Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< April 22 April 24 >

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 keep‎ . Early concerns appear to have been refuted Star Mississippi 01:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ramit Sethi[edit]

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

- Article written like an advertisement

- Nearly all claims are unsourced or fail verification

- Blogger has strong incentives to create an internet presence for selling personal finance advice

- Blogger has written for finance-related publications, but these are known for allowing authors to purchase articles: Motley Fool, CNBC Money, Forbes

- Wedding in a newspaper does not qualify as notability; newspapers weddings are often chosen for human interest and not the notability of the couple DenverCoder9 (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very promo. Subject is good at talking about things in media, but no sources discuss him. One of many "experts" in the field of getting rich. Oaktree b (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't we just delete everyone. Wikipedia has tons of misinformation on the web site. Everyone has to find something wrong with everything. Just take Wikipedia down then there will never be anymore controversy. I have looked up multiple things which I knew a little bit about (don't ask what it was because I don't remember) and the info I knew was correct was not. I say take the whole web site down for misinformation. Lets add shut the freeways down because of the bill boards. Is the freeway driving, not for putting out advertising. So what if he is using a platform. Maybe you're just jealous!!!! 98.167.122.201 (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Netflix just released a whole series "How to get rich" with him as host. By 'rich', he doesn't mean wealth but a rich experience in life with proper importance given to money. He seems well-qualified. 173.2.25.98 (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He should be deleted. He is giving investment advice with no license, certification, education, and/or expertise.. He stuck on this lady firing her FP and having her do it her self. Literally the worse advice. 141.191.64.6 (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He advised firing the FP because the FP was charging 1% which is ridiculously high. He did talk about FP being helpful if it's a flat fee or hourly. I agree with that. 173.2.25.243 (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this particular article given the subject does not meet WP:N MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2023 (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. 2023 sources about him after his Netflix show was released:
      1. Silverman, Sam (2023-04-18). "'I Teach People How to Live Their Rich Life:' Finance Expert Ramit Sethi Gets a Netflix Show". Entrepreneur. Archived from the original on 2023-04-27. Retrieved 2023-04-27.

        The article notes: "The show features Sethi on a six-week journey advising people in the U.S. including New York and California who are struggling to manage their finances with his approach to paying off debt, saving, and budgeting. ... Ramit Sethi grew up in a middle-class family in California. His journey to financial literally began when he devised a plan to apply to more than 60 scholarships so he could attend undergrad and grad school at Stanford University, according to his website."

      2. Morris, Lauren (2023-04-19). "Who is Ramit Sethi? Everything to know about How to Get Rich star". Radio Times. Archived from the original on 2023-04-27. Retrieved 2023-04-27.

        The article notes: "Brand new on Netflix this week is How to Get Rich – an eight-part docuseries that does exactly what it says on the tin. Hosted by finance expert and author Ramit Sethi, the series follows the entrepreneur as he travels across the US, helping those in need of financial advice to achieve "their richest lives". While the series covers everything from debt and saving for retirement to multi-level marketing schemes, you may be wondering who exactly Ramit Sethi is – and we're here to fill you in."

    2. Zuckerman, Sam (2007-11-04). "Blogger advises young adults on financial strategies". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2022-12-01. Retrieved 2023-04-27.

      The article notes: "Ramit Sethi is a rising star in the world of personal finance writing. But he doesn't look like someone you'd rely on for advice about how to handle your money. ... Sethi, who lives in San Francisco's Marina district, seems like someone who might work at a Silicon Valley startup. And, in fact, his day job is vice president of marketing at PBwiki, a tiny, fast-growing producer of Internet tools. Sethi's blog, I Will Teach You to Be Rich, has rapidly become one of the most popular finance sites on the Internet for college students and young adults getting started in their careers, visited by 150,000 people a month. ... Sethi grew up in Sacramento, a middle-class child of immigrant parents. At Stanford University, he earned a bachelor's degree in science, technology and society, and a master's in sociology, while writing a comedy column for the Stanford Daily."

    3. Buck, Claudia (2009-06-07). "Money blogger shares hometown savings tips". The Sacramento Bee. Archived from the original on 2023-04-27. Retrieved 2023-04-27.

      The article notes: "Save $1,000 in four weeks: Can you do it? Ramit Sethi thinks so. The former Sacramentan and Stanford grad is on a personal finance mission. He's got a popular blog, write-ups in the Wall Street Journal and other high-profile business pubs, as well as a New York Times best-seller: "I Will Teach You to be Rich." And he's only 26. A 2000 Bella Vista High School graduate, Sethi tailors much of his advice based on real-life encounters with friends and peers. Convinced that frugality is frumpy, he launched a hipper how-to savings challenge on his blog (iwillteachyoutoberich.com) last year: "Save $1,000 in 30 Days.""

    4. Creamer, Anita (2007-11-16). "Bella Vista grad's financial advice geared to peers". The Sacramento Bee. Archived from the original on 2023-04-27. Retrieved 2023-04-27.

      The article notes: "Now the Bella Vista High School and Stanford University graduate rakes in sizable fees for his I Will Teach You To Be Rich speaking engagements, and he's writing a book on the subject, too. And that's not even his day job: He's also a co-founder of PBWiki.com. His parents -- Neelam, a teacher; and Prab, who works for the state -- still live in Fair Oaks. ... Hence, the blog, which he started in 2004. It now receives 150,000 hits a month, plus lots of comments from people who don't hesitate to argue with Sethi when ..."

    5. Kimes, Mina (2011-12-26). "New Guru on the Block". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2023-04-27. Retrieved 2023-04-27.

      The article notes: "Sethi's advice isn't terribly unusual: He wants young people to slash their debt, invest for retirement, and increase their earning power. It's his approach that makes him different. Unlike most people in the self-help business, Sethi eschews fuzzy affirmations in favor of specific directives. His tips are based on careful testing and paired with musings on the mysteries of human behavior. His technocratic style is similar to that of Tim Ferriss, author of the smash hit productivity guide The 4-Hour Workweek. Like Ferriss, Sethi specializes in coming up with simple tweaks--or hacks, as productivity junkies call them--that his readers can apply to their lives. ... Whenever Sethi promotes his products on iwillteachyoutoberich.com--which is often--commenters howl in protest."

    6. Lieber, Ron (2012-05-05). "How To Raise A Financial Guru". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2023-04-27. Retrieved 2023-04-27.

      The article notes: "A running theme throughout Ramit Sethi's book, blog and courses is the idea that we should all negotiate like Indians do. When I asked his mother, Neelam Sethi, whether anyone might take offense to the idea, she seemed surprised. ... It's the big purchases, however, that had the most impact on the 29-year-old Mr. Sethi, a Stanford University graduate who often tells the story of watching his father, Prab, a mechanical engineer, negotiate for days in pursuit of a fair price on a Honda. And why was the teenage Ramit dragged along for all the negotiating sessions? "When we were growing up in India, big purchases were very rare," said Mrs. Sethi, a teacher who moved to the United States in 1982."

    7. Cullen, Terri (2005-03-03). "Blogs Expose Personal Finance: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-04-27. Retrieved 2023-04-27.

      The article notes: "Musings like this one may be the reason readers keep coming back to the Iwillteachyoutoberich.com blog, or Web log, of Ramit Sethi. The blog, a running commentary on the 22-year-old Stanford University graduate student's personal finances and his views on financial planning, attracts several thousand readers a month."

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

    Cunard (talk) 09:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I reviewed the article and do not consider the article to be overly promotional. It is neutrally written. Cunard (talk) 09:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was of the opinion that notability was met in 2011 and my opinion has not changed. Reading the text of the article at the time of this nomination, I fail to see how this article reads as an advertisement. -- Whpq (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This New York Times article[1] is also significant coverage, statisfies WP:GNG. However, unsourced material should immediately removed according to WP:BLPREMOVE. Tags can be added for tone, etc. BruceThomson (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG with significant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based on the sources listed above (that said, this article needs some TLC).--Gen. Quon[Talk] 21:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Bahrain Darts Masters[edit]

2023 Bahrain Darts Masters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero in-depth references from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Tagged for months without improvement. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 15:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Numerous articles on the tournament 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6 and others. Nominator clearly hasn't done a WP:BEFORE. Dougal18 (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Onel5969 I reckon those sources do warrant keeping the article. Happy for your thoughts on this one? MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to World Series of Darts, unneeded CFORK, fails GNG and NEVENT. Sources found in article, above, and BEFORE are routine sports reporting on event, promo, and stats, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the coverage found by Dougal18 is merely trivial, we would lose half the project. Sigcov means covering the event in-depth and not merely announcing dates/stats etc. Coverage looks good to me. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per sources found. Kante4 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chowdhury Nafeez Sarafat[edit]

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

I am not a notable person. I want my privacy. I don’t want to be in public. My information doesn’t benefit public interest. Azalia2006 (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • '''comment.''' WP:COI. Nom may have nominated this article for deletion because of the paragraph that reads: ''"The cartoonist Ahmed Kabir Kishore was arrested under the Digital Security Act for drawing cartoons critical of the government including one where he portrayed Sarafat as a bank embezzler."'' 🔥 22spears 🔥 18:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails BLP, BIO, GNG. No sources show notability, just routine news stories. There is no way to tell if nom is subject, but this fails based on sources. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  12:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎ . No keeps, but nor are there any deletes beyond the nom. No reason not to continue improving Star Mississippi 01:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scooter Lowry[edit]

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

Sole claim to notability appears to be that he appeared in a handful of "Our Gang" shorts. Reliable sources are almost non-existent, and the couple that I found just barely mention his name, and that is all. Could easily merge all reliably-sourced information into the Our Gang article in two sentences. Argles Barkley (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about more information about Scooter being a vaudeville performer is added? That Northern Irish Historian (talk) 14:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References 1 and 2 do not look like reliable sources to me. Argles Barkley (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added more references. Also, more information about vaudeville is added. That Northern Irish Historian (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm bummed there's not more written about this person. Internet forums have been debating when he died and other facts of his life, which shows the lack of available sourcing.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I decided to check some newspaper, and some details are actually revealed. That Northern Irish Historian (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are doing excellent work on this, I hope it is able to be kept. Definitely need a better source for his death than this [2], but I'm not shocked that it is hard to find, since his fame was in his youth.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most sources say he died in 1989, like [3], [4], [5], and [6]

That Northern Irish Historian (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎ . Per WP:CSK#1, this nomination has been withdrawn and there are no outstanding !votes other than opinions in favor of 'keep'. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Guam History[edit]

