The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Joyous! Noise! 22:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Michael Berry[edit]

Leonard Michael Berry (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:NBIO. Did some WP:BEFORE digging and came up with no sources, across Google, Wikipedia Library, and Yahoo, only found copies of Wikipedia, unreliable sources, and obituaries. Tails Wx 22:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As always, diplomats are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to be the subject of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about their work in sources other than their own staff profiles on the self-published websites of their own employer. But there's no reliable sourcing shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: BLP with no sources. BEFORE showed nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth.  // Timothy :: talk  02:48, 8 March 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. Joyous! Noise! 22:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Runyon[edit]

Joel Runyon (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)

Likely fails WP:BIO. He's known solely for a single TEDx talk he gave, and the article reads like a PR piece. Firestar464 (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Firestar464 (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete The Runner's World is about the best coverage of the individual, agree that the other sources in the article are PR pieces. I can't find much else that we could use for notability. Almost but not quite there.

  Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Brief two-line mention in this article [1]. I think if we had one other decent source, he'd be at the notability criteria. Oaktree b (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi - just got notification about this.

  There's quite a few other sources

  - https://petapixel.com/2020/08/13/russell-kirsch-inventor-of-the-pixel-passed-away-this-week/

  - https://boingboing.net/2012/08/07/an-encounter-with-russell-kirs.html

  - https://www.vice.com/en/article/zmvw8a/meet-the-man-whos-just-run-an-ultra-marathon-on-all-seven-continents

  - https://www.leadvilleraceseries.com/2014/08/legendary-leadville-trail-100-run-presented-by-new-balance-begins-on-saturday-august-16/

  That was a quick reference. There are likely lots more if this is a significant concern. Nouhb (talk) 05:40, 10 March 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. Joyous! Noise! 22:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meyebela (TV Series)[edit]

Meyebela (TV 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)

Pay-TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - coverage consists of largely WP:ROUTINE sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails GNG, sources are promotional, routine, nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth  // Timothy :: talk  12:09, 7 March 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. Joyous! Noise! 22:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ponchomi[edit]

Ponchomi (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)

Pay-TV series doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG - coverage consists of largely WP:ROUTINE sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails GNG, sources are promotional, routine, nothing with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth  // Timothy :: talk  12:11, 7 March 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 – WP:CSD#G3. Draft deleted as well. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeriur[edit]

Lakeriur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The only source in the article is clearly a joke. Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a blatant hoax. Zero google hits for '"Lakeriur" estonia' other than Wikipedia and the Fandom wiki. Jfire (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete hoax. User:Ymblanter, how a new user can itself move the article from draft namespace to main namespace?--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The user is autoconfirmed, they have been around for a year and made 20+ edits. Ymblanter (talk) 06:19, 2 March 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!} 18:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moonit[edit]

Moonit (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 failed startup. There are some articles about winning bakeoffs and getting funding, but they didn't do anything notable and shut down. Sure, those articles might mean they meet WP:GNG, but the company doesn't mean WP:CORP in any substantive way. Mikeblas (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Tech Crunch 50 article, I'm not showing lasting notabilty for the startup company being discussed. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no Tech Crunch 50 article. Do you mean TechCrunch? That article doesn't even mention the TechCrunch 50 conference. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a blue link to the TechCrunch50, which seems to redirect to Tech Crunch... I probably wouldn't redirect there; without context it doesn't really make sense. Delete instead. Oaktree b (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacking in any significant coverage, not evidence of WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:01, 7 March 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 Dhirendra Krishna Shastri#Bageshwar Dham Sarkar. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bageshwar Dham Sarkar[edit]

Bageshwar Dham Sarkar (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)

Bageshwar Dham Sarkar

This stub article is about a Hindu temple. None of the references are about the temple, but they are all about its leader, a popular charismatic figure named Dhirendra Krishna Shastri, who is already the subject of an article. A previous editor nominated this stub for A7, which was declined, and then proposed its deletion, but the PROD was removed by an IP editor. There is no significant coverage of the temple.

This stub can either be deleted, or redirected to Dhirendra Krishna Shastri. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Madhya Pradesh. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I cannot find any sourcing about the temple itself. As Robert McClenon pointed out, all current sources are about their leader, which fails WP:RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitYehor (talk • contribs) 22:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dhirendra Krishna Shastri#Bageshwar Dham Sarkar per nom. A pretty unambiguous A7; the user who declined it is a non-admin with a questionable history of removing CSD tags. Uhai (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dhirendra Krishna Shastri#Bageshwar Dham Sarkar per nom.  // Timothy :: talk  12:16, 7 March 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. Joyous! Noise! 22:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tutor Vulindlela Ndamase[edit]

Tutor Vulindlela Ndamase (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 royalty. Only mentioned in passing in the sources given in the article. No other sourcing found, not meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and South Africa. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep He was head of state in the bantustan of Transkei, which had a population of 2.3 million, for 8 years, as well as a tribal king. [2][3]. Meets WP:NPOL. Also mentioning WP:NOTCLEANUP in case that gets brought up.Park3r (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• strong Keep as a head of state even of a unrecognized state he is important for the history of the country and the region. Passes WP:NPOL either as head of an quasi independent state or by holding state/province–wide office within SA, depending on how one views the independence here. --hroest 15:31, 6 March 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 Luis Pescetti. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mamá, ¿por qué nadie es como nosotros?[edit]

Mamá, ¿por qué nadie es como nosotros? (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 claims of significance made, no sources. Would be eligible for CSD A7, except it's a book. I checked es wikipedia but same deal, no sourcing over there either, just a stub. Lizthegrey (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Argentina. Lizthegrey (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BKCRIT. Charsaddian (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect to Luis Pescetti. PrelutskyChaos 49 (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would tend to agree. Thoughts on a bulk redirect of all of the bluelinked book stubs on Luis Pescetti back to Luis Pescetti? I believe the author is notable, but we don't really need a page on each of his books unless they are notable in some way, do we? Lizthegrey (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 13:05, 22 February 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)} 16:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Luis Pescetti (and unlink any redirected title there). I tried but couldn't find secondary sources dealing with the book. A Redirect should suffice till if/when the title has enough notability for an article of its own. Rkieferbaum (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pavilion Mall, Ludhiana[edit]

