briefly mentioned in an article about the prisoner exchange, but I don't see notability for her actions/life alone. Oaktree b (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Known for more than just a single event, so fails WP:BLP1E. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP1E is for deciding whether to have an article on a notable topic that is based around the person or around the event. Not meeting the criteria for BLP1E thus does not mean the topic actually is notable; that should be determined by the existence of SUSTAINED secondary coverage. Crime reporting follows the predictable pattern of flashes of primary coverage for the initial crime, trial, sentencing, and sometimes appeals/release, all of which generally fall under the same context. Unless there is significant secondary coverage later in that sequence of some aspect that isn't merely repeating whatever info appeared in earlier coverage, the topic does not meet SUSTAINED, no matter how many further primary-coverage-only events occur. It does not seem that the subject's involvement in later prisoner exchanges garnered significant secondary coverage of either the initial stabbing or the exchange itself, so the criteria for N are not met. JoelleJay (talk) 20:13, 23 January 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. The arguments to delete seem stronger; those advocating keep appear to be merely bare assertions. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Respinger

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

Very few articles link to this, and almost all her exhibitions are very local. She has not won any major award nor received major recognition. Fails WP:ARTIST. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Visual arts, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In a BEFORE search I'm not finding the coverage one would expect from a notable artist. Mostly social media, blogs, user-submitted content and primary sources. I don't think she meets GNG and she does not pass NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources adequately cover the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources merely confirm her work exhibited in very minor exhibitions like Karrinyup Community Centre, Churchlands Senior High School? Has she exhibited in a major exhibition or major state art gallery? LibStar (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She has primarily become a mural artist with several prominent murals in Perth and Whanganui that are landmarks for people living in the cities. Where she was exhibited earlier in her career is more background now than the primary story. MarcusCaeruleus (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC) — MarcusCaeruleus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@LibStar I originally created this entry several years ago when the artist was mostly focused on exhibitions. Most of her work now is large scale murals that are well known in Perth, Australia and Whanganui, New Zealand. I believe that this meets the criteria for Creative Works: The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

In Whanganui, New Zealand, I do not believe that there are any more prominent public artworks than that done by Susan Respinger and I believe that that should be considered a significant monument as per Wikipedia's definitions. MarcusCaeruleus (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)— MarcusCaeruleus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@MarcusCaeruleus, have these murals received independent significant coverage in the press, academic journals, art magazines or books to substantiate that they are significant monuments? If that exists, please post those links here, as I'm not finding them, however I'm not located in the Southern hemisphere (which may or may not affect what shows up in an online search.) Her work is beautiful, but because WP is an encyclopedia, she needs to meet certain criteria for inclusion per WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. The article has recently been ref-bombed with non-independent sources, press releases, blogs, user-submitted content, art sales sites, etc. And promotional WP:COPYVIOs by a couple of new SPAs. Netherzone (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google news comes up with a mere 2 hits. I find no evidence that her work is a significant momument. LibStar (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and how come I can find zero coverage of her in the New Zealand Herald? Claims of working on a significant monument are fanciful. LibStar (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone, did you intend to cast a !vote here? LibStar (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar, I did on January 11, and after analyzing the avaiblable sources, !voted delete, based on the thinness of the sourcing and failure to meet WP:NARTIST. Additionally the more recent activity indicates that the subject of the article (and the large number of photos recently added as "own work") the article is moving towards being an autobiography WP:AUTOBIO while not forbidden, I would not consider it best practices.But there also seems that there may be some coordination with the creator, therefore I do think that there is a WP:COI present, and possibly coordination/canvassing. So yes, WP:PROMO. Netherzone (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

apologies, my mistake, I should have seen your vote on January 11. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough indepth coverage to pass WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Randy Kryn.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PERX LibStar (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also searched Australian search engine Trove for zero hits not even a passing mention. I suspect the 2 SPAs working on the article may be the article subject so possible self promotion. LibStar (talk) 13:06, 19 January 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 04:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Komtar Bus Terminal

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

No sources, fails WP:GNG. Google search gives no sources. Brachy08 _(Talk) 05:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Transportation, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article was originally part of a larger article I wrote with full and complete citations. However, an editor split it but failed to move the references. I waited for changes but no response was made. gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 07:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Makes it easy when even the creator wants it gone.James.folsom (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

_{I was thinking why does this name sound familiar, and then I remembered I went there a few weeks ago to snap buses there myself.}

Back on topic, this does not change the fact that I'm going to vote delete per above. I'm happy with a redirect to Komtar#Transportation as well. S5A-0043^Talk 05:04, 21 January 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 04:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KRUM-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Washington. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is so KRUMmy it doesn't even mention that the programming on 24.1 is Tri-State Christian Television. There is no coverage, unfortunately. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks WP:SIGCOV with which to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 22:54, 19 January 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)‎ TarnishedPath^talk 05:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Adrian Schrinner

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Mayors/councillors of city councils are rarely notable for doing mayor/councillor things alone. TarnishedPath^talk 04:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 04:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has problems, and I agree that holding a local government position does not necessarily confer notability. However, subject has been substantially covered in media, and not merely as a medium for policy. Just recently, you could point to the broad coverage regarding his position on the 2032 Olympics forum and relationship with state government, or the commentary on his substantial budget cuts. Even outside of those larger events, he is regularly covered and quoted in media. The fact that he is the mayor of a major (capital) city, and indeed heads the largest council in the country is also persuasive. gompk 04:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep NPOL/POLITICAN is a positive test for presumed notability, not meeting NPOL is not grounds for deletion. Subject is lord mayor of an urban conglomoration of 1 million+ people; it is the single largest local government area by population in Australia. NB WP:POLOUTCOMES: "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD"...". That aside, the article contains a plethora of reliable sourcing that demonstrates the subject passes WP:GNG/WP:BIO. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per gompk and Goldsztajn and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Jfire (talk) 05:01, 18 January 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 04:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Sawyer

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

This appears to be a hoax. Searching for the film produces exactly seven Ghits, all of which trace back to here. The supposed ref does not refer to a specific page on the website, which is another red flag. Since the film is his claim to notability, there's nothing to support this. Created by an SPI who also made User:Baxter27/Donald sawyer. Mangoe (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax. No results for "site:dailycamera.com "Donald Sawyer"" either. Jfire (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. This appears to be a hoax. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:05, 19 January 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dendi Suryadi

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

AFD as PROD is contested. The subject of the article is not notable enough. A promotion to Brigadier General is not the ground for notability. There are no claims of notability other than his promotion and rank. There are no references that cover him in-depth, the iNews.id is just listing his military service record which does not satisfy notability in my opinion. Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems he is only notable for being the first person Kutai to be promoted as Brigadier General, so basically it's a WP:SINGLEEVENT. However, I dont think "first person from xxx region to be promoted as flag officer military itself" is really notable, if we accept this criteria then there will other page like this. Ckfasdf (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep may pass GNG but reliable sources are not persuasive. 185.104.138.35 (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are not going to make pages for every single first person from hundreds of Indonesia ethnics becoming a military officer. That on its own shouldnt make the person notable. Nyanardsan (talk) 03:44, 26 January 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jung Seung-won (curler)

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

No indication of significant notability beyond a few trivial mentions toobigtokale (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Olympics, and South Korea. toobigtokale (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Disability. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject is not notable separately from the team. A redirect to the team article may be useful (or not). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: which team would that be? Geschichte (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte According to the article it would be the South Korean Wheelchair Curling team. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And where is the article about that team, which would be the redirect target? Geschichte (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As supporting evidence for the delete, this is the only article I can find about him in Korean that isn't just a passing mention. [51] You can search "정승원 컬링" (Jeong Seung-won curling in Korean) to get an idea of the situation. toobigtokale (talk) 10:42, 22 January 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. The discussion has ended with the two sides arguing back and forth about sourcing, which suggests neither has the upper hand. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles King Van Riper

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ANYBIO. Somewhat notable in the local sphere, but nothing that really stand out. He was born, held a job, opened his own business/organization, played on local league. in other words, was born, lived life, and died.