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

No evidence that the article meets WP:GNG. See also previous discussion in talk page. :3 F4U (they/it) 23:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not !voting on notability (in this comment), but surely an alternative to deletion here could be merging to Women in Guam? Eddie891 Talk Work 23:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily fair to say "there are no reliable secondary sourcing discussing the list in question"-- I found some coverage in the Pacific Daily News ([7], [8]) though that by itself probably doesn't establish notability Eddie891 Talk Work 23:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding those. I had not seen them, and it's really nifty to read those. Nice. — Maile (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was poor choice of words on my part. What I meant to express, was that I couldn't find secondary sourcing in my attempts to find them. I just saw the recent edits and the clarification that the subject of the article is a book/exhibit, rather than the project of a website helped clarify what I was supposed to be looking for. I'll withdraw my nomination under WP:BKCRIT since there is secondary sourcing on the subject. :3 F4U (they/it) 23:55, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the people can be added onto List of people from Guam given that they all appear to be individually notable, but I'm not sure that the existence of a publication about women in the history of Guam would match the scope of the Women in Guam article. :3 F4U (they/it) 23:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep. I think the book has at least marginal notability, given the coverage in local news sources. At the time of the nomination, the lead was a bit confusing and it wasn't clear exactly what the topic of the article was. I've now clarified that this is a book (and a photography exhibit) published by a nonprofit associated with the University of Guam. Even if we decide the book is not notable, the list should be kept (perhaps in Wikipedia space rather than article space), as it's a valuable redlist. pburka (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per meeting WP:BKCRIT. This book has coverage in The Guam Daily Post, Pacific Daily News, and KUAM-TV. TJMSmith (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and regardless of the outcome, thanks to those who have edited the article today. Until I read the comments above, I was unaware this is a book. I had the idea that Guampedia was just a web site. This has been enlightening. — Maile (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per TJMSmith. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The nomination appears to have been a misunderstanding.--Ipigott (talk) 05:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per TJMSmith Suonii180 (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a book, not a list, and clearly notable.PamD 06:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think the first column of the list should be in bold, per MOS:BOLD, but don't know enough about table formatting to fix this. Could a tables geek please pop over to the article and fix this? Thanks. PamD 08:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid brands[edit]

List of electronic cigarette and e-cigarette liquid brands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list serves no purpose other than to promote brands that are not notable. M.Bitton (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Street Fighter characters. ✗plicit 00:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yun and Yang[edit]

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

Lacking of WP:SIGCOV. Zero commentary to the both characters. It relies mostly on listicles and passing mentions at the reception section. Some of the source were trivial like this [9]. This source alone [10] is not enough. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 22:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree with nom, and do not find the reception references already in the article insufficient to meet GNG. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Street Fighter characters. I approached this assuming they were notable, especially given they were unveiled in the 1990s when gaming magazines were a thing, and set out to prove it, but I could not find much significant coverage. While I found this mention in CVG, it has no independent commentary, and solely describes their backstory and moves. One could potentially argue this is SIGCOV, since it discusses them in context of the real life martial art they use. The rest are small mentions within lists; there's not much to go by in terms of proving they are independently notable. It's interesting they inspired the protagonists of Divekick... that can be mentioned in a list. I would heavily debate the fact that they have "zero commentary", but their SIGCOV is insufficient to pass the GNG criteria. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also this in GameFan. But again, literally just description, without opinion. Secondary source "contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources", not just a restatement of them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Street Fighter characters. Most of the sources are listicles or trivial news updates. No real SIGCOV. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Zxcvbnm. This unfortunately doesn't have enough coverage in reliable sources to support a stand-alone article. Something could be selectively merged per WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Street Fighter characters per above.  // Timothy :: talk  07:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Noting that the previous deletion of this title was of the politician, not the athlete. ✗plicit 23:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Nau[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOLYMPICS and WP:BEFORE didn't bring much else. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Crystal Lake, Illinois. ✗plicit 00:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Crystal Lake, Illinois[edit]

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

A non-notable list of non-notable people. Similar to the nomination here. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Lists of people, Lists, and Illinois. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Patapsco913 Delete - Does not meet NLIST MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into article on Crystal Lake in a collapsed list. Lists of mayors are useful and can be developed. If separate articles are developed on notable mayors, we can consider if a separate list should be broken out. As the list is collapsed, it does not take up much space. See example. Patapsco913 (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)(Source:[1])[reply]
  • Merge into article on Crystal Lake. A very interesting list, but lacking sourcing or any other information, it serves a better purpose as part of the parent article. — Maile (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Crystal Lake Mayors Crystal Lake Historical Society. Retrieved May 2, 2014
  2. ^ McCoppin, Robert (May 4, 2020). "Crystal Lake Mayor Aaron Shepley, 56, dies. Longest-serving mayor in city history 'never stopped advocating for his constituents'". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved May 7, 2020.
  3. ^ Smith, Katie (May 5, 2020). "Remembering late Crystal Lake Mayor Aaron Shepley". Northwest Herald. Retrieved May 7, 2020.
  4. ^ "Haig Haleblian Poised to Win Crystal Lake Mayoral Race". 7 April 2021.
I would say only mayor lists that meet WP:LISTN should exist. This one does not. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Patapsco913 to Crystal Lake, Illinois. Standalone unneeded CFORK list fails LISTN and CLN/AOAL, Unsourced content (lede) should absolutely not be merged, but no objection to merging the sourced list.  // Timothy :: talk  07:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 00:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chair Pro Tem of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors[edit]

Chair Pro Tem of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG for all the reasons stated in AFC reviews. I am ambivalent about draftification or deletion, 60:40 in favour of deletion 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 21:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hold Delete I Agree but I tried to get restores but all the independent sources you have to pay to view it and I can't view it Examples Los Angeles times I don't Agree with moving forward with deletion but we need more independent sources you can help me find independent sources on sites the you have to pay like Los Angeles times I would appreciate you thank you. FYE31 (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Besides the lack of any coverage specifically about this position itself, being a procedual rotating position means that it's identical to Chair of Los Angeles County except shifted by one year. Non-notable and of little actual use. Moreover, I will remove this from the infoboxes of Zev Yaroslavsky and other officeholders: Again, there are zero sources describing the significance of being the procedural #2 of a five-person board (always preceeding being the chair) so why does this need to take up space here? Reywas92Talk 04:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - In view of the fact that it shifts with Chair of Los Angeles County, it is a useless list. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No point in draftifying, IMO; it has been shown already not to have sufficient sources for notability. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    is there a way to make it sufficient? This page is more like a Mayor Pro Tem page. Also some people have also added new sources on the page as well.FYE31 (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG; an editor moved the page from the draft to the mainspace even though it's been declined and didn't go through the AFC process. It's also just a rotating position and I don't see any sources that give the position any significance. reppoptalk 22:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A mayor pro tem is a rotating position as well with I think what this page was shooting for just in the county level any suggestions to fix this page reppop? FYE31 (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything that makes it satisfy WP:GNG. Even when I search on Google, there's no secondary sources about the position itself. Have you read the comments before moving the page into mainspace? reppoptalk 05:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I founded sources on la times but I had to pay to view it according to the County charter the position is more like a mayor pro tem but on the county level that's why I think it's hard to find resources I also want to change the name and it was my first time doing it I thought it would still be a draft article I'm new on wicipidia so I didn't know want happened FYE31 (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG draftifying and improving the article won't be a good choice either as per the past history of the article. NP83 (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi NP83 do you suggest we delete this page and start over with a new draft page? FYE31 (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @FYE31 First of all let me correct you, it's not we it's an admin who will delete or keep the page (in most cases) but a page can be deleted by an Admin only. Now coming to your question my answer is according to you let's suppose that the AFD result is delete, you are still welcome to create the same draft and make improvements accordingly, by taking help of other AFC reviewers. If WP:COI please disclose it. When you think that your draft is ready for submission then submit the draft for AFC review. Your job is done for that. I hope you got my point what I mean to say, Thank you. NP83 (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I met we as in this group I believe In giving second chances on wikipedia Pages let's be the solution not calling all page a lost cause I think the creator of this page was shooting for a mayor pro tem page but in a county level I'm trying to find resources to be apart of the situation. FYE31 (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 00:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sargis Karapetyan (footballer, born 1963)[edit]

Sargis Karapetyan (footballer, born 1963) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

His only claim to notability seems to be playing in a non-FIFA friendly against Moldova. I can't find any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC when searching in Armenian (Սարգիս Կարապետյան) or otherwise. All that seems to be available is stats. Similar case to Vahtang Hakobyan (AfD). Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Armenia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as you can see from his NFT stats, his Soviet era club appearances took place in the third and fourth tiers so are unlikely to have amounted to significant coverage of Karapetyan as an individual during those times. I'm impressed that NFT have even managed to get the appearance data. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; as the nominator notes above, this footballer played at a low level in Soviet football so it's little surprise I found nothing of significance in my Russian-language searches (the Armenian language searches didn't turn up any SIGCOV either). Jogurney (talk) 01:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 22:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep‎ . Per WP:SKCRIT, there is no deletion rationale. Also, this appears a discussion better held at WP:PAM rather than AFD. There are eight unanimous !votes all arguing to oppose a merge/keep the article and so there is no point in continuing a discussion further. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edolo language[edit]

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

Merge with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etoro_people Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a bit more to it than that, including adding tags to the top of both article pages, but basically yes, thus is a matter to be discussed at the article talk page, not at AfD. Mccapra (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
how about here 1 and here 2 Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - languages are inherently notable, and this one seems well-referenced given its length.--IdiotSavant (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not much to add, languages are inherently notable as stated above. Pladica (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even minority languages, even tiny minority languages, are worth covering here. "Inherently notable" is one way to put it. Note that the merge proposal on the article talk page was closed as "Oppose". – .Raven  .talk 05:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We merge a language article into the corresponding ethnicity only if there's no prospect for it to ever grow beyond a stub (that most typically happens for extinct undocumented languages). That's not the case here, there's enough literature out there for a fully developed article [11] (which is also enough to pass WP:GNG). – Uanfala (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First of all, there's no reason given. Second, it's notable and has multiple sources, and it passes GNG. // 💪BenzoAid💪 🖊️ 16:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 00:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Jeremiah Walsh[edit]