Pavilion Mall, Ludhiana (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. Can't find significant coverage from reliable source in a google search. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:55, 22 February 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)} 16:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nominator, not enough to show GNG has been met Ravensfire (talk) 18:19, 3 March 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. It appears that sources found during this discussion and recent improvements to the article indicate notability and justify keeping this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serene (pianist)[edit]

Serene (pianist) (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 creator admitted a COI without being specific, and much of the content came from Alypeters, a blocked paid editor. On top of that, the article is really totally promotional with very poor sourcing (like, Medium--that's not OK). Drmies (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I find this [4], which looks ok, but that's about the only source I find. Unless more turn up, it's a !delete Oaktree b (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Careful, routine coverage of events doesn't qualify, see "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all." in WP:ROUTINE. It does help that it is a journalist at Hearst who wrote it rather than an organiser though. Lizthegrey (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It provides some background, not substantial coverage though. Leaning Delete at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Computing, China, and California. Skynxnex (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I know Serene professionally (but not closely enough to be a connected contributor); I'm happy to put some effort in regarding sourcing e.g. Mashable Fast Company Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung but I would agree probably NN as a musician alone. As far as the creator of article - yes, paid contributor, see Brian mansfield indicating that he does PR for musicians and is here to promote his clients. Lizthegrey (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lizthegrey, thanks. I don't think that the mansfield edits by themselves are automatically disqualifying and I didn't G5 it because other editors contributed--I am actually more troubled by the later paid editor. I don't think that the coverage you listed qualify her as notable, but there might well be a redirect to an appropriate article and a paragraph there. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Some additional sourcing - Secret Chicago (Secret Media Network), FutureZone de:Futurezone Groton School news (yeah, probably not fully reliable because school publication), and Paris Review (The Paris Review) but not sure how to work it into article. Lizthegrey (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (but rename) Having put some effort in to assemble sources (see above): on cusp of meeting WP:MUSICBIO but also on cusp of meeting WP:GNG through technology work alone; together, I think there is adequate reliable sourcing of multiple sources for the combination even if there's not multiple sources for _each_ category of achievement. This is a case where merger to Snowflake (software) would be inappropriate because Serene's work crosses multiple different areas. The secondary sources in fact note that few people both have professional musical careers without dedicating themselves to it full-time (e.g. conservatory study), and that it's unusual for Serene to both be a professional pianist _and_ notable technologist/entrepreneur at the same time. Lizthegrey (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  One issue I think I'm seeing is (musician) doesn't really encompass what is notable and why. Even if Serene is primarily used as a mononym theatrically, her notability is more heavily weighted towards the technologist/engineer side as far as reliable sources are concerned. So, I'd suggest renaming rather than leaving title as is to be clear which notability criterion is the primary one. Lizthegrey (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Serene is active in both technology and music, and is therefore maybe a bit difficult to categorise, but her work is notable, I'd say; technology she developed (Snowflake) is vitally important for censored people to access the free internet (via the Tor network or otherwise), and she is mentioned in various mainstream media articles (like the FAZ one linked in the page). Indeed it's unusual for people to have two wildly different career paths like music and technology, but that alone would not be a reason I feel to delete the article, so I'm agreeing with you Liz, that we should keep the article. Also, the article is quite well sourced now, I feel, not just only a Medium link. Aphotick (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This !vote was left by an established user with 2 total edits over approximately one year. Lizthegrey (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Liz! Yes, but personal circumstances got in the way in the meantime. I intend, time permitting, to be more active with the edits over time. Aphotick (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think it is important to keep this page as Serene's contribution to censorship circumvention as the creator of Snowflake is too important to delete and is likely to be of increasing interest with the articles about this new Snowstorm. Her musical background is written as a part of her life and not a direct promotion, but even if it were more promotional, it would warrant a rewrite rather than deletion. I discovered this article when researching about Snowflake and was surprised to see it up for removal. A final point about accuracy: from what I can tell it's not correct to say that Snowstorm is an attempt to commercialize Snowflake, as it seems to be doing things differently. I don't want to change it myself, but the article might be improved if this bit was checked and rephrased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KltpzyxM.rM (talk • contribs) 02:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This !vote was left by a newly registered user whose only edit has been participation in this AfD. Lizthegrey (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While it might seem like there is a consensus to Keep this article, I've grown to have skepticism for accounts whose first edit is at an AFD and we have several brand new, but articulate, editors. So, I'm relisting to get more participation here. Of course, this AFD can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz! I totally understand you want more engagement from others as well regarding whether to keep or delete the article, and you already know my opinion on it. I understand your reasoning for skepticism with newer accounts, but I was wondering what the strong arguments would be in favour of deletion? Serene seems notable enough, and the article to me seems reasonably well sourced. I took a look at the Wikipedia policies around AFD, but maybe you can shine a light here on the reasoning. Thanks. Aphotick (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not the Liz you're replying to but the key issue that's causing concern is a lack of reliable, independent sources to indicate sustained coverage over time. See WP:BLPRS and WP:NRV. Nobody here is saying that her work isn't important, only that we're unable to find sufficient independent news coverage to prove it. Any arguments here need to be made based on both policy and the evidence to back it. Lizthegrey (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Snowflake (software). Cullen328 (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Snowflake (software). I cannot find any significant, independent coverage about this subject. Fails WP:GNG. Subject is stated as a "pianist" and a "technologist". But fails subject-specific notability guideliens for both WP:NBIO and WP:NMUSIC. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 02:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What's your opinion on the sources I linked above regarding SIGCOV? I'm aware the article is lacking sources and needs additional sourcing added, but I have some leads on that sourcing... Lizthegrey (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @WikiLinuz @Cullen328 @Oaktree b as per relist note below, there are some questions as to whether additional sourcing that's been found is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. You've not commented since the sources were added, can you please note if your opinion is still the same or whether it's changed following a re-read? Cheers. Lizthegrey (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There are specific for subject-specific notability (please see the links), so rudimentary GNG wouldn't be sufficient (given this article requires SSN). --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 05:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @WikiLinuz: I'm not sure I follow your argument about subject-specific notability for NBIO as a technologist, but concede the argument for NMUSIC (and thus why I noted above that I think (musician) is the wrong disambiguation category). I see 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, see also WP:GNG from WP:BASIC, and A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability from WP:BIO#Additional criteria. If we choose to take the most specific criterion, say, WP:CREATIVE, then The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique should apply since she is the author of Snowflake. Which criterion do you think should be applied here and what do you think is missing for meeting that criterion? Lizthegrey (talk) 05:46, 5 March 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.