Good chunk of this article isn't really about him and what is about him is sourced to local sources. Graywalls (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, California, and Massachusetts. Graywalls (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Journalism, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete well sourced, but I'm not seeing that he's passed BIO. Seems to hang on the house/building he's built in Martha's Vineyard, based on the infobox below, but I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies the WP:BASIC guidelines by being supported by numerous reliable published sources, including secondary sources. Notable achievements include: building one of the first homes in Carmel Point in the early 1920s, publisher of plays, one of the first actors at the Forest Theater, and founding member and organizer of the Abalone League. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:08, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"being the first to do x in y place during z period is generally not a basis for notability. The discoverer of X-ray is notable, but being the first person ever to install an x-ray machine in a dentist's office in Monterey County, California, USA is NOT. "the first in.." one of the first in" some obscure thing is marketing speak. Graywalls (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To try to say Van Riper is notable for "building one of the first homes in Carmel Point in the early 1920s" is dubious and ahistorical, as it only takes into consideration the wealthy white people who settled there in the 1920s. The Ohlone people lived in that area since the 6th century, then the Spaniards occupied the area during the missionary period, and the Mexican land grant settlers during the Rancho era go back to the late-1700's. He was "one of the first" rich white settlers to build an "English country style " mansion in the 20s, but come on, really? Why are the former inhabitant's histories erased? Besides, there were numerous other houses built by European-American settlers prior to his going back to the mid-ninteenth century. This is puffery and exaggerates his importance and is part of the Carmel walled garden. This claim is ahistorical and lacking in context - and in an understanding of cultural history. Netherzone (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, publishing plays does not make him notable; being "one of the first" actors at a tiny, local community theater in a small town of about 600 people at the time, does not make him notable,; nor does being a "founding member" of a hyper-local softball/baseball team in the same small town. Netherzone (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Satisfies WP:AUTHOR (created a collective body of work) From the 1910s to 1930s Van Riper wrote for various national distributed magazines, including Argosy, Detective Story Magazine, Blue Book, The Popular Magazine, and The Smart Set. On July 17, 1920, Circumstances by Van Riper appeared on the front cover of The Argosy. There are many other examples of WP:NP. Please see improvements to the article that address any concerns. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An author's notability is generally determined by SIGCOV about his work...not whether he wrote things, all authors/writers write, that is simply what they do. It's what other people have written about him, in reviews and in literary criticism that determines his importance. Millions upon millions of writers write stuff. I'll have a look at what you added, but think this may be a stretch. Netherzone (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed two reviews for Van Riper's play The Getaway that appeared in Variety one saying "The success of The Getaway is due to the superb work of Miss Heming and a well selected cast." More can be added. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you understand what independent SIGCOV is. Two simple name-checks and a sentence about one of his plays is not SIGCOV. The guideline states as examples:

• The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.

• Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.

This is not SIGCOV: Mr. Van Riper does the unusual in his play, in that he starts out with a first act scene of light comedy and, turning abruptly to melodrama, works up to a third act which packs enough excitement to fill a half dozen shows. It is a trivial mention. Netherzone (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at WP:AUTHOR guidelines. Remember, these are guidelines. A guideline is a rule-of-thumb or suggestion.
Van Riper has played a major role in creating a significant collective body of work.

In addition, such work was the primary subject of multiple reviews.

Over 36 citations have been provided, many being from secondary sources by providing reviews and acclamations.

Greg Henderson (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm shocked at the inclusion of membership in a club using the CLUB YEARBOOK, and he did x in year y at place z using Carmel Art something SCRAPBOOK. It's beside question that these things add nothing to notability but even outside of this, the very presence of trivial contents about every bite of food, every breath of air, every step of life based on scrap book and such is a ridiculous. Graywalls (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At first glance this looks well sourced, however once the citations are examined it's clear that the article fluffs up this person's importance. The sources consist of a funeral announcement, or are about other people not him, a press release, short mentions, a marriage record, don't mention him at all, are hyper-local, trivia about his house or the local baseball team in a tiny town he played on. Only one good source exists (Martha's Vinyard Magazine) and one from the South Street Seaport where that small museum holds his model boats. Does not pass WP:GNG as there is not enough significant coverage, he also fails WP:NARTIST because having model boats in a museum is not enough to pass the bar. Just because he built a house in Carmel, wrote plays and acted in some of them in a community theater, and was involved in the baseball team of a small town, and made model boats is not enought to pass notability criteria. Netherzone (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability criteria, local interest piece. Melcous (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Various things could explain why he is notable but especially, I guess, his ship models and the coverage he received for that (some on the page, some not (see GB for 'Van Ry/i/per ship models'): meets WP criterion#2 for notability of people: "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field." The page can be trimmed, though.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank, Could you please provide some SIGCOV citations proving that his toy wooden boat models are "widely recognized" and part of "the enduring historical record", aside from the museum (primary source) where the donation was received? RE; Criteria #2: Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.Thanks. Netherzone (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here you are. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 02:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! Netherzone (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. However, I'm still not persuaded enough to withdraw it. Government agencies and military have suppliers and vendors, so this says he was selected as a government supplier. This is a book specifically focused on miniature ship models. When you focus on a relatively narrow topic, the only way is to go deeply into it. How do you feel about it? Graywalls (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not, to my way of thinking, establish his notability, nor will I be changing my !vote, but I appreciate the effort. Netherzone (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No SIGCOV to establish GNG. Nothing beyond passing mentions, and his body of work has not received the level of recognition required for ANYBIO or other SNGs.

JoelleJay (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Please see major improvements to the article that help show WP:BASIC, received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources, and WP:AUTHOR creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. See new sections under Career and Selected works for important plays and nationally circulated short stories written by Van Riper, and Van Ryper ship models that are now part of the South Street Seaport Museum. Greg Henderson (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, you don't seem to understand the NAUTHOR SNG guidline. This is puffery. The fact that he wrote for magazines does not mean he created a significant or well known collective body of work. If he did, there would be citations by literary critics analyzing his writings found on Google Scholar (there are none), or one would find him mentioned in N-grams. Both tools turned up exactly zero. Writers write, that is simply what they do. Nor does he pass NARTIST just because some of the patterns for model boats from his commercial model shop were donated to a museum by his son. Netherzone (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration. Examining the citations, it's evident the depth of coverage and having multiple published secondary and primary sources that are reliable, independent of each other, and independent of the subject, meet the criteria outlined in WP:BASIC. It's disheartening that editors are more inclined to delete an article that is backed by extensive coverage and documentation that demonstrate the indiviudal's notability for their accomplishments. So far, there are two votes in favor to keeping the article. Although this is not conclusive, there is enough opion not to delete this article, suggesting that efforts should be directed toward improving the article. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I found 3 citations from Google Scholar on "Charles K. Van Riper":
[PDF] Quarterly

[BOOK] The Collected Letters of Robinson Jeffers, with Selected Letters of Una Jeffers: Volume Three, 1940-1962

[BOOK] Carmel--at Work and Play

Greg Henderson (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The first is not independent, "Quarterly", written by his grandson, A. Bowdoin Van Riper, who is the son of Anthony King Van Riper, who is the son of Charles King Van Riper.

• The second "Collected letters mentions him in a footnote to a personal letter about the value of some property he owned.