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

Lacks evidence of notability, appears to fail WP:GNG and while NFOOTY is gone, does not even qualify for consideration under NSPORTS and would not have for the old FOOTY either. One of four investors in a secondary soccer team is not sufficient, and there seems no other ground at all. Further, >70% of the article is about the investment play on the football club, with almost nothing on the apparent subject at all. Searches do not suggest any better grounds for an article. SeoR (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎ and no indication further input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 01:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blended threat[edit]

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

The article has no clear topic, and is largely PROSELINE about arbitrary cyber-attacks. Walt Yoder (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blended threats are a real and present danger to homeland security. This page is meant to educate readers on the topic of blended threats. What suggestions do you have to improve the page? MayyaJ (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I believe this article is an attempt to describe Hybrid warfare, specifically a combination of cyberwarfare and physical attack. However the article is poorly written WP:Synth, listing isolated incidents which are mostly just cases where a cyber attack had physical side effects. Yes, ransomware attacks have caused physical disruptions but there is no indication that these were intended to cause physical problems as opposed to being simply a consequence of modern highly connected society. Also all the examples given are from the US and do not list any of the examples from the Middle East or Ukraine. MKFI (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ . ✗plicit 00:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022–23 Indian Women's League season[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2022–23 Indian Women's League season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a G4, but nothing to indicate the factors of the just-concluded deletion discussion have changed so bringing it here for further discussion. Star Mississippi 19:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Nom withdrawn,see below. Star Mississippi 12:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article with points table and personnel info as of the latest season and added references. Does it still fall under the deletion criteria? Indian Football Fan 2018 (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: What "has changed since the last AFD" is that is is now just two days before it starts, and more coverage will obviously then appear. It is part of a series of articles on previous seasons, and is included in Navboxes. The encyclopedia gains nothing by deleting it at this stage. PamD 09:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded it with a couple of the sources which were mentioned in the previous AfD. PamD 09:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is the current season article for Indian Women's League which is the top-tier women's football league in India set to start in 2 days. Past season articles on the above is indicative of the notability of the article. There are sufficient sources for the article both from the national football governing body and independent sources. There's no reason for nominating an article for deletion, season articles for top tier football leagues are standard in Wikipedia. Indian Football Fan 2018 (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is the current season article for Indian Women's League which is the top-tier women's football league in India. There is sufficient sources from both the national governing body and other independent sources covering the top-tier women's football tournament in India. -SabyaC (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above
Nswix (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The season has just now started and matches are being played everyday. Updates will keep on flowing. Multiple independent sources are covering 2022-23 Indian Women's League season. All previous seasons of Indian Women's League has been covered in Wikipedia which shows that the league is notable with respect to Association Football. There is no sense in deleting the article at this moment when the tournament is undergoing at present. Indian Football Fan 2018 (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - season is underway. Did I miss the memo where we only have articles for the top men's leagues? Nfitz (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom withdrawn although I'm not going to self close due to the existing delete. This kind of article is (to me, speaking as an editor not an admin) exactly what draft space is for, rather than re-creation post AfD, but consensus disagrees - that's why we have discussion. Star Mississippi 12:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Albert Gautier Vignal. The history is there if anything needs merging, but that does not appear to be the case Star Mississippi 01:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Gauthier[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOLYMPICS and a WP:BEFORE didn't produce much more. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and France. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fencing at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's foil and maybe include a note that he officiated at the epee event. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, keep per Kingsif. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess redirect to the new article, though shouldn't that one mention that he competed at the 1900 Olympics? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fencing at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Men's foil, I couldn't find enough with a WP:BEFORE search to show notability. Suonii180 (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Okay, I'm not entirely convinced that this isn't the same person as the comte Albert Gaut(h)ier Vignal, who was president of the International Fencing Federation and would later be the Monegasque Olympic Committee representative. The fact we don't have an article on him, who I think would be undoubtedly notable (especially being friends with Baron de Coubertin and part of the early modern Olympic movement), is making me wonder even more if they might be the same person. And one source I found in searching mentions Gauthier as the Cote d'Azur fencing federarion president, something which Olympedia attributes to Gauthier Vignal. In any case, that search was just for "albert gauthier escrime" (there's also a politician of the same name) and it brings up quite a few results in French, though a lot are of old newspaper scans uploaded to file-sharing site of dubious safety. At least one seems to be in-depth just from what is available in a preview – a library search may be needed but it seems that he is notable. Of course, determining if the two French fencers of the same era with the same name and the same job are the same person will need to happen first. Kingsif (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding, here at Google Books is the 1894 source linking (just) Gauthier with the various positions. Based on how it talks about him and his promotion of the sport, and the potential he was Coubertin's friend (looking likelier having read that full source), it is possible this person is the reason that fencing is in the Olympics. It's going to need more examination, but hard to say such a person isn't NOLYMPICS... Kingsif (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source (archive collection, Google Books) mentions that (translated from French) Fencing is one of those noble sports which allow the occasion to defend a threatened honor and duels are frequent, the practice of the "jury of honor" aiming to avoid duels by negotiation is fiercely discussed and refused by the more ardent. The most notorious of weapons rooms was that of Albert Gauthier, brother-in-law of the prefect [Léon-Paul] Lagrange de Langre. – it does seem he was preeminent. Kingsif (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My comments are a bit train-of-thought, so I'll piece it together. The 1894 report seen here mentions that M. Albert Gauthier (note no comte, and the single surname*) 1. has a villa in Nice, 2. fences with Coste, their esteemed captain. This appears to be Émile Coste, who won gold in the foil at the 1900 Olympics for France (the same event), so it seems safe to say the source is talking about the man who would be the Olympic fencer, based on his teammate. The villa in Nice, and being a great sponsor of the sport hosting events there, connects the man to the comte, who did the same. *The French government notes (among many things) that Albert Gautier Vignal added the "Vignal" himself at some point, from the name of a castle he owned in Contes. He received the title comte from the Pope in 1895.* Based on the 1894 source's details, I think the two are the same, and there are copious sources on the comte. Kingsif (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My very dears here is the article on Albert, Comte Gautier-Vignal at Olympedia, the two seem to be different people for Olympedia, could they also be this for wikipedia? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Paradise Chronicle: Olympedia isn't perfect, and if they're taking competition information from 1900 and then officials information from 1908-1930s, if a slightly different name is written they might not have considered the possibility. Of course, I already looked at Olympedia, and the photo for just Albert depicts the same person as Monaco fencing's website on the comte. I didn't want to use photographic evidence in my spiel, but if it helps convince you against Olympedia having two profiles... If the people database collecting for Olympedia don't chat about finding people with similar names, I won't hold it against them. (And the source I believe Olympedia use doesn't even give a first name for the Gauthier in the fencing...) Kingsif (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, good. I can follow your rationale, but if there exist two Olympedia articles for the same person, that's an interesting precedent for the articles that are only sourced to Olympedia. Then also I prefer that the credit (such as the notifications like for DYK or AfD) go to someone who also deserves (is interested in the subject) it, and I'd say Kingsif does deserve it. Could you create an article (also a stub) with the the correct name and we redirect this page to that one?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can see why there's concern; I have reached out to Olympedia on the matter, just asking their sources. FWIW, there should not be any articles that are only sourced to Olympedia (DATABASE). Ha, I was thinking of proposing that myself - an article for Gautier Vignal with this name as a redirect - nice that we had the same idea! For the purposes of the AfD continuing, as you suggest, I'll make it as a stub for now. Kingsif (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See: Albert Gautier Vignal. Kingsif (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ . Star Mississippi 01:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R. Brian Ferguson[edit]

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

Admittedly not my area of expertise so excuse me if I'm off the mark here, but from what I can tell this doesn't appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC. The sources don't seem to say anything about him receiving any awards, honors, fellowships, etc. Just looks like he's sold some books and been featured a couple times by Scientific American, but I don't know how massive an accomplishment that really is. It's also worth noting that the article may have been created by an editor with a conflict of interest who otherwise hasn't made a ton of edits. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of meeting NPROF, it can be satisfied if they are often quoted as an expert in mainstream media. Scientific American counts, but I think we'd need at lease one more other source quoting him. Does anyone have any? BhamBoi (talk) 18:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:Prof. Nominator is advised to learn the policy guidelines that apply to a topic before editing there. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    I mean it's not like I didn't read those guidelines. Calling something "not my area of expertise" doesn't mean I know nothing about it. And by my judgment, as I said above, I don't believe this article passes by those standards, so I ask what makes you think otherwise. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His books have reviews, and the citation count is fairly high for anthropology, passed NPROF-C1. --Mvqr (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In defense of the nominator, it took me a while before I fully understood the nuances of WP:NPROF; it's certainly one of our most complicated notability criteria. The subject seems to quite easily pass on just raw citations, which is also an indicator that, as an anthropologist, he may also WP:NAUTHOR on reviews, though I haven't checked this latter part yet. Curbon7 (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The alleged complexity of a policy is no excuse for failing to parse it correctly. If you can’t stand the heat keep out of the kitchen. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters#Silver the Hedgehog. ✗plicit 00:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Capella[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable beyond his recurring Sonic the Hedgehog role. Of the sources here, #1 is barely about Capella, #2 even less so, #3 is an interview, and the rest are unreliable. Found no additional coverage for GNG, and he only passes WP:NACTOR for having played the one role multiple times. May as well be redirected to List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters#Silver the Hedgehog at that point. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Video games, and New Jersey. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested in nom. Coverage is absent and unlikely to be found - he only seems to voice very minor characters. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I could not find enough (or any) significant coverage of the subject himself. I see little point in redirecting. Merko (talk) 11:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a plausible search term, and the closest thing to something he'd be "known for". Sergecross73 msg me 14:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect No good sources. Redirecting instead of deleting per Sergecross. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per valid arguments by Sergecross73. Merko (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per all. Coverage does not pass WP:GNG. Redirect is a valid alternative to deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adolph Weber[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOLYMPIC, a WP:BEFORE did not bring much else. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 00:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Gray Area[edit]