  1. Millstein, Lincoln (2023-01-17). "Self-taught musician Serene to perform at New Canaan's Grace Farms". CT Insider. Hearst Communications. Archived from the original on 2023-02-28. Retrieved 2023-02-28.

     The article notes: "Serene’s first claim to fame was as a renowned computer scientist and hacker who in 2016 created Snowflake, an open-source software project to circumvent internet censorship. ... Like coding, her music was largely self-taught. She started playing the piano at age 5. She attended Carnegie Mellon University and got her computer science degree in three years and went to work for Google. She earned enough to buy her first piano - a Steinway Model O. She left Google and started her professional music career only five years ago, with two of those interrupted by the pandemic. ... Serene’s collaborations include her role as composer for Kanye West’s Opera, premiered at Lincoln Center & Art Basel, as well as pianist and technologist with Blue Man Group’s founder, bringing futuristic innovations at the intersection of music and technology while also highlighting her own audiovisual synesthesia."

  2. Hitt, Elinor (2020-05-15). "Staff Picks: Costa, Candles, and California". The Paris Review. Archived from the original on 2023-02-28. Retrieved 2023-02-28.

     The review notes: "On Sunday night, the pianist Serene sat before her instrument in a dimly lit room, ready to perform the most recent installment of Fever’s Candlelight Concert series online. ... After opening with Ravel and Chopin, Serene performed the aria from the Goldberg Variations. She worked the keys with an Apollonian restraint, her two hands playing together as if in casual conversation. A pairing of sonatas by Beethoven followed—op. 31, no. 8, “Pathétique,” composed early in his career, and op. 111, no. 32, ... Serene urged that we consider Beethoven a master of improvisation—a designation not commonly given to classical composers. But she drove the point home with swinging tempos and athletic trills, positing Beethoven as a classical antecedent to jazz. Then came Liszt and Gershwin, and the concert concluded with a heartening round of “Rhapsody in Blue.” ... Unsurprisingly, Serene performed a spectacle to match. Watching Serene play is like watching Jackson Pollock paint; she lifts her hands high and strikes the keys with intention, producing an ordered and harmonious spattering of notes. Her next performance with Fever will be streaming on May 24."

  3. Newman, Jared (2023-02-08). "Snowstorm is a censorship-blocking VPN that might actually work". Fast Company. Archived from the original on 2023-02-28. Retrieved 2023-02-28.

     The article notes: "... says Serene, Snowstorm’s lead developer. (She only goes by her first name for security reasons.) ... Serene hadn’t expected to be spending this much time building upon Snowflake. After releasing the original prototype early 2016 as part of a fellowship with the Open Technology Fund, she left the technology world to focus on working as a concert pianist. ... To that end, Serene is trying to build a business around Snowstorm, raising $1 million from 1517 Fund, Tyler Cowen of Emergent Ventures, and a group of private angel investors."

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

  Cunard (talk) 08:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think number 3 is really "sigcov." as it only mentions Serene in passing when referencing Snowstorm. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says, "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."

I consider sources one and two to be substantial, while source three is not but can be combined with the other two sources to help demonstrate notability. Cunard (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Allowing more time to discuss the presented sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Snowflake (software) per reasons stated by WikiLinuz. Notable creation, but not enough SIGCOV of creator to establish notablity. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There's another source that just came out that I think focuses more on Serene's life story and how she came to create Snowflake/Snowstorm rather than on Snowstorm itself. TechRadar (TechRadar), which RSN has a positive opinion on. Does that new story address the concern over sigcov? Lizthegrey (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very good find. On 28 February 2023, I made the last comment in the AfD the second relist. The TechRadar article published on 1 March 2023 is a strong source that provides detailed biographical background about Serene. The article notes: "That’s not what the mononymic Serene thinks, both a professional concert pianist and security software developer who has eschewed her family name to protect her privacy. ... Snowstorm is the evolution of Snowflake, software that Serene developed seven years ago together with Arlo Breault and David Fifield ... Serene started to get familiar with WebRTC technology while she was working for Google. Starting at an early age, she quickly became the first engineer at Google Ideas (now Jigsaw), a dedicated team focused on developing tech solutions to support people around the world in their fight against cyberattacks, censorship and privacy breaches. ... She then decided to leave the Big Tech giant for being able to focus on open-source software, while cultivating her career as a professional musician. ... Serene has also launched a homonymous company and managed to raise $1 million so far, just enough to support a small team of developers."

    In combination with the other sources listed above, Serene clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says, "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".

    Cunard (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in light of sources highlighted by Cunard and Lizthegrey which easily satisfy WP:BASIC. My initial concern was that this is a WP:BLP and that we should respect the subject's own wishes to protect her privacy (and thus simply redirect to the software page). However, there is sufficient coverage in secondary sources to suggest that she is comfortable with a certain amount of public attention. Also, the information about her musical career does not belong on the Snowflake (software) page. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Without the Tech Radar source, it was still delete. With it, we're at !keep. Oaktree b (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is to Delete this article. If an editor would like to work on it in Draft space and submit it to WP:AFC for review, contact me. But a direct move back to main space will likely result in CSD G4 speedy deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Sylva[edit]