• The third is mention/name check. Netherzone (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to update. Things written by family members shouldn't count towards notability any more so than letter of recommendations written by parents/children of subject being taken seriously. Netherzone's analysis is spot on. While Henderson piled on some more fluff, none of it strengthens notability claim. Graywalls (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Graywalls (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Building the ship models might add to local history, but outside of that area, he's not known for them. Founding the amateur baseball/softball league could be notable, but there is hardly anything about that either. Great local history, but likely not up to the level we require here in Wikipedia Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mztourist:, list of three sources significant, independent and reliable sources that are reliably published would be nice. Remember, articles written by Van Riper son or grandson can not be counted as "independent of subject". Group blogs, like museum's website contents don't count for notability purposes. Graywalls (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason as Mushy Yank. It addresses the "local only" argument: he worked on a national level for the Federal Government and was a major contributor in this niche field. Sources include: Here (discussed above by Mushy Yank), here (New Yorker: "famous workshop"), here (concerning he influenced the naming of the USS Leviathan one of the most important liners of its era), here (chapter-length book coverage). -- GreenC 06:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Superlatives like "renowned..." "famous..." are common in guides. The magazine source you cited, which includes contact info and hours for the museum which means its a travel guide. It's a trivial coverage and being worded "a collection" vs saying "famous collection" is more of a writing style thing. Without significant, independent coverage, a swath of trivial coverage is not a substitution for significant, independent reliable secondary coverage. In depth coverage written by the article subject's son or grandson such as tales of his grandpa told by grandson Bow Van Riper fail the independence test. I'm not able to see the whole contents in the book, but how long is the chapter and what portion of it is Bow Van Riper telling stories? Graywalls (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You disagree on a fine point about one of the sources, I disagree with your finish point. Your sinister-sounding suggestion that "Bow Van Riper is telling stories", I have no idea what you are talking about, and admittedly neither do you ("I'm not able to see the whole contents"). The chapter is a history of the shop and concerns BVR, and it includes quotes from people other than BVR, and it includes quotes from newspapers that wrote about BVR during that period, "the establishment became a genuine war industry [during WWII]", and the book says this quote "recognized the importance of the BVR shop", furthering evidence of notability. -- GreenC 16:54, 24 January 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. Star Mississippi 03:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vo-Na Imoru

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

Biography of a diplomat for whom coverage seems to be in yearbooks, gazetteers etc. no in depth coverage that I can find. Mccapra (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sierra Leone-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mccapra, The chief of a large town as Voggu, and a dipplomat of an entire country to Yugoslavia is certainly notable enough to be on WIkipedia even if the only sources are in books that are easily verifiable on the internet. -Masssly (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

well the standard for biographies is WP:BASIC and that isn’t met here. Diplomats are not automatically notable and indeed most aren’t. Mccapra (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see that some ambassadorial positions are quite likely to be inherently notable (eg permanent members of the UN security council), that said, we're not discussing a posting of that nature here. In the absence of sources, and my own searches revealed no SIGCOV, I cannot think of grounds where we might assume that satisfactory sources could exist which would demonstrate anything more than the quotidian activities of a diplomat. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Diplomats are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:00, 25 January 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev Venkat

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

Article is not sourced to RS and all I find are the typical flowery articles used in Indian media, mostly from the Times of India. Appears to have a long career, but nothing for notability here. Not sure NBIO is met. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Oaktree b (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Various lead/main roles. Passes WP:NACTOR. As nominator himself indicates, plenty of (flowery) coverage directly about him. And won various awards. Needs improvement, though. So Keep and improve.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:39, 18 January 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 03:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Lone Shark

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

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

Poorly sourced (its sole footnote is a YouTube clip of its own opening/closing credits, which is not support for notability at all) article about a minor public access program. As always, television shows are not "inherently" notable just because they existed, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them, but there's no evidence of that being shown here, and the article has been tagged for sourcing problems since 2014 without improvement.
I'm also bundling a completely unsourced episode list, and note that both articles are extremely overloaded with much deeper levels of detail than their lack of reliable sourcing can bear, suggesting the distinct possibility that there's been some conflict of interest editing by people who were directly involved in the show (a concern not at all allayed by the fact that they were both created by a virtual WP:SPA named "BigHandzCT".) Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Connecticut. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly non-notable public access program. Now appears to be a podcast, but searches in WP:LIBRARY and newspapers.com return nada -- I can't even verify it ever existed as a TV show. Jfire (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is more verbage here compared to zero real references. Weird! Leaning delete, but due to the volume of the article, going to wait and take a deeper look. Jacona (talk) 14:38, 18 January 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 03:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Contempra

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

This doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP, the best sources are still just local coverage of what is probably a nice dance studio. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Companies, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enuough reliable sources provided BoraVoro (talk) 08:29, 19 January 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 Five Nights at Freddy's#Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria Simulator (2017). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria Simulator

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

I simply do not think this article has the material to stand on its own, and its status on meeting WP:THREE is iffy. Even if it did, there is extremely limited information on this subject (even from primary sources) that makes it to where I do not see a substantial article coming out of it. Furthermore, the article is a complete mess possibly beyond saving. I believe the information of this game to be better off as part of the series article.

To analyze the Reception section:

Touch Arcade isn't actually a review outside of the stars rating. It's also very brief.
The IGN reception bit is a listicle of no substance.
Rock Paper Shotgun is decent.
CD-Action can not be verified after me and some folks at WP:DISCORD attempted to find anywhere to purchase the issue the review is in (I assume good faith in the editor that added it in though, so I'd still count it, it just can't be checked in this discussion).
While this specific author at GameCrate seems okay, the discussion that decided the status of GameCrate concluded that it should only be used as a last resort (even after this particular author was brought up), and thus I think should be thrown out the window for notability (the discussion even somewhat alluded to this).

Even if we give GameCrate the benefit of the doubt here and THREE was met, I don't believe there to be enough material to make a substantial article as stated above. Searches for additional reviews also turned up nothing, what there is now is all there is. λ NegativeMP1 03:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 03:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Metacritic lists CD-Action as having given the game a full review. Perhaps it could not be verified, but I don't believe Metacritic would have a reason to lie about something like that. And that plus a review in TouchArcade (that is short-ish but still a review) and Rock Paper Shotgun means the game presumably meets GNG criteria weakly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Touch Arcade review being short is the problem. Sure, you can list the not-even-a-sentence-long brief quote and the star rating, but there's no material in it that could be incorporated into a Reception section that follows something like WP:RECEPTION. It's incredibly unsubstantial. λ NegativeMP1 03:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Very light in sigcov, relies a lot on a very situational source. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The TouchArcade source offers little critical commentary or any meaningful observations, it merely repeats information about the game's mechanics and cannot be considered a review aside from its base rating. And the IGN post doesn't have substance either. The Rock Paper Shotgun article provides a small amount of critical commentary and coverage, but it isn't much of a review rather than the author saying "this game is scary". Although the GameCrate source is listed as situational through its author, I see that it is very weak on notability. All in all, I see the article barely meeting the threshold for GNG but the severe lack of proper critical coverage means that the article has little room to stand on its own, though the salvageable material could easily be included at Five Nights at Freddy's. I think we can treat this as similar to a case with a video game character article, which live and die by the quality of their reception sections. If critics are not willing to adequately cover this video game, it can easily be included as part of a relevant article same as characters being merged into related lists. The commonly used essay WP:NVIDEOGAMES also says that articles cannot really stand on their own without significant critical commentary. The essay also says Avoid creating spinout articles that are short or redundant. Any distinct features of a derivative release that can be verified can always be covered in the parent article The Night Watch (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Five Nights at Freddy's#Freddy Fazbear's Pizzeria Simulator (2017) as an appropriate source. My rationale is per The Night Watch, but none of the merging !votes specified where this would go to. Conyo14 (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the FNAF article as suggested above. I agree the CD Action should be considered as per WP:NEXIST, but it's not currently verifiable and there's no way of knowing if that review was even significant coverage of the game. The TouchArcade article describes the game without any critical commentary as stated above. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:34, 22 January 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. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glokk40Spaz