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

Apparently non-notable podcast. Sources cited don't come even close to meeting WP:GNG, and a search finds nothing better (albeit that it is admittedly a tricky term to search for). Was earlier PROD'ded, then restored, and now I'm asking the community to decide whether it should be kept. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question...are there two? I'm getting a lot of (non-RS) hits for The Gray Area with Sean Illing? Valereee (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Sean Illing podcast was renamed from Vox Conversations to The Gray Area in October 2022: a flagrant IP grab. The Gray Area has been around since 2017, producing innovative and groundbreaking stories, including an adaptation of Charlotte Perkins Gilman's "The Yellow Wallpaper" that has been taught in classrooms. The Sean Illing move was a targeted campaign by a big media company to push a highly notable independently produced podcast from the search results. The Gray Area won the coveted Parsec Award. It received a City Artist Corps grant in 2021 and played to a packed Manhattan theatre. It has been featured on numerous podcasts and radio shows, including The Sonic Society and Midnight Audio Theatre. By the logic expressed in this forum, comparable audio dramas that have Wikipedia pages such as Dark Dice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Dice and [The Amelia Project] should also be deleted. Which would be effectively erasing the history of audio drama. If you would like, I would be more than happy to have third parties flesh out the awards and the media attention that the show has received. But it is very clear that the PROD gambit was a calculated move to erase a show that is offering significant contributions to audio drama. Thanks. Grayareapod (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grayareapod: - You have previous stated you don't know much about Wikipedia's "arcane" procedures. Please educate yourself. Wikipedia articles need to use appropriate sources to establish notability as it pertains to an encyclopedia. If you can provide the required references that are reliable and independent of the topic, then it is possible for notability to be establish. Your say so is 100% not independent. There was no PROD gambit. The article as it exists does not hold water to the requirements of an encyclopedia article at this time. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grayareapod: if there are other articles that should be deleted, you are more than welcome to initiate the deletion procedure(s). That being said, you may wish to see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: NN podcast. Article should have remained deleted. UtherSRG (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The PROD tag was inserted by TipsyElephant, who has fleshed out a number of articles on podcasts, but who appeared to have a clear conflict of interest in doing so that he failed to disclose. Grayareapod (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayareapod: Please, no personal attacks. It's obvious your emotions are enflamed by these recent actions. Please consider a cool-down before responding. You've made yourself clear. Please do not bludgeon the dialogue. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was a straighforward undeletion request for a PRODed article. Is there an argument here to deny undeletion when someone objects to the PROD? Jay 💬 09:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That account could have been blocked as a clear role account, but we'd still have their associates here so not sure it would have helped and to do now would probably be needlessly inflammatory. It was a clean PROD and semi clean challenge, but hopefully consensus here will sort it out. The SPAs aren't being disruptive, but we can semi it if needed. Star Mississippi 11:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking as a role account would only have delayed the process by a few minutes or hours. Undeletion is independent of that. Jay 💬 17:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not seeing anything significant which meets the GNG. It is possible that this could change in the future but right now it hasn't met the threshold IMO. JMWt (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The page has been edited to meet the standards of GNG and meet the threshold. Yeraki (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radiophoto: Keep this page. This Sean Illing person is not the creator of the Gray Area podcast. I have been involved since the beginning (2017) as a voice actor and have no idea who Mr. Illing is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiophoto (talk • contribs) — Radiophoto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • The page needs to be kept. The Gray Area has existed since 2017. In 2017, the very first year of production, "Hello" was nominated for the Parsec award. In 2018 two episodes were nominated, "Loopholes" and "Buddies for Hire". "Buddies for Hire" won under the category Best Speculative Fiction Story: Large Cast (Short Form). https://locusmag.com/2018/12/2018-parsec-awards-winners/ The Gray Area has aired 29 episodes, reminiscent of Old Time Radio. Edward Champion even managed to get a grant and did a Live Stage Production of the Audio Drama on October 16, 2021. https://www.broadwayworld.com/off-off-broadway/article/Live-Performance-of-THE-GRAY-AREA-to-be-Presented-at-the-Gene-Frankel-Theatre-20211005 The Gray Area is currently in its 3rd season of production. Every new season of the audio drama gets more complex. The stories stir the imagination. They address relevant topics of our times. To my understanding Sean Illing Vox who has the "Vox Podcast" changed the name of his podcast to the Gray Area in October 2022. He even dared used the same font in an attempt to create confusion and push a notable podcast down further in the search results. It appears he is succeeding as we are now having this discussion whether this amazing audio drama's page, with a description of each episode should be deleted or even relevant? Maybe some people don't like Edward Champion. Despite personal opinions his artistic talent cannot be denied. He works with paid actors that have come back season after season. It will be a great injustice if Wikipedia deleted this page. It deserves its place in Wikipedia, not only for the creator and the public; but from what I can estimate, the over 100 actors who with pride, can reference this award winning podcast in their CVs. The fact that more seasons are coming shows the page is still notable. The page has links to the episodes with a small description of each episode. We should not allow Vox to misappropriate "The Gray Area" and win against an independent artist. Yeraki (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeraki (talk • contribs) — Yeraki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete Plenty of hits for the other podcast with this name with Sean Illy, no sourcing found for this "radio drama". Appears largely PROMO and uses puffy language. Oaktree b (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sean Illy changed his name to the Gray Area with the same font in October 2022. Prior to that his blog was called Sean Illy Vox. That does not invalidate the original Gray Area Audio drama podcast created by Edward Champion. The podcast "The Gray Area" by Edward Champion has been producing content since 2017. A new season is currently under production. Wikipedia is not a place where the most popular google hits win. Yeraki (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, there are zero sources discussing the radio play. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - I have been involved with The Gray Area since 2018 - this page should not be deleted - there's something odd going on - this is an ward winning production, not only a podcast but it also won a grant to be staged in New York City at The Gene Frankel Theatre — Preceding unsigned comment added by PPMOG (talk • contribs) — PPMOG (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete the only coverage is blogs and other equally-obscure podcasts. The award is from a blog that doesn't appear to have substantial coverage of the podcast. If Edward Champion were the subject of an article a redirect might be possible, but the sources here aren't enough for that either. Also, I must point out that insinuations about some other podcast will not make this one notable. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think Walt Yoder sums up the situation pretty well: the available sources are a mix of unreliable and/or superficial. XOR'easter (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Walt Yoder assessed this well.  // Timothy :: talk  07:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 00:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marwa Rakha[edit]

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

Not notable persion. No real sources mentioned her. Just her ownsite or her blogs. It's requried to provide independent sources about her notable works if exists. But I can see that there is no such sources found for her as no notable works. إسلام (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment She is number #1 expert in Montessori education in Egypt, Published more than 4 books in arabic and english. Her facebook page has 196k followers. I think it's hard to call her Not notable. Her work and role in Egypt feminist movement was documented in the book: Women Rising: In and Beyond the Arab Spring by Rita Stephan, Mounira M. Charrad
recent interview with her: في عيد الأم.. حوار مع مروة رخا | راحة بالي (rahetbally.com) AhmedNaji1985 (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More source about her work also here:
AP Newsroom
HR & Montessori; An Interview with Marwa Rakha - HR Revolution Middle East
Insight into Egyptian Relationships - Dipo Tepede
مروة رخا (Author of أنا وآدم والمونتيسوري) | Goodreads
مروة رخا - Marwa Rakha | Facebook AhmedNaji1985 (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are enough to establish notability. Its couple interviews, a book review and her Facebook page. Nswix (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO as demonstrated by the above sources. Primary, social media, interviews do not show notability. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).
 // Timothy :: talk  08:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ . Liz Read! Talk! 05:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Hamadeh[edit]

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

Fails GNG, SIGCOV and BASIC. No sources provide coverage for the subject on the web. Timothytyy (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 14:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Execution-style murder[edit]

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

Problematic article, only one source, and I suggest that this is a poorly-defined concept, open to various interpretations, and some people might not regard it as a helpful concept. PatGallacher (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • unsure - think it is possible/likely that this topic is notable (in the sense that paramilitary, gangs and mafia etc might kill people) but I'm not sure I'm seeing a way to write the page which would meet the quality standards of an encyclopedia. As it is written it seems almost anything could be included. JMWt (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Bearian points out this is basically a dictionary definition, plus some examples that could be WP:OR. The most obvious way to expand this would be to create an even longer list of famous execution-style murders, which IMHO would not be a worthy project.
  • Delete: per Bearian, per WP:DICDEF.  // Timothy :: talk  08:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Through Health[edit]

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

Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV of this organization. A WP:BEFORE search only turned up primary sources. Penale52 (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while there are a few Google Scholar results, these all appear to be cowritten by one of the founders. Could be a close call, if we consider the existence of other authors on the articles as "independent" but I don't think that counts. This org. has garnered no significant objective media coverage. Oblivy (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The only SIGCOV I could find was this source, which discusses the work they've been doing in Togo to provide maternal care. The coverage in that source was pretty thorough, but absent any other sources the subject doesn't satisfy WP:NORG. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 19:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ . No prejudice against speedy renomination. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Security-evaluated operating system[edit]

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

The operating systems in this article were deprecated over a decade ago. While the references to FIPS-140-2 was updated to -3, the rest of the content is no longer relevant. I would recommend excising this article, and healing the wounds with more up-to-date references. Chumpih t 11:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Chumpih t 11:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Isn't this therefore a merge or move proposition? The article as it stands is outdated, but the history is not. You say to heal the wounds with more up to date references. Where? That would presumably be the merge target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for the lack of clarity. I was thinking specifically the stuff that points to the article to be deleted - replace with more up-to-date and specific information. I'm uncertain if there information herein is worth preserving outside the relevant article pages, e.g. we put some words on SUSE Linux Enterprise, etc. Many of the OSs mentioned the article don't have their own pages, and therefore the information herein may fall foul of WP:NOTEVERYTHING.
    Aside from questions of quality, we need to see WP:NOTE. Certainly OSs get security evaluations, as do things other than operating systems. But does that warrant an article with an incomplete list of OSs? Homes get rebuilt— do we have a page on rebuilt homes? In a similar vein, we have Security-focused operating system and Secure operating system, which are little better. It may be more appropriate to have a page on Operating system security evaluation which describes the schemes and processes, as opposed to these pages. Chumpih t 08:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Secure operating system is a disambiguation but Trusted operating system is another one. All these pages are of limited value as they stand, but each contains some information that could indeed be part of a more comprehensive article. I am still not convinced that deletion is better than merge though. I will have to think about that some more. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I agree that it'd be nice to have some newer examples, but the history is useful; when we teach students about this area at university level, we expect them to know about the foundations of secure OSs going back to the 1960s (and indeed it should really mention Multics). See section 4 of CyBOK - Operating Systems, part of the benchmark for cybersecurity degrees in the UK. Adam Sampson (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, CyBOK, mentions 'evaluation' a handful of times, and doesn't refer at all to "security-evaluated operating systems". Chumpih t 21:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Socialism after Hayek. ✗plicit 14:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Burczak[edit]

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

Only source is a paper he wrote. Not mentioned once in news- https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C5GCEM_enUS1032US1032&sxsrf=APwXEdf-UKw13V465QwBEzaIJIQ7tTrI8A:1682255839084&q=Theodore+Burczak&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwilxtati8D-AhU0ElkFHV5tB8AQ0pQJegQIChAB&biw=1440&bih=732&dpr=2 Hoponpop69 (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Hofland[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 14:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

District Regionalism[edit]

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

Not notable. Search results seem to be either talking about unrelated concepts or mirrors of this Wikipedia article.