Gil Sylva (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 found of any notability. He is quoted in a press release[5], the second source is a Linkedin page, and nothing better was found online[6], nothing in Gnews, an extremely passing mention here and a publication here. Fram (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Engineering, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No in-depth coverage; nothing in the article to suggest this person did anything that would attract such coverage. Wikipedia documents people and things that have been written about elsewhere; unfortunately, that means we have far more articles about sportspeople than engineers but that doesn't mean we can have articles about engineers who aren't written about elsewhere. I had intended to make this nomination myself once the AfD for another creation by the same editor was concluded. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I proposed deletion of this article a few days ago, but my request was denied. The article, as it stands, was mostly cited from the individual's LinkedIn page, and I removed that reference and added citations needed. No sources seem to reference the individual's notability beyond one patent and the PR above has but a passing mention that he was on a team that pioneered a technique. At this point, I don't see any significant coverage showcasing the individual's notability, and I, personally, don't see a defense for notability here. --Engineerchange (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Please search for Gil Sylva's publications on friction stir welding, if you do not know them. Wikpedia is focussing too much on sportlers and celebrities, but should also cover science and engineering. NearEMPTiness (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you'll find that science is well covered on enwiki. However, could you perhaps indicate which publications make him notable? Just pointing to a search is not helpful to establish notability, and the best I can find is them being a coauthor of "Friction stir welding system development for thin gauge aerospace structures", cited 26 times. Are there more important publications I missed? Fram (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the motivation. I subsequently added a literature section into the article. NearEMPTiness (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @NearEMPTiness: If this is your argument, please indicate how this person passes WP:NPROF. --hroest 15:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While I agree with the sentiment that academics and engineers need more representation, this is not such a case. The impact in these fields is generally measured by publications and awards as described in WP:NACADEMIC and this person clearly doesnt pass these criteria. I could only find 5 publications on Google Scholar of which the one with the most citations had 26 citations. Just as a comparison, another person in the field Brian T. Gibson has 17 publications with over 17 citations and one with over 500 citations -- and doesnt have a WP article. --hroest 15:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The friction stir welding process was only invented in 1991, and Gil Sylva as a pioneer working for industrial companies has obviously published less than a gouvernment funded researcher 10 years later. The pioneers planted the seed, which are now harvested during commercialisation. Please keep by assessing the content and not the number of the publications. Feel free to publish an article about Brian T. Gibson, if you want. NearEMPTiness (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @NearEMPTiness: Perhaps publications in the future will help defend that point, but the content of one's own publications defending their own notability, as you reason, is not valuable in an encyclopedia, we value independent (and reliable) sources. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Specific criteria notes, you are arguing point (f) and perhaps point (g) (by posting more and more publications) of Criterion 1. The phrase "sufficiently broadly construed" is important here for point (f), and this individual does not have sufficient independent reliable sources describing their "significant impact", a qualifier of Criterion 1. --Engineerchange (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @NearEMPTiness: I would love to have articles honoring pioneers in such a process, however in order to do this we need reliable sources that actually substantiate this. This does not seem to be case here. As Engineerchange points out, maybe this will be the case in the future if a book or review on the history of the process gets written that we can cite. Currently there is simply no reliable source for the claim that he is a "pioneer" and has contributed important concepts to the field -- neither in written literature nor by the number of citations of his work. --hroest 19:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. hroest 15:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The argument that he is notable as a pioneer of friction stir welding does not fly. Friction stir welding was invented in the UK in 1991 (our article says); he worked in the US and the earliest documentation we have on him using this technique is dated 1996. His publications in Google Scholar on the topic have citation counts 29 ("A Feasibility study for self Reacting Pine Tool Welding"), 26 ("Friction stir welding system development for thin gauge aerospace structures"), 14 ("A Feasibility study for self Reacting Pine Tool Welding"), 10 ("Friction stir welding development for aerospace applications"), and then tailing off rapidly. Friction stir welding as a general topic has publications with high citations: 8882 (Mishra & Ma 2005), 776 (Rai, De, Bhadeshia, et al 2011), 481 (Zhang, Cao, Larose et al 2012), 481 (He, Gu, & Ball 2014), 382 (Cam & Mistikoglu 2014), 356 (Lohwasser & Chen 2009), etc. So his work does not stand out in any way in this area. I see no basis for WP:NPROF notability, nor any other claim of notability in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I found some evidence that he was involved in the invention: said Gil Sylva, a senior engineer in Materials and Processes who was part of the team that developed the technique at TWI in Cambridge. [7] but no further evidence and this seems to be a press release / puff piece. A patent search also does not substantiate this claim, with him being on a single patent from 2008 about a calibration of the process but not the process itself. This review article cites 2 articles with regards to the invention of the process:

• W.M. Thomas, E.D. Nicholas, J.C. Needham, M.G. Murch, P. Templesmith, C.J. Dawes, G.B. Patent Application No. 9125978.8 (December 1991).
• C. Dawes, W. Thomas, TWI Bulletin 6, November/December 1995, p. 124.

neither of which mentions Sylva and I cannot find any other evidence to substantiate this claim. So it does seem like he was involved but not involved enough to be on the patent or initial publications. --hroest 19:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gyl Sylva was one of the pioneers, who helped industrialising the process in the US aerospace industry, after it had been invented and demonstrated in the UK. His publications are certainly sufficient to substantiate notability. It might be worth reading them, before you decide about deleting the article. NearEMPTiness (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPROF and WP:RS - what I or other editors think about the articles he published does not really matter but what does matter is what other subject experts think of his productivity. Your task is not to convince me or other editors of the fact that he was indeed a pioneer and given all your evidence I am happy to believe you. However if you would like to keep the article, then you need to show secondary sources that acknowledge him as such a pioneer - so other established, reputable sources (like peer reviewed journals or established people in the field) that make such a statement. Unfortunately, if Wikipedia editors decide to call him a pioneer without a source saying so (even if true) is considered WP:OR and will not hold up. --hroest 03:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is a lack of WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:NOTABILITY. The article subject doesn’t meet WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NPROF. Shawn Teller (talk) 04:19, 8 March 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. This article was speedy deleted as a CSD G4 so I'm closing this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Santa Dasji Kathiababa[edit]