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

Musician with no indication of notability. I was unable to find enough coverage from third-party sources and there does not seem to be any notable songs/mixtapes/EPs/albums to speak of. I found an interview here, an album review from a blog here, and news of him dropping a music video here, but nothing substantial. JTtheOG (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Georgia (U.S. state). JTtheOG (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This guys is a very popular rapper, he’s had millions of plays and views on YouTube and Spotify. You feature much smaller bands than this in your site. This seems like it’s personal. 136.55.57.11 (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Not a lot of sources available on this rapper but he meets criteria 5 of WP:SINGER having 2 albums released by Columbia Records. I see one reliable source by WP:MUSIC/SOURCE covering him here: [52] Despite lack of coverage, he still seems to meet notability requirements although there can't be an abundance of material in the article. Célestin Denis (talk) 21:25, 14 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) 03:13, 18 January 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ConClave (convention)

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

No third-party sources found in Google News and Google Books to back notability. Page is an advertisement. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An early science fiction convention that ran for 40 years and featured numerous highly notable authors. The article is not an orphan. I believe third party sources can be located. In my opinion notability is low but not absent. Ike9898 (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This was an annual literary convention focused on science fiction that started in 1976, lasted for 40 years and featured the genre's most significant contributors, including Robert A. Heinlein, Poul Anderson, Roger Zelazny, Gordon R. Dickson, Larry Niven, Theodore Sturgeon, Ben Bova, etc. A quick seaarch turned up the following SIGCOV: this, this, and this. As the event ceased operations eight years ago, I do not agree with the assertion that the article is an "advertisement" for the event. Cbl62 (talk) 07:16, 14 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) 03:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As far as conventions go 600 people is small fry (I tried to find visitor counts online but came up empty, I think this would help the case a lot) but forty years is something. Stumbled upon photos here. With the names that visited the convention I think it's inching closer and closer towards surviving. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:01, 18 January 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Solo Cissokho

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Did a search for more sources but found no sources that were both independent secondary sources and had significant coverage of the subject. Eternal Shadow Talk 05:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. Eternal Shadow Talk 05:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Senegal, and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obituary (Norway's main TV channel), 1 hour radio special (same channel) obituary album review tour news etc etc. In other words there is independent and in-depth coverage of him being a griot and one of the world's foremost kora players. Geschichte (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that any doubt can be cast about this. Others? Geschichte (talk) 11:01, 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) 03:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Geschichte. In addition to those sources, there are numerous concert reviews in ProQuest via WP:LIBRARY. Jfire (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified by Geschichte above that together show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:48, 25 January 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jiuyin Zhenjing

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

I couldn't find sources that this is notable. A possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect or just redirect to Condor Trilogy, but I think it would unbalance that article. Boleyn (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, Martial arts, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ My search did not find significant reliable independent coverage of this subject. The two references in the article are both from the book, meaning they're not independent. I didn't find mention of this in the WP articles of any of the books in the trilogy, so I question how significant a role it played in the trilogy--which is why I didn't vote to redirect or merge. Papaursa (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the sources and explanations added by 1.47.133.86 . 1.47.133.86, I hope you will add these sources and some text to the article. Papaursa (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The Nine Yin Manual (九陰真經) is a crucial martial arts skill in wuxia fiction, prominently featured in all of Jin Rong's works. Well Should we delete Pokemon just because it is a fictional? The Nine Yin Manual holds greater prominence than Iron Man's armor in South Asian regions. Numerous literary works explore and research the subject, including "中醫處方之九陰真經--談方劑的配伍" and many scholarly articles analyzing the Nine Yin Manual can be found on Google Scholar [53]. Please conduct research and find sources in the Chinese language before proposing deletion. Wikipedia is not exclusively an English language source center, and the absence of English sources is not a valid reason for deletion. Thanks 1.47.133.86 (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that English sources are not required, but providing some specific Chinese sources to evaluate (not a giant list) would be appreciated. Doesn't "中醫處方之九陰真經--談方劑的配伍" refer to prescription compatibility? Sorry, I'm out of my element with Chinese. Don't see what Iron Man's armor has to do with the WP notability of this article (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Papaursa (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do this: [54], [55]. That's campaigning. A neutrally-worded statement would have been OK. Jfire (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Jfire:, I've been editing Wikipedia for 5 years and have learned about canvassing. I want to clarify that I notified related projects without explicitly requesting "keep" votes or to "save the article." My message only encouraged expressing opinions on the AfD, which is not canvassing. Many editors adopt this approach. If you've observed similar notifications from others, why not address them too? Over the past five years, during quiet or inactive country projects, when a notable article is in AfD, I've sent notifications on the project talk page. This isn't a request for votes, just an invitation for opinions, whether they be "delete" or merge" votes. As you are one of the respected editors I mentioned before, I never intended to oppose you. Pls pardon me. 1.47.133.86 (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the considerable Chinese-language coverage. — Remsense诉 23:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to some of the best sources? The results on Google Scholar and for "中醫處方之九陰真經--談方劑的配伍" as the above IP user suggested look like content farms and/or different topics. Admittedly I am going off Google Translate though, so I'd appreciate a more detailed assessment from a native speaker. Jfire (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See below. 1.47.133.86 (talk) 13:13, 18 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) 02:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Nine Yin Manual or Jiuyin Zhenjing (simplified Chinese: 九陰真經) to pass the Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
Sources
2. Jiuyin Zhenjing is the subject of a mobile game source.
4. 中醫處方之九陰真經－－談方劑的配伍中醫處方之九陰真經－－談方劑的配伍 (The Prescription of the Nine Yin Manual in Chinese Medicine: A Discussion on the Combination of Herbs) is a scholarly article written by Zhou Minlan (周敏郎), a Taiwanese physician and scholar of traditional Chinese medicine. The article was published in the Taiwan Medical Journal in 2012. In the article, Zhou Minlan discusses the relationship between the Nine Yin Manual, a fictional martial arts manual from the Legend of the Condor Heroes novels, and the principles of Chinese medicine. He argues that the Nine Yin Manual can be seen as a metaphor for the principles of Chinese medicine, particularly the concept of a combination of herbs. He begins by discussing the history and content of the Nine Yin Manual. He notes that the manual is divided into two parts: the internal martial arts and the external martial arts. The article argues that the Nine Yin Manual can be seen as a valuable resource for understanding the principles of Chinese medicine.
6. 李连杰亲临现场，《九阴真经》全球首届武侠电竞大赛收官 - The inaugural "Nine Yin Manual" Global Wuxia Esports Tournament is named to honor the Nine Yin Manual in Jing Yong’s novel. Tencent Games and Perfect World co-hosted the tournament. The opening ceremony saw the presence of renowned martial arts star Jet Li.
8. The Study of Martial Arts Secret Books on Jin Yong Novel Edition Correction: "Jiuyin-zhen-jing" as The Main Example is a scholarly article by Chen Junhong, published in Chinese Literature World in 2012. The article discussed the importance of the Nine Yin Manual with other manuals such as Jade Maiden's Heart Sutra, Wu Mu's Legacy, Sunflower Manual, and Six Yang Palm. That stated, "In Jin Yong's early works, particularly Legend of the Condor Heroes and The Return of the Condor Heroes, the manuals are often epitomized by the "Nine Yin Manual". This comprehensive text encompasses various aspects of martial arts, including internal and external skills, weaponry, light body techniques, and hidden weapons. Protagonists like Guo Jing and Yang Guo owe their advancements in martial prowess to studying this manual."
10. The article 道"的阐释与追寻——《射雕英雄传》的原型解读 (The Interpretation and Pursuit of "Dao"—The Prototype Interpretation of "The Legend of the Condor Heroes") is a critical essay by Chinese scholar Li Xiaoping published in the Journal of the Gansu Institute of Education. The essay explores the theme of "dao" (道, the Way) in Jin Yong's martial arts novel and the Nine Yin Manual.
12. The book 武俠小說話古今 discusses the close relationship between the "九陰真經" (Jiuyin Zhenjing) and the "道德經" (Tao Te Ching).
13. (Page 68)
14. The Nine Yin True Scripture is closely related to the Dao De Jing. The Nine Yin True Scripture was written by Huang Shang of the Northern Song Dynasty after he had read all the Daoist books in the world and comprehended the true meaning of martial arts. The first line of the scripture, "The way of heaven is to subtract from the excess and supplement the deficiency; therefore, the weak and the insufficient can overcome the strong and the excessive," is the same as the meaning of the Dao De Jing by Laozi. It can be said that the Dao De Jing is the mother of the Nine Yin True Scripture.
15. (Page 100)
16. Yang Kang, who was obsessed with the Nine Yin True Scripture, became insane and a madman, but his martial arts became even more powerful. Even the combined efforts of Hong Qigong and Huang Yaoshi were not his match. Another person who is astonishing is Wuqing, the leader of the Four Constables. The book says that this person has an empty abdomen, and his legs are all missing. He has neither internal energy nor martial arts, but his lightness skills are superb and his hidden weapons are the best in the world. I wonder how he practiced these light skills and hidden weapons.
17. (Page 146)
18. The Nine Yin True Scripture, the Northern Divine Art, and the Empty-Void Fist are all closely related to the teachings of Laozi and Zhuangzi. In his novels, he often quoted Buddhist scriptures and verses, and he was not just a martial artist who knew how to fight.
20. The book Discussing Martial Arts and Analyzing Swords by Hong Zhenkuai, 2007, discusses the significance of the "Jiuyin Zhenjing" in Jin Yong's novels, particularly in "The Legend of the Condor Heroes," "The Return of the Condor Heroes," and "Demi-Gods and Semi-Devils." "Jiuyin Zhenjing" is portrayed as a pivotal element, influencing major events in these novels.
21. Page 216
22. In his book "The True and False Classics: The Phenomenon of Martial Arts Manuals in Martial Arts Novels," Hong Zhenkuai argues that the most famous martial arts manual in Jin Yong's novels is the Nine Yin True Scripture. The major events of Jin Yong's best novels, including The Legend of the Condor Heroes, The Return of the Condor Heroes, and The Heaven Sword and Dragon Saber, were all caused by the Nine Yin True Scripture. The Nine Yin True Scripture is a powerful and mysterious manual that has been passed down for generations.
23. Page 222
  The Nine Yin True Scripture was created by a Daoist monk named Huang Shang in the Northern Song Dynasty. It was hidden in a secret location for many years, but it suddenly appeared in the world one day. The appearance of the Nine Yin True Scripture caused a great stir in the martial arts world. Many people wanted to possess the manual, including the leaders of the major martial arts sects.
24. Page 227
  The first Huashan Sword Meeting was held to determine who would be the rightful owner of the Nine Yin True Scripture. The winner of the meeting would be the one who could defeat all the other participants. In the end, the meeting was won by Wang Chongyang, the founder of the Quanzhen sect.
25. Hong Zhenkuai argues that the Nine Yin True Scripture should have been kept by Wang Chongyang. He believes that giving the manual to anyone else would have led to a change in the cultural and religious beliefs of the martial arts world. This is evident in the effects that the Nine Yin True Scripture had on those who practiced it. Guo Jing, who learned the manual from Wang Chongyang, became a powerful and righteous warrior. However, Yang Kang, who also learned the manual, became a ruthless and ambitious man.