No plausible redirect target. Un assiolo (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Ryan-Phillips[edit]

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

None of the 6 sources used in the article contain significant coverage and I can't find any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC in my own searches under both "Callum Ryan-Phillips" and "Callum Ryan-Phillip". Southern Football League is the best that I could find but it's only a basic transfer announcement and there is consensus among a number of editors that the league website is not an independent source, see here for example. South Wales Argus mentions him just once and Severn Sport is just trivial match report coverage so my own searches have not found anything useful here. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ . Star Mississippi 01:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Terry (artist)[edit]

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

The article cannot boast with reliable multiple independent sources required for living persons LusikSnusik (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ervin Hasalliu[edit]

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

Despite a reasonable number of games in the Albanian 2nd tier, which would be enough to survive a PROD, I am not seeing anything that makes Hasalliu actually notable in terms of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC, the only relevant guidelines for footballers. I found one passing mention in Panorama, which just looks like a squad list of every single team in the division and is not significant coverage by any means. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 11:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Smollen[edit]

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

The article is already tagged querying its notability. Irish Democratic Party, the microparty he was chairman of, it barely notable, but we can leave for a separate discussion. Having been elected only at council level, and not having received significant more than incidental press coverage, I don't think he satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN, not a notable local councillor. Spleodrach (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom and the reasons set-out when tagging this for NBIO/NPOL reasons some time ago, I don't see how NPOL or SIGCOV are met. Local politician (who unsuccessfully contested national election) has had only the same level of incidental/passing coverage we might expect for any similar such candidate. Perhaps even less. If not deleted, at the very least title should be redirected to Irish Democratic Party (as founding this small group seems to be only claim to notability beyond any other local office holder). Guliolopez (talk) 11:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing here is "inherently" notable under WP:NPOL at all — county councillors aren't inherently notable just for existing, unsuccessful national election candidates aren't inherently notable just for existing, founders of minor political parties aren't inherently notable just for existing, and on and so forth — but the volume and depth of referencing here is not sufficient to earn him any special "more notable than the norm for those levels of political activity" pass either. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:48, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Newpark Resources[edit]

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

although this organization is listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange, the references seem very weak. In addition, the prose seem to be a factsheet, not really encyclopedic. Ebbedlila (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are more articles if you search deep such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Kakara69 (talk) 08:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't even have to search deep. I've put this company's name on my search engine and there were a lot of RS talking about them. I wonder if the nominator did his WP:BEFORE before opening this afd. The prose is surely not the best in the world, but that is no reason to delete the article, just change the lead and put some tags around so people who care will improve it in the future. 🔥 22spears 🔥 00:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources in the article and those provided about are the usual PR churnalism about stock prices and investment outlooks. There is hardly anything substantive in reliable sources discussing the company itself to suggest WP:NCORP is met. --Kinu t/c 17:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 21:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails GNG and NCORP. Source eval:
Comments Source
Stats, primary Newpark, Inc Stock - Yahoo! Finance". Finance.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2014-02-22.
Primary 2. ^ "Industry Partners". Newpark Resources. Retrieved 2014-02-23.
Stats, primary 3. ^ "Newpark Resources Inc. Yahoo Finance". finance.yahoo.com. Retrieved 2014-02-22.
One of several corps in list, not SIGCOV 4. ^ "Several Suppliers Repeat Top Customer Satisfaction Scores in Annual EnergyPoint Research Global Oil & Gas Industry Survey". Prweb.com. 2014-02-13. Retrieved 2014-02-22.
Routine business news 5. ^ Olivia Pulsinelli (2014-02-11). "Newpark Resources to sell business unit for $100M". bizjournals.com. Retrieved 2014-02-22.
Stats, primary 6. ^ "Newpark Resources Inc (NR.N) Quote Reuters.com". Reuters.com. Archived from the original on 2014-02-26. Retrieved 2014-02-22.
Stats, primary 7. ^ "Newpark Resources Inc. Google Finance". Google.com. Retrieved 2014-02-22.
Routine business news 8. ^ "Newpark Resources to sell business unit for $100M". Bizjournals.com. 2014-02-11. Retrieved 2014-02-22.
From above
What's Happening With NR Stock Today? Stock market price news https://www.investorsobserver.com/news/stock-update/what-is-the-markets-view-on-newpark-resources-inc-nr-stocks-price-and-volume-trends-monday
Navigate the Stock Market with Seeking Alpha, stockmarket news https://seekingalpha.com/article/4576885-newpark-resources-potential-catalyst
Stock market news https://simplywall.st/stocks/us/energy/nyse-nr/newpark-resources/news/newpark-resources-incs-nysenr-high-institutional-ownership-s
Stats, primary https://finance.yahoo.com/news/newpark-resources-nyse-nr-shareholders-155458143.html
Routine business news https://www.offshore-mag.com/drilling-completion/article/14287674/newpark-resources-finalizes-exit-from-gulf-of-mexico-market
Routine business news https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/newpark-resources-pressed-separate-units-by-activist-investor-2021-11-23/
BEFORE showed more primary promo, routine business news, nothing that is IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  18:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree that sourcing discussed here, and present in the article, consists of PR style reporting, or routine mentions of business activity/stock performance. I do not believe this sort of coverage satisfies NCORP. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am searching for sources for Newpark Resources and will post here with the results of my searches within the next two hours. Cunard (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Rothburd, Carrie (2004). "Newpark Resources, Inc.". In Pederson, Jay P. (ed.). International Directory of Company Histories Volume: 63. Detroit: St. James Press. pp. 305, 306, 307. ISBN 1-55862-508-9. Retrieved 2023-04-23 – via Internet Archive.

      The book has these sections: "From Old-Line Metal Mining to Oilfield Waste Servicing: 1932–70s", Industry Downturn Leading to New Directions in Site Construction and Cleanup: 1980s to Early 1990s", and Building a Niche Market Position in North America: Late 1990s".

      The book notes: "In 1932, New Park Mining Company formed as the consolidation of three mining companies: Star of Utah Mining Company, Mayflower Mines Corporation, and Park Galena Mining Company. For the next three decades, the publicly owned, old-line mining company expanded through acquisitions of similar companies, until, by the late 1960s, the mining of metals as an industry fell on hard times. ... The oil industry downturn of the early to mid-1980s led to overcapacity, price-cutting, and consolidation among oil companies, and to difficult times for Newpark. From 1982 to 1987. Newpark did not turn a profit. As a result, in 1986, the company, which had traded on the New York Stock Exchange since 1977, was delisted and moved to the NASDAQ. ... Newpark also began a process of restructuring in 1986, after being delisted from the New York Stock Exchange. That process culminated in a private financing transaction in 1987, after which only a small public shareholder base remained. Newpark also reincorporated in Delaware in 1987, and began trading on the NASDAQ in 1991. It conducted a secondary stock offering in 1996."

    2. Compton, Hal; Hampshire, David (2006). "Park City". From the Ground Up: A History of Mining in Utah. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press. pp. 337–339. ISBN 978-0-87421-639-4. Retrieved 2023-04-23 – via Project MUSE.

      The book notes on page 337: "By the late 1930s, another company, the New Park Mining Company, had begun making ore shipments from the east side of the Park City Mining District. Organized in May 1932, the New Park was a consolidation of several old companies, including the Park Galena Mining Company, the Star of Utah Mining Company and the Mayflower Mines Corporation. To develop new ore bodies, the New Park began extending the Mayflower tunnel toward the Park Galena. ... By the early 1940s, production from the New Park rivaled that of the Park Utah and the Silver King Coalition. By the end of World War II, the New Park was regularly shipping more ore than all the other major local mines combined."

      The book notes on page 338: "By the end of the month, the Silver King Coalition, Park Utah, and New Park had suspended operations entirely, bringing total layoffs at area mines to 875. ... By September metal prices had recovered enough to convince management at the New Park to resume production, ... As 1953 became 1954, the properties of United Park City Mines stayed closed. Only the New Park managed to keep producing ore."

      The book notes on page 339: "This meant that the two largest surviving mining companies in the Park City District, United Park and New Park, were shipping most of their production from the east side of the district in Wasatch County. ... According to a 1956 newspaper story, about two-thirds of the New Park’s 290-man workforce lived in Wasatch County and the Kamas Valley. ... Meanwhile, the management of the New Park had signed a contract leasing its Mayfl ower Mine to the Hecla Mining Company of Wallace, Idaho."

    3. Weiner, Sam (1974-01-14). "Giltless Midas Touch: Mine That Vanished Proves Boon to Newpark". Financial Trend. pp. 11–12. Retrieved 2023-04-23 – via Internet Archive.

      The article notes: "The story of the gold mine that was born too soon began in 1932 when a "nickel mining stock" at San Francisco produced a company then known as New Park Mining, Inc., which was to be the predecessor to Newpark Resources. ...  By 1939, Newpark had managed to dig its way to an ore vein which made it an immediate winner as small mining companies go. The mine not only had enough gold to make Newpark the fourth largest gold producer in the U.S., but also enough silver to make it the country's ninth biggest silver producer. Large amounts of lead, copper, zinc and cadmium also were discovered in the mine. ...  The mine, Newpark's only producing asset, kept the company at a fairly profitable level until the late 1960s, when it began going downhill at the same time that prices of gold, silver, copper and other metals were rising because of overseas attacks on the dollar."

    4. Bogoslaw, David (2005-06-22). "Newpark Banks on Environment Rules". The Wall Street Journal. p. B.9A. EBSCOhost 398989881.

      The article notes: "Newpark Resources Inc. is trying to cash in on a cleaner environment.  The Metairie, La., company's stock has edged up gradually over recent years, but at $7.09 it is still only slightly above half its 2001 high. The company, which provides products and services to firms drilling for oil and natural gas, was too bullish with earnings projections when demand for rigs drilling in the Gulf Coast was expected to recover after plunging in 2001. Now, some analysts think two of its three divisions -- mat sales and rentals and drilling fluids, plus a startup water-treatment business -- are poised for growth, fueled by tighter environmental regulations."