Swami Santa Dasji Kathiababa (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 religious person. As far as I can tell from a search on Google there are no independent reliable sources in English for this person. There is an article on Bengali Wikipedia about this person: bn:সন্তদাস কাঠিয়াবাবা, but the sources cited are just as awful as the English-language Wikipedia article on him. This suggests to me that finding reliable sources about him is just as unachievable in Bengali as it is in English. By the way the article has a collection of redirects from its page moves: Santadasji Kathiababa, Santa Das Kathiababa, Santa Dasji Kathiababa. Please can these be deleted too. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Hinduism, Bangladesh, and India. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes second criteria of WP:RELPEOPLE which says "Have been appointed to multiple or significant roles of leadership within a major religion." and he served as Devacārya of Nimbarka Sampradaya. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 18:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Where did you find that he served as Devacārya of Nimbarka Sampradaya? Neither the article itself nor the references used say that. If you can provide sourcing, that would be an immense help in resolving this AfD, but as it stands I see no real notability being backed by anything other than circular linking to Bengali Wikipedia. Nmarshall25 (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I’m pretty sure this was deleted at AfD a year or so ago, likely under a somewhat different name. Mccapra (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santadas Kathiababa resulted in delete on 28 August 2021
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santadas Kathiababa (2nd nomination) resulted in delete on 9 March 2022

-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The sources that Srabanta Deb keeps re-adding to this article are not necessarily reliable and are not independent of the subject matter. Looking through page revisions will demonstrate that I have attempted to clear up some of the references used. I have spent some time reviewing the referenced materials and would be grateful if anyone could verify the information contained in the book Santadas Kathamrita. I cleared up the other references. I am concerned about the independence of the YouTube video and the lack of clear information on the GODNIC site, but I am willing to at least leave those in for now. This is a somewhat reluctant delete since it seems like the figure might be important, but Wikipedia ultimately needs reliability and independence for new articles, not mere importance. Nmarshall25 (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I crosslinked the page to other wikis that have information about the same person and am seriously concerned about the number of WP:CIRCULAR violations across the English WP (a couple of revisions ago), Bengali WP, and Tatar WP (which links to an article of this very subject which was previously deleted).

  See:

  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santadas Kathiababa
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santadas Kathiababa (2nd nomination)

  Nmarshall25 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Articles about this figure have also been deleted repeatedly in the Tamil Wikipedia. See: [8]. It is concerning that User:Srabanta Deb seems to be the only editor on any language who considers this figure notable and that (apparently) no one is able to readily find acceptable references about him in any of English, Bengali, Tatar, or Tamil.

  I am also concerned that this might be a form of long term abuse that would be appropriate to elevate to WP:ARBITRATION. Nmarshall25 (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lack of independent sources, at least in the several languages that I can read. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Request not to remove Swami Santadasji Kathiababa's edit. Swami Santadasji Kathiababa was the first Bengali saint and eminent figure of Hinduism in the Indian subcontinent. Santdasji has many devotees all over the world. To preserve the great biography of Santadasji forever and to let future generations know about him, I have edited English Wikipedia. Swami Santadasji Kathiyababa Swami Santadasji Kathiyababa was famous like Swami Vivekananda, Ramakrishna Paramahamsa, Abhaycharanabrinda Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. But I am personally very hurt that this edit of Santdasji is repeatedly removed. I and Swami Santadasji Kathiyababa's followers all over the world request that this edit be kept in English Wikipedia forever. Srabanta Deb (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)^[9][reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an editor would like to work on this article in Draft space, contact me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Avendaño[edit]

Luca Avendaño (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:NFOOTY is no longer a valid SNG, so GNG must be met. It needs several refs from independent, reliable, secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. Was moved to draft in hopes of improvement, but immediately returned to mainspace. Coverage is simply routine sports coverage. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Guatemala. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I added sources to the page. Clearly significant young figure in Guatemalan football with ongoing pro career in Europe. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Look to be routine reports about trials/youth call-ups? GiantSnowman 21:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Return to Draft probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. RedPatch (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. [10] is a database source: N. [11] is a rather routine match recap/coverage of his call-up to the youth national team: N. [12] is almost identical in content to the prior source, only having a few more details: N. [13] is yet another piece nearly indistinguishable from the previous two: N. [14] is a passing mention: N. Way TOOSOON for this kid. JoelleJay (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or re-draftify not enough SIGCOV to pass GNG. Carson Wentz (talk) 02:28, 8 March 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Auditing Britain – photography is not a crime[edit]

Auditing Britain – photography is not a crime (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)

Apart from the opening sentence, this article reads like an essay on photographing the police or a coat rack on which to hang opinions on police conduct which consists largely of original research. Nothing here is encyclopaedic (WP:SOAP point 2), and if there is a coherent subject here, no reliable sources are cited to establish its notability. This belongs on someone's blog somewhere, not in an encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, another NearEmptiness article about this organisation? They recently created Graham Dyson as an "Auditing Britain"-based BLP attack piece on a non-notable person (article afterwards deleted at AfD). Perhaps time to give them a topic ban from Auditing Britain if they can't edit neutrally about it. Fram (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no GNews hits, very few hits in general[15]. Removing the NPOV second part of the title doesn't really help[16]. Basically, "Auditing Britain" etcetera is not a "trend" but a single Youtube channel. Perhaps with WP:TNT and someone neutral starting from scratch, something useful could be created. The current article, right from the title and the intro, isn't what we need though. Fram (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why are we Auditing Britain? There is no reason to have that in the title if it's not explained in the article. Could perhaps be selectively merged into a Policing in the UK. Oaktree b (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Photography, Conspiracy theories, Law, Police, and Internet. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although the question of photography and police inevitably comes up regularly in media, this article is clearly a campaign piece from one particular perspective, and is trying to make a story out of sources that aren't part of a "movement" or trend. So I wouldn't even merge it to articles on UK policing - we're more likely to see the subject dealt with appropriately if editors there start from scratch. In any case, the article completely misses the other half of the topic: that people being stopped by the police often don't want their arrest filmed! It's possible that one could write an article about the interaction of photography and policing, but this isn't how to go about doing it, and the article would have a different title. Elemimele (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. ¹⁴¹Pr {^contribs/_{Best page}} 20:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. No more than an essay and opinion piece. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Platform (European politics)[edit]

Platform (European politics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Completely unsourced original research which is better covered on other articles. EggsAndCakey (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Europe. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unsourced original research  // Timothy :: talk  02:54, 8 March 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- (album)[edit]