1.47.133.86 (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above sources provided by 1.47.133.86. That's convincing, thanks for taking the time to translate and summarize. Hope those sources make it into the article, which except for the first sentence, is written entirely from an in-universe perspective. Jfire (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by 1.47.133.86. Significant coverage in journal articles, books based on it and news of the esports tournament which is named after it. 94rain ^Talk 09:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided, and tidy up a bit. Bduke (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep by sources provided above. Lethweimaster (talk) 14:06, 24 January 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 Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy regarding the number of Palestinian casualties in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war

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

Obviously this is a notable topic BUT we already have a Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war page. Does it need a spin-off yet or should we just add to the main article if needed? BuySomeApples (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Israel, and Palestine. Shellwood (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war where it can be covered sufficiently in a subsection. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is an obvious merge to Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war. My very best wishes (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined in favor of merging, but there are many sources which cover this topic alone in great detail, at least giving it a cursory look through. There seems to be enough material for a spin-off article of sufficient detail. So, the question for me comes down to if it needs a spin-off article? And I'm not sure how to answer that, since we aren't writing a paper encyclopedia here. Sagflaps (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC) (This editor is non EC and per WP:ARBECR, is not permitted to comment here) Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Subsequently granted EC status on 21 January.Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The proliferation of articles about this war is verging on silly. It's simply WP:TOOSOON to have a spin-off (or WP:POVFORK, depending on your perspective) of the casualties article; there may be (some, scant) coverage in news sources, but this type of topic would be better served by allowing for scholarly analysis that could only be done in hindsight, once the fog of war has lifted, if ever. WillowCity^(talk) 16:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war; That article is not too long. Marokwitz (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the creator of this article, and I am okay with merging it to Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war article.Crampcomes (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Casualties of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war has been moved so it is a redirect and it looks like Casualties of the Israel–Hamas war is the proper target article now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liz (talk • contribs) 01:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as seems like best solution. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 16:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, to avoid content forking. Carrite (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. AryKun (talk) 13:38, 26 January 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hubertus Bengsch

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

He exists, and has had a reasonable career, but does not appear to pass WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 17:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the above. In addition I don't believe that "He also is well known for being the German voice of American actor Richard Gere". Who knows or cares the names of people who dub the voices of well known actors? On French television (which I watch a lot) there are some voices that I recognize that I've heard before, but I don't have the least idea what the names of their owners are. Athel cb (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep, the German version is more substantiated. Athel cb, have you tried to search for traces of information that support the claim? It is of no consequence whatsoever which names you do or do not know. Voice actors seem to be a bigger deal in Germany than several other places, and Bengsch is among others discussed in Stars und ihre deutschen Stimmen, Lexikon der Synchronsprecher, as well as here, here/here... The award seems pretty eccentric, but constitutes independent acknowledgement of Bensch' work. With that being said, the current article contains little worth saving. Geschichte (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"have you tried to search for traces of information that support the claim?". No, I haven't. Isn't it the author's job to supply evidence for the claims made? The statement has been there since June 2008 (15 years ago!), unsupported by any evidence. Athel cb (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wikipedia article was and is one single click away. Geschichte (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't have a view on whether the article should be deleted (article came up randomly for me when trawling unref'd BLPs), but the actor has received coverage as the voice of Gere. I've added a couple of refs. Tacyarg (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Trying to ping @User:Mushy Yank who recently improved another voice actor to meet WP:HEY. Geschichte (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I will have a look. Best wishes, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I will try and improve the page but I think he meets WP:NACTOR for his significant roles in Das Boot, both the film and the series, and Der Landartz at least. Also as voice actor, he received an award, and coverage. Best wishes, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:00, 11 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) 01:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bengsch played one of the most memorable characters in Das Boot, itself an important WW2 drama. I came to the page while watching Das Boot this evening, specifically to learn more about the actor. I think that should be enough to keep him. 173.66.245.239 (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, 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.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Page for movie, nothing about subject	1. richi (2023-11-29). "Das Boot - Director's Cut". Heidelberg aktuell (in German). Retrieved 2023-12-30.
Name listed, nothing SIGCOV	2. ^ Baer, Hester (2021-02-05). German Cinema in the Age of Neoliberalism. Amsterdam University Press. ISBN 978-90-485-5195-8.
Name listed, nothing SIGCOV	3. ^ Haines, Brigid; Parker, Stephen R.; Riordan, Colin (2010). Aesthetics and Politics in Modern German Culture: Festschrift in Honour of Rhys W. Williams. Peter Lang. ISBN 978-3-03911-355-2.
Brief bio, name mentions, nothing SIGCOV	4. ^ Heptner, T.; Reichmann, H.P. (2006). Das Boot: auf der Suche nach der Crew der U 96. Schriftenreihe des Deutschen Filmmuseums Frankfurt (in German). Deutsches Filmmuseum. ISBN 978-3-89487-550-3. Retrieved 28 Dec 2023. Hubertus Bengsch zu einem gefragten Synchronsprecher und ist seit PRETTY WOMAN (1989) die deutsche Stimme von Richard Gere
Name listed, nothing SIGCOV	5. ^ Theater heute. Friedrich Berlin Verlagsgesellschaft. 2006. Retrieved 28 Dec 2023. Hubertus Bengsch, ansonsten oft als Richard Gere zu hören, vollbringt hier das rare Kunststück, fast besser zu sein als das Original
Database promo bio, unknown source [56]	6. ^ "Synchronsprecherpreis geht an die deutsche Stimme von Richard Gere - Stadt Lippstadt". 2017-08-30. Archived from the original on 2017-08-30. Retrieved 2023-12-30.