      The article further notes: "The company's involvement in both waste disposal and drilling fluids gave them a lot of knowledge early on about how the waste regulations would change and what Newpark could do to gain a foothold in a cleaner market," said John Tasdemir, an analyst at Raymond James & Associates. He doesn't own shares, and Raymond James hasn't done investment banking with the company in the past 12 months. ... Newpark has been a step ahead of the competition in developing a high-performance water-based drilling fluid, he said. ... Although its fluids business is dwarfed by much bigger competitors such as Halliburton Co.'s Baroid unit and M-I Swaco, a joint venture between Smith International Inc. and Schlumberger Ltd., analysts say they have been impressed by Newpark's success in gaining market share. Mr. Tasdemir estimated Newpark has an 18% share of the Gulf Coast fluids market."

    5. BusinessWeek articles:
      1. Marcial, Gene G. (2000-12-04). "A Newpark Gusher?". BusinessWeek. No. 3710. p. 175. EBSCOhost 3797855.

        The article notes: "Such a concern, however, is a bonanza to Newpark Resources (NR), a Big Board-listed provider of environmental services to oil-and-gas explorers. Newpark processes and disposes of exploration and production refuse, including that contaminated with radioactive material. ... Shares of Newpark, trading at 10½ in August, have fallen to 7 11/16, even though Newpark's business — mainly in Louisiana and Texas — has picked up. It recently added on-site processing of wastes to its services. "It is rapidly expanding its capacity," says Robert Trace of Hibernia South-coast Capital, who rates the stock a strong buy, with a 12-month target of 20. Newpark is receiving 5 million barrels of waste a day, says Trace. New Environmental Protection Agency rules calling for reduced discharges into federal waters will boost the demand for Newpark's services, he says. That, plus the rise in rig operations, should allow Newpark to boost prices. The analyst figures the company will earn 170 a share in 2000 and 50¢ in 2001, vs. 1999's 21¢ loss."

      2. Norman, James R. (1985-11-04). "Matt Simmons: Doctor to the Oil Fields' Walking Wounded. His cure is to arrange partnerships among ailing companies—even if they are rivals". BusinessWeek. p. 82. EBSCOhost 504164851.

        The article notes: "Newpark, too poor to buy its way to bigness, couldn't see selling its assets while new drilling rigs and sophisticated tools are going for scrap at less than a dime per pound. So Cole has put major parts of his company into new partnerships with competitors (table). Newpark will be a minority owner. Many of its employees will lose their jobs, but Cole will have a stake in viable companies."

      3. "You Have to Eat, Sleep, and Breathe Mining". BusinessWeek. No. 1296. 1954-06-03. pp. 98–104. EBSCOhost 57629156.

        The article notes: "New Park Mining had commercial ore all right, but it was a very sick company in 1934 when Cranmer arrived. It had been a one-man company, as it still is, essentially. Its president had been a promoter, like Cranmer, but he had lacked Cranmer's sense of order. He had kept all his records on scraps of paper and in private notebooks, and the company was embroiled in law suits that were hard to defend without documentary evidence. Moreover, no one seemed to know how to get profitably into production. And the new Securities & Exchange Commission was casting a critical eye at the company's stock promotion. Three million shares of stock had been sold all over the U. S. as a result of an ad campaign in such publications as the Police Gazette. ... Under Cranmer's leadership, New Park increased its holdings from 1,100 acres to more than 10,000 acres, installed modern machinery, and paid a total of $2-million in dividends over the 20-year period. The company also ran into the big problem: how to cope with recurrent slumps in lead-zinc."

    6. "Corporate Insight - Newpark Resources Inc. - Top 50 Rank: 6". The Times-Picayune. 1996-05-16. Archived from the original on 2023-04-23. Retrieved 2023-04-23.

      The article notes: "Though the company operates an array of oil field services, including waste disposal sites, tankers and a sawmill, Newpark Resources' fortunes rest largely on one factor, oil prices. And throughout 1998, as oil patch drilling dried up, so did business at Newpark Resources Inc. Newpark, based in Metairie, has 1,150 employees."

    7. Judice, Mary (1996-08-24). "Newpark Reborn: Oilfield Cleanup Company Sees Profit Below the Surface". The Times-Picayune. Archived from the original on 2023-04-23. Retrieved 2023-04-23.

      The article notes: "For Newpark Resources, 1993 was a bad year. Its core business, oilfield cleanup, just about dried up. The other business segment, building drilling sites for oil and gas companies, was down because drilling was way off. But 1994 has been far kinder. Louisiana regulators issued rules on disposal of radioactive oilfield waste, allowing disposal work to resume. Higher natural gas prices have spurred a 30 percent increase in drilling in south Texas and Louisiana, the markets Newpark serves. As a result, Newpark's earnings have doubled over the last year, said Thomas A. Escott, an analyst at Robinson-Humphrey Co. Inc. in Atlanta. In the latest quarter, net income jumped from $900,000 to $2.3 million."

    8. Gentry, Dave (2015). Small Stocks, Big Money: Interviews With Microcap Superstars. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 86. ISBN 978-1-119-17255-0. Retrieved 2023-04-23 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Another investment that generated hundreds of millions in profits for his group was Newpark Resources (NYSE: NR), which he funded at $0.20 a share. The company was incorporated as New Park Mining in 1932 but changed its name to Newpark Resources in 1972. In 1977, it listed on the New York Stock Exchange but was delisted in 1986 after it sold off one of its divisions to a bank to relieve its debt load. This is around the time that Sassower took an interest in the company. The company began a restructuring in 1986. In 1987, Sassower's group invested $10 million. The company refocused its business and became a major player in hazardous waste cleanup. Again, Sassower had the foresight to redirect the company into a fast growing industry. ... In 1991, Newpark listed on the NASDAQ and then four years later as revenue topped $80 million it listed again on the NYSE (Figure 9.1). Adjusted for splits and dividends, the price of Newpark Resources reached $105.00 per share in the mid-1990s. The Phoenix Group made $200 million on their "calculated risk play." Newpark Resources' 2013 revenue was $1.1 billion with $65.3 million in net income. The company is a leading international oil services company with three major divisions: drilling fluids; mats and integrated services; and environmental services."

    9. "25 Years Ago. Thursday, August 20, 1942. Mining Matters for Week: Producing Ore for War". Park Record. 1967-08-31. Archived from the original on 2023-04-23. Retrieved 2023-04-23 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "The New Park Mining company, Utah's newest major producing mine, is located in the East Park City District, 40 miles southeast of Salt Lake City, in Wasatch county, Utah. The New Park property includes the Flagstaff Group; the Gold Queen Group which is being developed by tunnel work; the Mayflower and Sar of Utah Mines company groups, and the Park Galena Mine company group which controlled the Park Galena fissure. ... These earlier interests were incorporated to form the New Park Mining company, which operated through the Park Galena tunnel until funds were raised in 1939 to finish driving the Mayflower Tunnel. All mining operations have been conducted from the Mayflower portal since February, 1940. The company now owns 1577 acres of patented mining claims--594 acres of ranch and other land and 895 acres leased from the State of Utah."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Newpark Resources (known as New Park Mining between 1932 and 1972)  to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: ROUTINE business news, nothing that shows notability.  // Timothy :: talk  11:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the rest of Cunard's sources invariably lack sufficient detail the above establish the company meets the notability threshold. HighKing++ 19:51, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The referencing in the article such as finance.Yahoo is routine financial detail and doesn't provide analysis/commentary so by itself is not sufficient. However, the additional sources identified by Cunard provide sufficient indepth coverage on the company's history to satisfy GNG/NCORP. Rupples (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Alick Macheso. ✗plicit 11:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zvinoda Kutendwa[edit]

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

Contested redirect - was in better shape before redirection, but still fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 10:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, here is the version that was redirected. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alick Macheso. The older version of the article was not stronger and only had some more fan-type information. The album received no in-depth coverage that I can find, though I will say that the musician seems to be highly regarded as long-running performer in his country. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alick Macheso, where the album title is listed. CycloneYoris talk! 09:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 11:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ivaylo Velinov[edit]

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

Currently, this article is an unsourced WP:BLP and has been flagged as such. I can't see any way of bringing this up to a level that it complies with WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC, partly because his professional career was so brief. I did find some coverage of him, so he does exist, but the coverage is all just trivial mentions in Bulgarian news sources. Gong mentions him once, confirming that he received a red card, Darik mentions him as one of 9 OFC Belasitsa Petrich requesting termination of his contract, an event that is covered well enough in the club article and does not require stand-alone articles for all involved, Topsport is yet another trivial mention, saying that he is in good shape and can play as a right back. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to The Troggs. There were numerous weak keep options, and while sourcing was declared to be adequate by some, no one disputed that it concerned the band rather than the subject individually, or were interviews/reviews that did not go to establish notability. In this instance I considered the merge/redirect non-votes as a group to conclude a rough consensus exists the article should not be kept, and closed merge to give editors a chance to salvage any material appropriate for The Troggs. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Britton (musician)[edit]