- (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:CRISTAL applies here. D.Lazard (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply; it has a release date, cover art, track listing and there's no speculation. It is a notable album by a prominent artist with enough sources already. It will only grow and we're only two months out from release. (D.Lazard appears to have come across this article because I added a hatnote to an article they edit, Subtraction, as Subtract redirects there, and the album is pronounced "subtract". Unless Subtract is made into a disambiguation article, this article should definitely be linked from where it redirects because it's how you say the album's title.) Ss112 14:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep agreed with the above. — Status (talk · contribs) 14:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - improper use of CRYSTAL. It's not used as a blanket reason to prevent future album articles from existing. There's already 3 high level reliable sources in the article citing all of the content. That's not what a CRYSTAL violation is. Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - no the hell it does not apply. Did you even read the sources provided? mediafanatic17 talk 14:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep already has coverage in Rolling Stone and Billboard. I suppose we could draft the article until released; I'm almost certain there will be coverage about it. The artist is a major international singer. Short of something tragic happening, there will be coverage about it. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as all of the above. Certainly not WP:CRYSTAL. Peterpie123rww (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I do understand any possible concern about having an article about an upcoming album that was only recently announced, but as there is already coverage in established sources like Rolling Stone and Billboard, I do not see a strong case for deletion. I could maybe see an argument for drafting the article, but this is pretty much guaranteed to get coverage based on the artist. Aoba47 (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy/SNOW keep - Consensus already that the use of WP:CRYSTAL as a rationale here does not apply. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep the rollout pretty much only started today and will only grow bigger from here with possible single releases and promotion, as other users already pointed out. The album is only 2 months away and is already equipped with release date, cover and track listing. Lk95 (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep it already has multiple reliable sources and a confirmed track list, release date, and cover, I don’t really understand how WP:CRYSTAL applies given the amount of info available already. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per above. Spiderpig662 (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I question how you came to this conclusion that it applies. Even though it does not, you're not going to convince anyone by merely saying "This applies to this article!" and not elaborating. Fernsong (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Garuda3 (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

China Pharmacy[edit]

China Pharmacy (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 journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Qu, Qing-hui 屈清慧; Zhang, Xin-yang 张馨洋 (2021). "《中国药房》高下载论文的文献计量学研究" [Bibliometrics Research on High-Download Papers of "China Pharmacy" Chinese Full Text]. Journal of Medical Information 医学信息 (in Chinese) (16): 19–24. ISSN 1006-1959. Archived from the original on 2023-03-02. Retrieved 2023-03-02.

     Here are the author affiliations: "QU Qing-hui; ZHANG Xin-yang; Editorial Department of "Northwest Pharmaceutical Journal", School of Pharmacy, Xi’an Jiaotong University; AVIC Xi’an Flight Automatic Control Research Institute".

     The abstract notes: "Objective To study the high-download papers（download frequency ≥1000） of "China Pharmacy" and the correlation between the download frequency and the citation frequency, so as to provide reference for improving the academic quality and influence of the journal. Methods The annual distribution, number of authors, co-authors, organization type distribution, regional distribution, funding status, and downloads of highdownload papers in "China Pharmacy" from 2000 to 2021 were carried out using China HowNet’s "Chinese Academic Journals（Online Edition）"."

  2. Fei, Xiao-fan 费小凡; Ren, Xue-song 任雪松; Li, Kai-lan 李开兰; Yang, Liping 杨利平; Su, Lan 苏兰; Peng, Ying 彭英; Liu, Chunyu 刘春雨 (2001). "《中国药房》临床随机对照及药动学试验文献方法学评价" [Methodological Evaluation of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Journal of China Pharmacy from 1990–2000]. West China Medical Journal 华西医讯 (in Chinese) (2): 128, 133–134. ISSN 1002-0179. Archived from the original on 2023-03-02. Retrieved 2023-03-02.

     Here are the author affiliations: "FEI Xiao-fan, REN Xue-song, LI Kai-lan, et al. (Department of Pharmacy, First University Hospital, West China University of Medical Sciences, Chengdu 610041, China)".

     The abstract notes (bolding added for emphasis): "Objective:To realize the quality of the ethics of the randomized controlled trials in Chinese Pharmacy from 1990 to 2000.Methods:It was checked over page-by-page the control trials of clinical therapeutic studies in Chinese Pharmacy from 1990 to 2000 to identify strictly randomized controlled tests（RCT）and controlled clinical tests（CCT）according to the criteria of the handbook of Cochrane collaboration in 1997.Result: A trial of 63 articles on clinical trials was published in 66 issues covered 11 volumes of the Chinese Pharmacy,among which,there were 1 issues of RCT. Conclusion; There still exist many problems and urge the clinical workers to adopt RCT and blind trial as more as possible and guarantee RCTs to be precise as it demands"

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow China Pharmacy (simplified Chinese: 中国药房; traditional Chinese: 中國藥房) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not sure. I am neutral so far. @Cunard Those articles do not examine the journal, they examine articles published on the journal.GNC states: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" Cinadon36 10:04, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I consider journal articles evaluating the body of work a journal publishes to be significant coverage of that journal's output and practices so allow the journal to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I found some papers discussing the journal with Baidu Xueshu. [17][18][19][20] I don't have access to any of these, but they should be enough for notability. Mucube (talk • contribs) 01:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree per above editors. Taung Tan (talk) 18:21, 8 March 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Elder[edit]

Steven Elder (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 actor that fails WP:NACTOR with no significant roles. There is only one source for this article with a mere sentence that refers to the actor. No other reliable sources to be found. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:51, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  please delete this page Tuppenceworth (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ITV

  https://www.itv.com/presscentre/media-releases/itvx-announces-further-casting-arthurian-legend-drama-winter-king

  DEADLINE HOLLYWOOD

  https://deadline.com/2023/02/winter-king-bad-wolf-itvx-cast-arthurian-legend-filming-wraps-1235253810/amp/

  THE DAILY EXPRESS:

  https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/south-yorkshire-actor-steven-is-at-core-of-tvs-apple-tree-yard-448557