Ping me if WP:THREE sources are that meet WP:SIGCOV are found. Closer should note canvassing above. // Timothy :: talk 21:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing has not taken place "above". Only a single honest attempt to bring in a capable editor. You have read WP:CANVAS, right? It begins: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus". Geschichte (talk) 21:04, 24 January 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 Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Binkley

AfDs for this article:

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

Two different AFD discussions have confirmed this page as a delete, in additional to a third time the article was speedy deleted. I don't think recent events have changed anything, but perhaps others disagree? Chipka (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. A search prior to his run for president reveals nothing that would meet Wikipedia notability criteria. However, he has recieved notable coverage since then and I think there is a strong argument to be had that getting notable coverage during a presidential run enhances notability. (The vast majority of candidates who run for president do not get media coverage.) Esolo5002 (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dratify. Because only the presidential camapaign is noteworthy, the page should be draftfied. There a user can convert the page into a Ryan Binkley 2024 presidential campaign article. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad alternative to deletion. While I still endorse redirecting for reasons described in my !vote, I'll also gladly throw my support behind draftifying as well as I think this is a situation where neither deleting nor keeping seem to be the right outcome. Amended my !vote accordingly. Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many, many news sources have talked about Binkley, much more than many individuals on Wikipedia. In fact the New York Times even includes him in their list of main candidates running, along side DeSantis and Haley. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/us/politics/presidential-candidates-2024.html#binkley MannyMammal (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While he's a footnote, he's qualified for a majority of primary ballots, beat much more recgonizable names, run an active campaign. The article also cites sources from before the election. As mentioned, the NYT mentions him; USA Today interview and profiled him, separately. He seems to be a borderline keep to me. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think being mentioned by news outlets is what we're looking for. Article even says he's a low polling candidate, I don't see notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep since Binkley has gotten more major media coverage than during the time of the previous two AFD's on his article. I'm not 100% locked in on my position. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there have been a host of news article regarding him and the frequency of his name being included in polling has increased significantly.XavierGreen (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous articles available on the subject that can help establish notability. Here are just a few NBC News, The Gazette, Globe Gazette, and Dallas News.Royal88888 (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on NOTNEWS concerns. I'm a bit torn here since there is coverage, but the article's campaign section is written in a NOTNEWS/PROMO format, he barely made a dent in Iowa, and I am completely unconvinced this coverage is LASTING yet, and that he can be adequately covered on the Iowa election page. Maybe treat like a young footballer and draftify until he's clearly notable? SportingFlyer T·C 19:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The need to improve this article is pretty obvious and it should receive the relevant tags, but WP:CONTN applies. Additionally, given the depth of personal detail that multiple non-Iowan RSs have provided about Binkley's life indicates that his life outside the Iowa race is relevant to his notability. While not sufficient on their own, being the CEO of a somewhat successful business and the pastor of a substantial congregation both built towards preexisting notability guidelines independent of the political angle. The concern about LASTING would apply if we didn't have already seven months of sustained SIGCOV. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is not in bad shape and does establish some notability on the subject. He has also gotten coverage from the media and was even listed on the NYT for the Iowa Caucus results as well. He's not just a 'minor' candidate. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable outside of his presidential campaign. Maybe his campaign can get an article, but Ryan Binkley himself does not meet notability requirements to have a page. Scu ba (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries (or draftify) as an alternative to hard deletion. I'm not so sure I can give a strong !vote for either delete or keep because I'm not really convinced one way or the other. There's a somewhat weak case for both. His name is a plausible search term, but notability is very tenuous outside his role as a forgettable side character in the primary elections, raising WP:ONEEVENT concerns. Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Redirect as per this exact reasoning. He hasn’t done anything notable other than pour a bunch of money into a political campaign that no one will remember in 5 years. Nothing in the article is content beyond basic biographical information and saying that he ran for president. pluma♫ ♯ 21:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has received coverage from multiple sources: Politico, Yahoo News, The Washington Times, USA Today (twice), Des Moines Register, the Telegraph, Newswire, C-Span and The Independent. Helper201 (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many major sources have covered Binkley and his campaign, as the article well documents. He is not an anonymous person who simply paid the fee to be on the ballot like a Peter Jedick. GeorgeMisty (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he literally did better than Asa Hutchinson in Iowa, and could have a very strong showing as the only competitor to Trump in Nevada. He's had much more extensive coverage since his first deletions. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asa Hutchison is more notable for being the former governor of Arkansas. If all Hutchison had done was his 2024 campaign, I don’t think he’d meet standards of notability either. pluma♫ ♯ 21:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He Could Make A Big Push In New Hampshire and Nevada. User:Matthew Campbell 16:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some vague unknown future potential does not warrant current inclusion. Longestview (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh he's going to "Make A Big Push In New Hampshire" Scu ba (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (albeit a weaker support for deletion than in past discussions). I simply don’t see individual notability. SecretName101 (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- He satisfies requirements for individual notability by receiving sustained international coverage that includes substantial personal details about him: Des Moines Register June 2023, Globe Gazette August 2023, The Telegraph January 2024. WP:NPOL indicates that [a] politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists qualifies for an article. His past roles have been discussed fairly extensively in RS media and coverage is often framed as about him, lending evidence that it is him–not his campaign–that is notable. Indeed, one might even note that his campaign is itself non-notable, but what is notable is that he kept running despite obviously impossible odds and continued to draw some voters. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has no notable feats or encyclopedic reason for being the subject of an article. He's just a megachurch preacher chasing clout in the Republican Primary for a few months. The whole play he's making smacks of trivia. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has been covered by many significant outlets such as here and here, and coverage has been increasing due to the declining field of candidates. TheInevitables (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One thing to consider is that in Nevada, since it is a proportional contest with just him and Donald Trump on the caucus ballot, he is very likely to get some delegates. According to The Green Papers (no-consensus on reliability so take with some salt) the delegate threshold is between 3.846%-4.348% of the vote [57] JSwift49 15:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't assume what will happen, per WP:CRYSTAL. If he does get delegates, I'd support his inclusion. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. I'd still lean towards Keep because of his inclusion in Politico/USA Today/Guardian lists of candidates, and national polls from at least five different pollsters. Though if he is deleted until he receives delegates I'd be OK with that too. JSwift49 19:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments raised above. Arkansawyer25KADIMA (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find the argument that "he beat Hutchinson, therefore he's notable" to be very weak. If Hutchinson dropped out a day prior and didn't get any votes at all, would that mean that Binkley isn't notable still? Not to mention that most news sources still don't warrant him a mention. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just because he's a (soon-to-be) failed political candidate doesn't mean he isn't notable; the sourcing is sufficient for an article here. Definitely should be kept if he wins delegates in Nevada. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - Plenty of independently published, substantial coverage of presumed reliability showing in the footnotes. As a candidate for President of the United States via one of the two major parties, the bar against inclusion should be very, very low indeed. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - Several media sources have discussed Ryan’s candidacy, including Fox News and the New York Times, he finished ahead of Asa in Iowa, and he has his own separate CAMPAIGN page.MoMoChohan (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The second deletion required actively ignoring GNG. This a political candidate with months of sustained RS coverage. If we assume notability for single-term state legislators, we should should assume notability for someone who clears GNG and has received substantial (if inconsequential) votes in an election outside their home locality. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep: he is mentioned in numerous news articles by major sources including as the lead subject of the articles. He meets GNG Reesorville (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As other editors in this thread have said he clearly reaches the notability in order to have a page, plenty of people have gotten pages for much less. TheFellaVB (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He got more votes than Asa Hutchinson...Benjamin.P.L (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's not a high bar. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This page predates the 2024 primaries by 5 years.User:Catgiraffe (talk) 1:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