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

Contested redirect - not enough in-depth coverage to show he meets notability. Which was a bit surprising. Draftify might be an option, if someone wants to work on this, but can't find enough in-depth coverage. Onel5969 TT me 12:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Troggs per WP:MUSICBIO as a musician primarily notable for their work with one band. While the article includes descriptions of a solo career, this material is exclusively cited to Discogs listings that do not demonstrate notability. While it's possible that the 1969 solo album may be found notable with reference to contemporary offline reviews, the rest of the description (a smattering of individual songs on compilation albums) does not suggest that substantial coverage of Britton is likely to exist offline. signed, Rosguill talk 17:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Chris Britton, although he is not the most notable person to surpass Wikipedia:MUSICBIO, has done a lot more than fellow Trogg members Pete Staples and Ronnie Bond. In comparison, Britton has done a lot more in the industry than Staples and Bond. You've stated that "Redirect to The Troggs per WP:MUSICBIO as a musician primarily notable for their work with one band.", yet P.S and R.B are only primarily known for their work with one band, what makes them so special to have one? The majority of Ronnie Bond's article is just stating what hits the band had. I did a little counting, and out of the 157 biographical words (excluding headings, references, discography etc.) on Bond's article, 93 consisted of only Troggs songs and their chartings, leaving only 64 words explaining Bond's personal life (less than 50%). Bond didn't do anything outside of the Troggs, but he has an article, Staples, though he has recorded solo releases, gets one, so why doesn't Britton? Chris' article has more information and references (excluding the discogs references), so, personally, I do believe Chris Britton is capable enough of owning his own article, just like the other three. Foox123456789 (talk) 01:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff exists, those articles should probably be converted to redirects too. Unless there's RS coverage of their non-Troggs material. signed, Rosguill talk 16:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Seems to be sufficiently sourced. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep did find a staff review of his solo album at AllMusic here, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the opening statement of the one piece of coverage of Britton outside the context of The Troggs is Chris Britton's rare solo album sounds much like you would expect if you're familiar with his very occasional singing and songwriting outings within the Troggs, I think the case for independent notability is extremely flimsy. signed, Rosguill talk 04:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on existing sources. Pershkoviski (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional input is needed, since most of the keep votes are "weak", and editors do not seem entirely convinced.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I was able to find a few additional sources: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. I don't really see any justification for deleting the article when he is clearly famous enough that he is likely to be searched for on Wikipedia; this page should at least redirect to The Troggs. JMB1980 (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's either a Redirect or a stand-alone article, JMB1980. -The Gnome (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with either keeping the article or converting to a redirect, but there are more than enough sources to show the article shouldn't be deleted. JMB1980 (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point the Gnome was trying to make is that no one in this discussion has suggested deletion yet; you're arguing against a non-existent perspective. The nominator could have been a little more explicit about their perspective, but it's fairly obvious that they're advocating for redirection given their prior edits to the page and the lack of any evidence to the contrary. signed, Rosguill talk 18:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This coverage does not demonstrate independent notability--100% of it is in the context of The Troggs. signed, Rosguill talk 16:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge downsized version to Troggs: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO. Rosguill's reasoning is solid. I wanted to keep this, but the sources are not there. Subject is notable due to their involvement in the band and not solo. The above Keep votes (one exception, see below) are based on opinions and OTHERSTUFF exists, citing no policy, guideline, or sources. BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). ILIKEIT doesn't cut it.
Source eval from above:
Merge is a good alternative to deletion.  // Timothy :: talk  18:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge As per the reasoning of Rosguill and Timothy. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:03, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as suggested and a good compromise. The band was huge in the day, but unless you're a fan, a short summary (with all the citations) is probably enough for our core readership. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 11:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simulated reality in fiction[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOR as an unencyclopedic split. I like how the introductory sentence says it shouldn't be confused with VR, only to have countless entries that are blatantly about VR. It just shows the inclusion criteria for this indiscriminate list make no sense. Anything that might actually be sourced can be easily included in simulated reality (although I am concerned that article itself may be WP:SYNTH, and it has an ongoing merge discussion, so we'll just say simulation hypothesis instead). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per G5. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vriddhi Vishal[edit]

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

My G4 nomination yesterday was correctly declined, as a few additions have been made since the last deletion. Tried another WP:BEFORE search, using the spellings விருத்தி விஷால் and വൃദ്ധി വിശാൽ (please correct as necessary), and as with the previous nomination, there's no significant, independent coverage of her career to show how she passes WP:NACTOR or GNG yet. The new additions are both minor film roles, plus an unspecified role in a film currently still in post-production. She was also one of a group of children to appear in a promo video. But again, none of these additions has received significant, independent coverage from multiple reliable sources, only the sort of run-of-the-mill staff-writer coverage you'd expect for an adorable kid who's appeared in some films. Uncle Spock (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP : This AFD nominator placed a G4 deletion tag in this page yesterday and it was removed by an ADMIN, and this nominator is saying lightly that the G4 nomination was correctly declined ??? So why on earth has he placed the G4 tag at first place ??? Now after the G4 is declined he placed the AFD tag, its WP:HARASS . Wikipedia is for constructive edits and not for doing destructive edits. This AFD is unwanted and proves that the nominator who created his account on 9th april 2023 ie; 13 days before and has been editing in rocket speed is here in wikipedia for destructive edits rather than constructive edits.
Now proving why it pass WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG , The subject Vriddhi Vishal is a child actress, model, social influencer etc. Previously her page was deleted in March 2022 when she only acted in one movie and had very less news source about her. Now as of April 2023 she has acted in over 5 movies in prominent character roles, in one major television serial in prominent character role, she has been cheif guest in couple of prominent television shows. Moreover she was selected as the most popular child artist on Malayalam TV by ETimes TV etc. These all proves that she passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG easily with total 14 references out of which most of them are featured and secondary and independent news sources. Christopheronthemove (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Striking sock. Greyjoy talk 16:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith rather than make baseless accusations. I am the admin who declined Uncle Spock's CSD nomination: This was on technical grounds, as CSD:G4 can often be difficult to interpret. As it happens, I personally agreed with the G4 nom (i.e., I think it should have been deleted immediately); however, current guidelines would not support it.
Uncle Spock was perfectly qualified to nominate this article for deletion after the CSD was declined. It does not matter how long they have contributed, or how often they edit. By your logic we should disallow any articles/contributions from accounts less than <X TIME> old (which would likely include yours). But this is not how Wikipedia works, nor should it be.
An uncharitable person might point out that you have identified yourself as a journalist, and as most (all?) of your sources are promotional 'fluff' from news websites, there could be the appearance of a potential conflict of interest. But that would be unkind, do you not agree? There has been no harassment, and as they stand here, our procedures are playing out as they should. --Hadal (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, or draftify. Once you strip away the fluff, like IG followers and 'virality', there isn't much left. It's possible this child actor might become more notable upon the release of her upcoming film, yet we don't even know how "prominent" a role this will be. In any case, recommend title be salted. --Hadal (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt: Fails WP:NACTOR due to lack of significant roles in movies and television series. She also does not meet GNG. There is no point of moving to draftspace either. The tone used in the article raises strong COI/UPE concerns. For example; She is also known for her photoshoots and dance videos which has got millions of views. She also has over 1.5 Million followers in Instagram. 111.92.78.203 (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the prior AFD, there are no significant roles this person has had. Views on instagram don't count for notability. SALT as well. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT: Fails WP:NACTOR and this article is somewhere between fancruft or promotionalism. Toddst1 (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting in passing that Justlettersandnumbers WP:G5'd the thing the creator is sock blocked,-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Deepfriedokra. I thought it best to leave this open so that it can reach its inevitable conclusion, but am not sure that that is standard practice in this situation. If not, I'm sure someone will close it early. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete does not meet any inclusion criteria you could name. An uncharitable person might add, "no matter how much someone paid."-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genrobotics[edit]

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

ET Source, HT, Theweek are about One of their product not the company, that too published by a not independent agency related to product launch, there is no independent news related to "Company". Product is not a company started by college students. All the other awards are non reliable and not helping in notability. Lordofhunter (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎ . Liz Read! Talk! 05:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vivek Venugopal[edit]

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

Biography of a musician which is not properly referenced to pass WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. The only valid claim of notability seems to be that the subject is known for introducing a musical instrument called Visitar along with Erisa Neogy which is not a part of any of our notability criteria. Additionally the article is completely reference bombed. The references mostly consist of bad sources including blogs and PR self-published that do not count towards establishing GNG. Thesixserra (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and India. Thesixserra (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep At the very least, these references appear to satisfy WP:SIGCOV [17] [18] [19]. Those are in the article but I'd add this from a quick google search, which is an interview but it's lengthy and not just a promo piece.[20] Yes, the article tone is promotional, and yes it's got a lot of garbage references, but this guy is an internationally touring musician with multiple albums and WP:RS press coverage. Does he need more? Oblivy (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    comment Looking at the first nomination this does not seem to be the 2nd nomination of the same article. That other article appears to deal with a journalist; no suggestion this is a journalist-turned-musician. Oblivy (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. That journalist has nothing in common with this musician. He is better known as Visita as most coverage is under this stage name. NDreteler (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oblivy: I fixed it. Can you check and let me know which "garbage references" you're talking about? I can share my rationale afterwards. NDreteler (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the links seem thinly disguised press releases, such as [21] and [22] Also, at the time the article was nominated, it also had a string of links to the artist's website which are generally only good for establishing minor facts (in fact, how they were used) but not notability. Overall most of the citations seemed even at the time to be reasonably high quality. Oblivy (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Would the nominator mind explaining how this is not "properly referenced"? I thoroughly checked: each and every sentence is well-cited. "Blogs and PR self-published" - do you have anything to support this claim? The Hindu, Rolling Stone India, New Indian Express and its magazine Indulge, and Rock Street Journal all are very reliable and that's how this whole biography is cited. There is no mention of "PR" - they have proper "bylines" - if nom. had a chance to open them. NDreteler (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For Visita:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) NDreteler (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources in the article such as The Hindu, Rolling Stone, New Indian Express and others so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ . No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America1000 12:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Santo Tomas, Sonora[edit]

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

Seems like a promotional article that relies on promotional/non-existent sources. A WP:BEFORE search yielded no results, but this may have been tinged by the popularity of Saint Thomas (the man) in the region. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Santo Tomas is a beachfront community of much more prominence than neighboring pinned locations. There are several published articles that reference Santo Tomas that are not found linked to the Wikipedia reference. The Rocky Point Times probably has links to previous articles that I have seen over the years. Hopefully they or someone will know how to link an article to the wikilinks link to this community. KBlanko (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @KBlanko: Linking is accomplished by placing the url within brackets. If you can't figure that out, I'll be monitoring this discussion and will gladly perform the formatting for you; just copy and paste the links and I'll do the rest. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Most opinions here are based in policy, and this is clearly a borderline situation, so a lack of consensus isn't surprising. My personal recommendation, independent of the result here, is to write a summary-style section at the parent article, and see if all relevant material can be accommodated there; and if so, to propose a merge. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Expanse: A Telltale Series[edit]