  INDEPENDENT TALENT GROUP:

  https://www.independenttalent.com/actors/steven-elder/ Silverwood1931 (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.itv.com/presscentre/media-releases/itvx-announces-further-casting-arthurian-legend-drama-winter-king Silverwood1931 (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please either delete the page or Jauerbackdude?/dude please stop distorting it by deleting well sourced information Silverwood1931 (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The theatre review is a one-sentence passing mention. ITV is clearly marked as a press release. Deadline is a name-drop. The Star isn't so much an article as it is him cutting an extended promo, as it's preactically all quotes from him. Independent Talent Group is his agency. None of these are reliable sources, and thus Notability as Wikipedia defines it has not been demonstrated. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 16:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  so delete the page Tuppenceworth (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Under what criteria? None of them apply so far as I can tell. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 17:02, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete trivial mention or press-release informative articles, I don't find SIGCOV about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or weak retarget to Apple Tree Yard. He had a significant role in that miniseries, and acted in a controversial sexual assault scene that is mentioned in the article and got some press at the time. Besides that I concur with the nomination. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - other than a role in Good as Adolf Eichmann, I see nameless or red shirt roles. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 7 March 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. We have very weak nomination, a weak deletion argument, a weak keep argument, a strong keep argument (in the form of point refutation) and a strong delete argument. I find no consensus, and a third relist is inadvisable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Mighty Manatees[edit]

The Mighty Manatees (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. Hoponpop69 (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hoponpop69, can you provide a more cogent reason for why you believe this article should be deleted from the project? It might help persuade other editors to your point of view. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sufficient sources to pass bullet 1 of WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:MUSIC, a bunch of articles from the free press about some fundraising evening is not notability, neither is a certificate for "Best New Band of 1992" from the local Chamber of Commerce, nor a self-funded Cassette Single. More importantly, their record labels are either non-existent or have a catalog of exactly one artist, The Mighty Manatees. They may be a great local band, supporting worthy local causes, and surviving for 30 years is a testament to the fun that they get out of their music, but what they are not is notable MNewnham (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that's a mischaracterization of the sources; the Reading Eagle, the Morning Call, and the Times Herald are legitimate newspapers, not 'free presses' (which appears to be used derogatorily here), and they're covering a group with 30+ years of time contributing to a regional scene. (A group doesn't have to be on a noteworthy label to qualify, if there are other sources to demonstrate importance; we have many articles on musicians who self-release.) This actually is a textbook case for WP:MUSIC bullet 7; this is a group that never broke out with a hit or a critical-darling record, but it remained a steady presence in a regional scene such that it now acts as representative of that region, and we have multiple newspaper sources to demonstrate that. Chubbles (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is an old article and passed under old rules. The article is doing nobody any harm by being here, and if it was, it would have been tossed a decade ago.KatoKungLee (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old rules change over time, and the current rules for notability at WP:NBAND have gotten tougher. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - They have indeed been mentioned in some reliable newspapers, but I submit that those mentions do not qualify as "significant" per WP:SIGCOV. The article in The Morning Call is almost entirely about the young guy who died and inspired the benefit concert at which the band merely played. The article in The Times Herald is not about the Mighty Manatees but is instead about a side project (opening for Van Morrison) by two of the members. As for other media mentions, I agree with MNewnham above on how they rarely get beyond local gig announcements. The band has a had a long career as local favorites, but there are not enough significant sources specifically about them for an encyclopedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:24, 8 March 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!} 07:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melchor F. Cichon[edit]

Melchor F. Cichon (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 fail WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR in its current form and I am unable to find any better sources that are not circular references back to Wikipedia. It reads like a resume, and the only two current sources are a Geocities site and a Blogspot blog; neither appear to be reliable sources per WP:RS. If those two sources are disqualified then it's an entirely unsourced biography of a (presumably) living person. Based on the text as written, it still appears to fail WP:AUTHOR as there is no evidence that this author's work is particularly well-known or important to the field (two awards that lack their own pages; no evidence that it was "the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"). Page has been tagged since 2011 as needing help. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Poetry, and Philippines. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems to have led an active and productive life, but nothing that comes even closely to any criteria of notability. Jeppiz (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, non-notable author. Google News search brings up no reliable sources for him. MaterialWorks _(talk) 21:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Here's a reliable source for the Gawad Pambansang Alagad ni Balagtas. While I appreciate the work he's done in his craft and for our alma mater, I think they are of local notability. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete was unable to find other sources to back this up. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a pass of a different N guideline, NACADEMIC. His many awards & affiliations should demonstrate notability. BhamBoi (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see any NACADEMIC criterion that he could possibly satisfy, and the above comments already make clear why he has not demonstrated notability through GNG or NAUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Based on the sources available for the subject, WP:NBIO and WP:NAUTHOR aren’t satisfied. If there were sufficient WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:NOTABILITY and satisfy WP:GNG, I would be more inclined to vote keep. Shawn Teller (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the Opposition (Peru)[edit]

Leader of the Opposition (Peru) (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 cites no sources, and the tag has been there for over seven years. According to the article, it's not an official position but just a conventional an honorary title. In addition, I found no google results for any combination of Peru + leader of the opposition, so it doesn't even seem as though it is a conventional title, but is merely a fictional title. Estar8806 (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Estar8806 (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: An unofficial label to refer to some politicians. Unsourced. Not an encyclopedic topic, no SIGCOV addressing the subject (the title) directly and indepth  // Timothy :: talk  02:58, 8 March 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dhananjay Galani[edit]

Dhananjay Galani (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:PRODUCER , WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG AShiv1212 (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AShiv1212 (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 4 March 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 OL Reign players. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Hazlett[edit]

Kim Hazlett (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. Unable to find a single GNG-passing source. JTtheOG (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Washington. JTtheOG (talk) 04:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redirect to List of OL Reign players per nom as an ATD. Carson Wentz (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC) I would support the creation of an article for List of OL Reign Players and redirecting to that list, but absent such a page, this should be deleted. Carson Wentz (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Page does exist, just capitalization messing it up. Seany91 (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Changed my vote above. Carson Wentz (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Redirecting a player who never played serves no purpose. GiantSnowman 19:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Hazlett actually made one appearance for the Reign and her name appears on the above redirect target. So a redirect here is a very reasonable ATD. Carson Wentz (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She appeared in a cup game, that's why the appearance wasn't included in the infobox (which only includes records from league games). Seany91 (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of OL Reign players per WP:ATD; there is no significant coverage available to merit a standalone article. Jogurney (talk) 04:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of OL Reign players as some users have argued. That seems like the best option at the current time.Historyday01 (talk) 04:49, 8 March 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!} 21:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Wardle[edit]