What? No it doesn't. The page was originally a user sandbox in 2019, storing information *completely different* from Ryan Binkley, and it wasn't until 12 days ago that the page creator added the Ryan Binkley information and then moved it to articlespace. RexSueciae (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient reliable 3rd party sources for retention under WP:GNG. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the rationale of the keeps above. TuckerResearch (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - plenty of reliable sources cover the subject in detail. I see no valid reason to delete. Interstellarity (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How many other folks have pages that are really only notable for political campaigns? I can think of plenty, and Binkley has attracted much, much more attention than most of them. 4:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeacockShah (talk • contribs)
Inquiry Some !votes here reference similar pages existing where the subject is only notable for a political campaign and I am curious to know which examples come to mind for these !voters. Of course, a !vote that hinges on other pages existing is an other stuff exists rationale which isn't exactly a valid argument, as it is very possible that these unspecified other articles have the same WP:ONEEVENT concerns that I have with this page, but substantiating these claims better could help to establish the existence of a precedent that might count for something as part of a larger argument. I'd be happy to see some elaboration on claims like "plenty of people have gotten pages for much less" or "How many other folks have pages that are really only notable for political campaigns? I can think of plenty".

I am willing to be swayed from redirect to keep, but at least as of right now, I find that many of the keep !votes assert notability per GNG without substantiating how it is met. Arguments like "As a candidate for President of the United States via one of the two major parties, the bar against inclusion should be very, very low indeed" are disappointingly poor (how many nobodies run for president every cycle? of course running for president as a rep/dem does not confer any inherent amount of notability.)

Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:20, 25 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Eve Procession

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

Delete A completely unsourced article that seems to fail WP:GNG. It is a mess of unknowable claims mixed with folk legend and I'm not sure even where to start trying to verify the article. Tooncool64 (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources at all, and a lot of broken wikilinks and other problems. Endersslay (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The lack of sources can be addressed without deletion, which I've just done. A simple web search for "christmas eve procession malta" turns up dozens of sources, so I highly doubt that the claim that this doesn't pass the WP:GNG, which the nominator doesn't actually evidence. – Joe (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this article has changed greatly, from an unreferenced mess to a sourced stub article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a couple of sources and added text to the article. I think we would do better to add to the article, rather than delete it. This is an annual sacred event to the island of Malta. Re the nominator's statement of, "...unknowable claims mixed with folk legend", the annual Malta event is about the birth of Jesus. — Maile (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the improvements to the article including reliable sources references Atlantic306 (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is now a sourced stub which nullifies the delete arguments. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:42, 25 January 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 Rowing at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed four. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Schwegler

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

The only mentions of this person I could find were on Olympic databases in passing, nothing with significant coverage. I'm not sure simply winning a silver medal in the coxed fours competition is enough to meet WP:ATHLETE, though that may be interpreted differently. TheBritinator (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Olympics, and Switzerland. TheBritinator (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 11 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rowing at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed four at the very least. Geschichte (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has any in-depth search in historical Swiss newspaper archives taken place? If not, then I believe the presumption of significant coverage given to Olympic medalists at WP:NOLYMPICS should stand. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rowing at the 1928 Summer Olympics – Men's coxed four: Subject lacks WP:SIGCOV. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you done a search in historical Swiss newspaper archives? If not, then the presumption of significant coverage afforded to Olympic medalists should stand. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Whether or not there is any presumption of coverage, this article still needs to cite an IRS SIGCOV source, and none have been unearthed.

JoelleJay (talk) 06:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But how can we when no one has even looked in relevant sources? "Significant coverage is likely to exist" has to mean something... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:08, 25 January 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 10:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Srinwanti Chakrabarti

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

Third delete (Twice G11'd and once PROD). Promo BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found promo, interviews, nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 07:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, India, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NBASIC and WP:NENTERTAINER. I was unable to find significant coverage of this dancer in reliable secondary sources. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 17:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion, relisting to establish clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 11 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my previous PROD and nom. Also should be SALTed. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:51, 19 January 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 10:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudransh Mathur

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject doesn't appear to be notable. PepperBeast (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. PepperBeast (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very few hits on this person's film works, and not really much of anything found in RS, or in anything. Oaktree b (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom does not meet GNG.Tame Rhino (talk) 13:45, 19 January 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 Hanu Man#Future. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prasanth Varma Cinematic Universe

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

The series only consists of one released film. The second film in the universe had its trailer released in 2022 and has not been released yet. The series should be dratftified or deleted till the next film releases.

My verdict for the information on this page is that the universe information should be mentioned at Hanu Man#Future. A clear case of WP:Too early. DareshMohan (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Citing the failure of of the Dark Universe for the Universal Classic Monsters; let's make sure the other films come out before we look like an embarrassment detailing multiple projects forever in development hell. Nate • (chatter) 01:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, Hinduism, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:FILMSERIES. InfiniteNexus (talk) 08:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hanu Man#Future: While the forthcoming installments of the franchise will no doubt come, given the success of the progenitor, none have entered the filming stage. So keep it as a redirect till at least a third installment enters production. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Hanu Man#Future: The production of the second installment Aadhira has started and the team has already released the promotional video[58]. The third installment Jai HanuMan has been confirmed by Prasanth Varma in many interviews[59]. SonaMani1 (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hanu Man#Future. This article is probably WP:TOOSOON, but the history should be preserved for future use in the spirit of WP:AtD. Daranios (talk) 19:51, 22 January 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 delete. Graham87 (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of vehicles of the Israeli ground tech tree in War Thunder

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

Primary-sourced WP:GAMECRUFT fails WP:GNG. Nothing to merge here, implausible search term. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Military, Lists, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete. Also all those images were uploaded at Commons, being images of said vehicles taken from War Thunder, which would all be copyrighted, though this is a problem outside AFD. --Masem (t) 00:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and masem. There's really not much more to add. -- ferret (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Great for FANDOM, but against guidelines for Wikipedia. For the same reason we don't have "List of swords in Zelda" or "List of Mario enemies by level". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:39, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - textbook WP:GAMECRUFT, spun out into its own article. Sergecross73 msg me 01:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a notable concept in the slightest. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The War Thunder wiki exists and already cover this. We're not the War Thunder wiki. --StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. S5A-0043^Talk 07:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hope this debacle sends a clear message, along with the 38 (!) images deleted at Commons, that Wikia is Wikia and Wikipedia is Wikipedia, and never the twain shall meet. Geschichte (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable in the slightest. Grahaml35 (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic is not so notable. Azuredivay (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW. Marokwitz (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:DAFT, basically no one will search for a topic like this. Svartner (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was 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 01:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Bloodworth

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

A search for her name comes up with American namesakes in google news. Australian search engine Trove only comes up with 1 line mentions. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --PeaceNT (talk) 02:12, 19 January 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Madigan