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

Another contested redirect. Likely a case of WP:TOOSOON, but not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 19:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Numerous sources and at least one instance of WP:SIGCOV here as well as an extremely high likelihood it will be reviewed in numerous major gaming outlets upon release means it is almost certainly notable with little room for doubt. While one could argue about technicalities, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. If the game somehow gets cancelled with little fanfare, I have no objection to a merge at that point, but right now there is no reason for an article not to exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Zxcvbnm. It's easy to find sources. And even if the WP:SIGCOV is debatable, the game is set for the next quarter. I see this being resolved with additional coverage in a matter of weeks or months. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has enough coverage, though the article is yet underdeveloped. If it proves to not be very notable in the long run, we can have this discussion again. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources in the article and BEFORE show all promo. Nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV. As indicated above this pre-release promoish review is the only thing that comes close, but it is still just a single iffy source for N. Other two Keeps cite no sources, just state opinions. Maybe this is TOOSOON, but there are not sources supporting N.  // Timothy :: talk  05:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @TimothyBlue: Not sure how "delete" could even be an option here at all. Even if not kept, The Expanse (novel series) or The Expanse (TV series) are obvious merge targets per WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply the option to redirect has been rejected twice [23], [24], "Although they are related, the TV series and the video game are not the same". Merge will not work because there is no sourced information to merge, just a promo announcement. Once it actually exists beyond promo annoucements, maybe there will sourced material to add to the suggested target. Merging content about things that don't exist yet and only have promo refs would degrade the quality of any target. Video games even those in development are often canceled.  // Timothy :: talk  07:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If it's the result of WP:CONSENSUS, a redirect cannot be rejected. Not without being disruptive and potentially being blocked at least. Single users can't override consensus. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Expanse (TV series). It's currently a WP:TOOSOON situation, but it would be worthwhile having the edit history available if/when it becomes notable in a few months time. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coin toss between Weak draftify until release/Weak redirect per SnoozyTurtle. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:38, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It's clear this article won't be deleted but it's a grab-bag of solutions proposed here. It would be nice for a closer to see opinion focus on one option rather than closing this as No Consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per CycloneYoris. Better to have things in the mainspace when we can, where it's more likely to be improved as more coverage develops. Keep in mind there's nothing wrong having a draft going concurrently too as people prepare to eventually spin it out. Sergecross73 msg me 18:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Zxcvbnm. Coverage in PCGamer seems solid. Second choice, redirect and merge, given how stubby this is. Certainly deletion is not a good idea. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, not significantly covered in as many sources as I'd like but doubtlessly it will be, once it releases. Unless it gets cancelled. Merko (talk) 19:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Expanse (TV series)#The Expanse: A Telltale series. I agree with Merko above that it will almost certainly be covered by many sources when it's released. WP:CRYSTAL and all that. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 21:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - deleting the page now only to create a new one in a few months seems pointless to me, especially since it looks like the game will be released before consensus is reached on this issue. PraiseVivec (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎ . Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Savannah mayoral election[edit]

2023 Savannah mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The election is not notable and is of negligible importance.

The 2023 election is not WP:N and this article is purely WP:CRYSTALBALL. This election and quite frankly it seems that elections in years past are not notable either. The lack of reliable sources and sources overall are a by-product of this.

It is possible that it may become notable in the WP:FUTURE but we have no way of knowing that.

This project does not need an entire article dedicated to a non-noteworthy election. Grahaml35 (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jyoti Central High School[edit]

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

WP:MILL institution, no indication of Notability. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Sources present are primary. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Sourcing to demonstrate notability was not identified in the article or this discussion. An appropriate redirect may be created as a normal editing action. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FIVB Volleyball Men's World Championship qualification[edit]

FIVB Volleyball Men's World Championship qualification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NSPORTS. Qualifications for FIVB Volleyball Men's World Championship. No sources, BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and in-depth. nn unnecessary CFORK that fragments content. No objection to a consensus redirect. Nothing in article is sourced for a merge.  // Timothy :: talk  08:11, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep or draftify until sources are added (they do exist). WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP Certainly notable as the qualification articles for each tournament. With sources, article itself would need more prose. Pelmeen10 (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd/final relist. So far there is an assertion of sourcing without a demonstration of them in the article or this discussion, and low participation. Note that the article was renamed/moved on 4/22 to List of FIVB Volleyball Men's World Championship qualifications.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unsourced article (and WP:ROUTINE coverage of individual matches would not be sufficient to meet NLIST for this topic). MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Burger[edit]

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

Non-notable ambassador. No sources found that discuss her in Gnews; only sources used for the article are a gov't website and some small biographical article. Not meeting BLP, has not done anything to warrant notability. Oaktree b (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ . If any editor wants to work on this list, what there is of it, in Draft space, can ask for it to be restored there. Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of rulers of Leqa Qellam[edit]

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

WP:UNSOURCED for 19 years + 1 item does not make a list. The only item on the list, Jote Tullu, has no page. The state, Leqa Qellam, has no page. It's a mystery to me why this rubbish has been kept for almost all of Wikipedia's existence. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and History. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:V and WP:GNG, and Leqa Qellam itself likely fails GNG as well. Only hits for both Leqa Qallam and Leqa Qellem are Wikipedia mirrors; a Catalan-language Wikipedia article at ca:Leqa Qellam; passing mentions in the history of western Oromia; and unrelated topics, such as individuals with the same name. Results from Google Books are probably passing mentions as well, but I have not confirmed this. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a WP:HOAX, as Historical Dictionary of Ethiopia (2004) has an in-passing metnion of Jote Tullu and Leqa Qellam. But that one mention isn't enough to support a list -- it does not even make clear whether "Leqa Qellam" is supposed to refer to a region or a government. Walt Yoder (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I didn't expect this to be a hoax, just not notable enough. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While probably not a Hoax, we should not have a list of its rulers until we have an article on Leqa Qellam. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes both V and GNG. Should be converted into an article on the kingdom. There's no mystery here. The number of editors who care about Ethiopian history is a tiny fraction of the number of editors who care about <insert almost any topic you can think of here>. I don't see a notability issue. I can find plenty of sources in English. For example, Bahru Zewde wrote the biography of Jote Tulu for his BA thesis (which is still widely cited), although I don't have access. Qellam is also spelled Qellem and Qelem, Tulu as Tullu, and so on. Here is the Encyclopaedia Aethiopica article on the kingdom, where the name of the ruler is spelled Ğootee Tulluu (and he apparently has an article in the EA that I can't find online). Srnec (talk) 23:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone wants to try and salvage it, they can do that (even though nobody has bothered for 19 years). For now WP:TNT is the right move. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎ . North America1000 12:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 World Junior Short Track Speed Skating Championships[edit]

2023 World Junior Short Track Speed Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another contested redirect - zero in-depth coverage from independent, reliable, secondary sources. Onel5969 TT me 12:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Third party coverage is extremely limited. Fails GNG. There are a whole series of World Junior Short Track Speed Skating Championships that should be all considered for deletion. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clear fails of the nominator not doing WP:BEFORE. [31], [32], [33], [34], [35] and [36] among sources I found doing a 2 minute google search. I'm sure there is more. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's still no agreement in sight…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. While numerically dominant, the "keep" opinions are not based in policy, and cannot be given much weight. Assertions of notability don't mean anything when not backed up by evidence of WP:SIGCOV. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Kogan[edit]

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

G4 was declined. But same issues still apply, will simply repost the original editor's (Oliver Virk) nominating comment: "Not passing WP:ANYBIO; deputies of the banks are not notable. looks like advertisement. WP:PROMO, cross-wiki spam. Russian Wikipedia is marked as Undisclosed paid editing and is being AfDed https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD,_%D0%98%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%8C_%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 Onel5969 TT me 14:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Turkmenistan, and Russia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a promotional profile of a non-notable person who seems adept at generating promotional profiles for himself. Mccapra (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom and above, promo piece, probably would quality for G11. If ru.wp thinks its a problem there, its definitely an issue on en.wp. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  01:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since text does not meet even the standards for a decent promotional brochure, let alone the elementary criteria of WP:GNG set down by Wikipedia. As to the Forbes piece allegedly praising Kogan for managing "Nordea Bank to become number one in 'The most stable banks in Russia' " I'm still trying to find it. A bank manager, like millions of others. -The Gnome (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significance is supported by work in important companies and a great contribution to their development. Dimetr (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this person passed WP:GNG. This manager made Nordea Bank (Russia) the most reliable in country. Else he developed the legal framework for the Credit Bureau, which is an integral part of the Russian financial market; made a significant contribution to Aeroflot. All facts was confirmed by independent media, is not just "bank manager, like millions of others". ЖуковАФ (talk) 09:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable Russian manager from Nordea Bank who developed the legal framework for the Russian Credit Bureau. I see different reliable sources for him.--Fenikals (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More assertions that "the person is important" and "surely, there are sources". -The Gnome (talk) 06:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for PROMO. Non-notable business person, links given don't discuss the subject, or only mention them in passing. Being important is fine, but we have no sources discussing the person that we can see are in RS. COI in the Russian wiki is also a red flag. Oaktree b (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Dear Wikipedia colleagues, I followed the WP: BASIC guidelines while writing the article: “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. People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria.”OnIPliOn (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable business person from a big bank. Article has a WP:RS, and person passed WP:BLP. Article is subject for work, not for delete. Can't make a links to ru.wiki because rules are different. Kasfe (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Igor Kogan is not only a notable figure in the Russian banking business, but also a significant public figure, initiating the development of a legislative framework for the creation of the institute of credit history bureaus in Russia, and was also a columnist for the leading Russian newspaper Vedomosti, which makes it possible to keep this article about him. Криворучка (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ . Liz Read! Talk! 04:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Kansas City mayoral election[edit]

2023 Kansas City mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The election is not WP:N, WP:V and relies on WP:FUTURE way too much. Wiki is WP:NOTNEWS and this article is portraying that as it has very little news coverage as is.

The article has not established individual any notability or verifiability and has no reason to be on the mainspace. Grahaml35 (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Xiuke[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. Appears to fail WP:NOLYMPICS. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and China. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I've added sources to the article which I believe are enough to meet WP:GNG. More sources are available online with a search for "陈秀科". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep New articles added by Mx._Granger support independent notability despite not medalling. Two articles from Hainan Capital News (hinews.cn) in particular are indepth coverage of Xiu. Oblivy (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well done on those news articles. Quick peruse with Google translate turned on shows that at least two of them mention the subject in-depth. There is now a tenable case for GNG being met. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thebiguglyalien would you consider withdrawing the nomination now these sources have been found? MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 00:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Popovic[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable businessman. Searches in English and Czech do not turn up significant coverage Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is a borderline WP:CSD#A7 and also WP:BLPPROD eligible, but I guess we can let this run to see if any refs do turn up. Couldn't find anything on google news or books. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree this is borderline speedy. Clear delete at AFD based on lack of notability. BEFORE check shows up nothing except LinkedIn and other social media. MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_April_23

Leave a Reply