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

Non-notable screenwriter (ex-WWE/WWE Studios). Fails GNG. PRODed in 2010. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Film, Television, Wrestling, and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are only mentions of a person at UConn with this name, nothing about a person involved in screenwriting. Oaktree b (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – there is more than "mentions" such as Bleacher Report (though some are probably not WP:RELIABLE, but it's mostly just citing quotes. TLA (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Jerricks, Terelle (2007-05-04). "Lucha Libre in the L.A Underground". Random Lengths News. pp. 1, 12, 24. ProQuest 363208421.
  The author talked to Dan Madigan. The article notes: "Despite his multi-cultural outlook, Madigan worried that race would be a factor in allowing him entry into the Lucha world, only to be set at ease when his bodybuilder physique and knowledge made other luchadores think he was a wrestler himself. ... Though Madigan's background is in writing and art. he also grappled in high school, college, and in the army. ... Madigan's career as a writer has been on a steady incline-especially after he joined the larger than life figure of American professional wrestling, Vince McMahon at his new film division World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE). During his first meeting with the producers of WWE films, they started talking about old time wrestling and were impressed with his encyclopedic knowledge of the genre. The producers asked if he would like to write for the WWE show, and Madigan deadpanned, "People write that stuff?" .. This lead to WWE films signing Madigan to write a script for Kane, a 7-foot, 326-pound WWE wrestler whose signature moves included the choke-slam (a maneuver that looks like it sounds) called "See No Evil." ... When Madigan began working for WWE, Ultimo left a couple of weeks later."
2. Oliver, Greg; Johnson, Steven (2019). The Pro Wrestling Hall of Fame: The Storytellers (From the Terrible Turk to Twitter). Toronto: ECW Press. ISBN 978-1-77041-502-7. Retrieved 2024-01-19 – via Google Books.
  The author talked to Dan Madigan. The book notes: "Oh, the boundless joys and endless frustrations of being a WWE writer. Dan Madigan experienced both. During the company’s Ruthless Aggression Era, he penned material for JBL (John Layfield) during his anti-immigrant crusade, which was directed mostly at Eddie Guerrero. As Madigan coached from the sidelines, JBL ranted during a filming in Texas that the Guerrero family snuck into the United States under the bellies of burros crossing the Rio Grande. “ ... At the other extreme, Madigan invented Mordecai (Kevin Fertig) as a white-clad, hypocritical religious zealot and a dream evil-versus-good foil for the Undertaker. WWE CEO Vince McMahon bought into Mordecai, who beat Bob Holly at the 2004 Great American Bash. Then the company abruptly deep-sixed the gimmick. ... In fact, Madigan once considered training to be a pro wrestler with Killer Kowalski, though he instead landed in Hollywood as a scriptwriter. ...
3. Lewinski, John Scott (2006). "Former WWE Writer Dan Madigan". Scr(i)pt. Vol. 12, no. 6. Active Interest Media. p. 16. EBSCOhost 23394195.
  The author talked to Dan Madigan. The article notes: "To get the basics of wrestling storytelling—and to transfer them to movie and TV models, we turned to Dan Madigan. He's a former writer for World Wrestling Entertainment's RAW and Smackdown! broadcasts, as well as the screenwriter of the recent horror feature See No Evil. ... Madigan worked in professional wrestling for a year, or, as it is called by the insiders "the business," before transitioning to work in Hollywood as a screenwriter.'
4. Gross, Josh (2016). Kelley, Erin (ed.). Ali Vs. Inoki: The Forgotten Fight That Inspired Mixed Martial Arts and Launched Sports Entertainment. Dallas: BenBella Books. pp. 114, 167, 169–170. ISBN 978-1-942952-19-0. Retrieved 2024-01-19 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes on page 114: "said Dan Madigan, a writer for the WWE in the early 2000s". The book notes on page 167: "said Madigan, who left the WWE in 2010 and writes screenplays in Los Angeles". The book notes on page 169: "One of the wrestlers Madigan worked with at the WWE was Kenzo Suzuki, a wrestler from New Japan Pro Wrestling. Suzuki had some good size to him, and Madigan didn't want to touch the old characters. They had done the samurai. The ninja. The cliché. Then Madigan pitched McMahon on "Hirohito," the great-grandson of the Emperor Hirohito, coming back to avenge his family honor and cultural heritage."
  The book notes on page 170: "Madigan once pitched a Nazi gimmick to McMahon. Baron Von Bobbin, the goose-stepping Nazi found frozen in the Swiss Alps. McMahon apparently stood up, didn't say a word, and walked out of their meeting. That one didn't fly, but others did and Madigan was responsible for sparking complaints from high ground. The Canadian government was upset over a character named Eugene because it portrayed a mentally challenged person."
5. Randazzo V, Matthew (2008). Ring of Hell: The Story of Chris Benoit & the Fall of the Pro Wrestling Industry. Beverly Hills, California: Phoenix Books. p. 265. ISBN 978-1-59777-579-3. Retrieved 2024-01-19 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes on page 265: "Writing team member Dan Madigan’s wife suffered a miscarriage, had her beloved father die, and learned that her dog had cancer all within a matter of days. Madigan informed WWE of his family crisis and left the road to comfort her. At his father-in-law’s gravesite, while he held his weeping wife over the loss of her father and their unborn child, Madigan’s cell phone rang. “It was a call from Stephanie’s secretary saying that she was disappointed that I missed the Tough Enough [WWE reality TV show] meeting. It was a fucking disgrace; that’s when I knew I was done with the company,” Madigan told me."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dan Madigan to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above by Cunard that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:13, 23 January 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. No input after three relists, and not eligible for soft deletion. RL0919 (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Moss

AfDs for this article:

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

(The biography of) This living person may be notable for only this event: winning Big Brother 12 (American season), despite appearing also in Survivor: Blood vs. Water. Looking at the first nomination, the close may have been based on numerical superiority, i.e. majority vote, more than merits of arguments. No offense to a longtime editor who participated in the prior discussion, but I analyzed the following sources:

Primary sources (e.g. interviews and questionnaires), which may not apply per WP:GNG: Ent. Weekly, Calgary Herald, Toronto Sun, CBS biography
Covers Big Brother 12 win: NY Daily News(subscription required), HuffPost

Even Moss's rivals onscreen in Survivor made references about Moss's Big Brother appearance. Despite a news report of Hayden's then-upcoming Survivor appearance with his then-girlfriend, I doubt Survivor appearance is sufficient to prevent the article from being either redirected to Big Brother 12, his winning season, or deleted.

If the editor's arguments were to be disputed and then discounted, then other "keep" votes basing on that argument would also no longer hold more weight. Other rules would also apply: WP:BIO1E (just in case), WP:PAGEDECIDE, and WP:BLP (not just BLP1E alone), which can apply to (material about) this person's personal life. George Ho (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and Arizona. George Ho (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment – Should be either redirected to Big Brother 12 (American season) or deleted by default per WP:BIODELETE if no one here opposes. George Ho (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 18 January 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 01:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liliana Navarro

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

This is a student-created article on an emerging artist who does not meet WP:NARTIST nor WP:GNG. I always feel a little sad when encountering these student efforts, but the semester is over and it has not been brought up to WP standards for notability, nor do I see the possibility of that happening any time in the near future. The references consist of simple name checks, and primary sources, and her own website/blog bio. A WP:BEFORE search reveals only social media or primary sources. It is WP:TOOSOON for this emerging artist; perhaps in a few more years after she receives more coverage she will be notable, but not now. Netherzone (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and California. Netherzone (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though I also agree this is an earnest effort. Juxtapoz is a legit publication but it’s just a mention. If there was anything else for a primary source to work with that could change my view. 108.41.198.35 (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Not notable enough right now. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even when I add "artist" to the Gsearch, not much comes up. Does appear TOOSOON. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 18 January 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.