Sharon Wardle (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm surprised that a person who represent her country in international diplomacy is not as notable as a bloke who is chosen to be one of eleven to kick a ball around for his city. IMO ambassadors are notable just because they are chosen. The fact that they have not been involved in an international incident is an achievement. Am I to understand that you intend to bring the article for every ambassador here? I don't usually get involved in deletion discussions, I prefer to just improve the article. But I'm thinking that might encourage the idea that this process is improving articles. Lets see how this goes. (Being chosen as a national ambassador is impressive which is why it is widely reported). Victuallers (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Many ambassador articles have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Person with the ball-kicking abilities should have things written about him in the press, most ambassadors do not. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Algeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. only routine rather than indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment: "man chosen to kicks ball down field in different coloured shirt" is, in some eyes, in depth coverage whereas woman chosen to represent her country is just routine stuff. Really? The fact that mistakes have been made in the past is no justification for making another. Oddly whenever these people are mentioned in the press they seem to always mention that they are ambassadors (why would that be?). Now I think that might be because that is thought to be notable... and it is, inherently. Victuallers (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If 193 UN member states have one Ambassador in every other nation state that's 37,056 ambassadors at any one time, doing day-to-day diplomacy. Most of these don't make the news in their own right, other than routine coverage of their appointments, presenting their credentials, attending routine events etc. The ones who receive substantial coverage for significant events should be included, as should the ones who craft important international agreements or are highly decorated (i.e. Knighthoods/damehoods and other such honours in the UK for example). For the rest of them, I don't think there are enough sources to go on. Uhooep (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I read online that Central African Republic has 18 embassies. The idea that every country might have an ambassador in every other country is incorrect. Only a few operate over 100 embassies (see: List of countries by number of diplomatic missions.) I see the good faith in the inherent notability claim and the counter argument, but please don't frame it with the incorrect starting point that there could be 37,056 of them at any time, when there obviously isn't. CT55555(talk) 17:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point .... but even if it were true and we wrote an article for each of them then those articles would still be lost is the ridiculous number of male footballer articles. Your argument underlines that if a country chooses an ambassador they do it because its inherently important to their national interest (there's a thing). Victuallers (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Sources for this and probably other ambassadors will be found in the newspapers of the host country, which means that we have language difficulties and not a lot of first-world search coverage. For this person I found this, this, and this, although the latter is not directly about the ambassador. I didn't look far and wide so there probably are more sources, but I don't know how to reach good Gambian info. Lamona (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've upped the references to twelve. I would like to point out that the additions make the person no more notabe than they were when this was nominated. AfD is meant to be a measure of notability not a beauty contest judging whether there is enough obvious evidence of it. One may prefer to not recognise inherent notability. Its your choice. However it exists. Victuallers (talk) 23:58, 13 February 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)} 03:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appears to have sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Lamona and WP:HEY. There now appears to be enough WP:RS-based significant coverage to pass the notability bar. Sal2100 (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Good work by Victuallers. I agree that in theory an ambassador could prove to be non-notable, but I seriously doubt whether any British ambassador is, thanks to the level of attention their careers and activities get -- if not the significant honours that usually come their way. Moonraker (talk) 23:31, 6 March 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. This one was a close call, and neither side of the debate on the sources really seems to have convinced the other of anything, but opinion since the article was expanded on 8 March looks to have shifted towards a consensus to keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Kaszuba[edit]

Jakub Kaszuba (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 and doesn't pass GNG HeinzMaster (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Poland. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I tend to think we have too many catalogue-entries for minor sportspeople. He played in Ekstraklasa (top level in Poland), but I think this might no longer be sufficient? Pl. wiki article does not cite any media coverage, I could probably dig something up but I am not motivated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - @Piotrus:, I found [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30],[31], [32], and [33], among many more Polish sources. Made 29 appearances and scored 4 goals for fully pro Polish top flight team. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of this is niche (perhaps even fan-based), but an interview in Gazeta Krakowska is an evidence of some visiblity. Still, WP:INTERVIEWS are not high-quality sourcing. Bt to see he is not notable, well, the nom should now criticize the sources if they still disagree. Coverage has been found, not great but not a joke either. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. 1 is a brief mention in a match recap, N. 2 is a short blurb in a "where are they now" niche publication piece on Young Ekstraklasa players, N. 3 is somewhat better, but is primarily focused on details of a transfer agreement between two clubs rather than direct coverage of Kaszuba, N. 4 is an interview with some independent coverage, but it doesn't seem to be enough for GNG, N. 5 is a pure Q&A interview, N. 6 is another "where are they now" blurb with just a few sentences on him, N. 7 is another Q&A interview, N. 8 is yet another "WaTN" blurb lamenting his failed potential, N. 9 is a tiny routine transaction announcement, why would you even include this? N 10 is a Q&A interview, N. 11–13 are articles straight from his club, obviously not independent, N. JoelleJay (talk) 08:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 10:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources above. #4 absolutely has enough non-interview content to be considered GNG-passing. In addition to that, WP:ANYBIO allows that if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. I believe there is enough non-trivial mentions along with the one GNG-passing source to allow for an article on this subject. Frank Anchor 17:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Frank Anchor, that interview comes from ASInfo, which has the Polish Football Association (PZPN) as a PR/marketing client and thus is not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, because you specifically said it’s is an interview with some independent coverage. In my opinion there is enough independent coverage here. Frank Anchor 23:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was my assessment before I noticed the byline at the bottom. I still disagree that it is sufficient coverage for GNG, but that's now irrelevant since it's not independent. JoelleJay (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kaszuba has played for at least four clubs overseen at the time by PZPN. And I don't see how any of those other sources satisfy the SPORTSBASIC SIGCOV requirements. JoelleJay (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, that is a HUGE stretch to say that is not an independent source since Mr. Kaszuba is not directly affiliated with the Polish FA (having no caps for the national team). That would be the equiilent of saying an ESPN article on an NBA player is not independent because ESPN has a media agreement with the NBA, and the thought of that being a non-independent source is simply laughable. However, with or without this as an independent source, there is still enough to pass ANYBIO. Frank Anchor 13:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A media agreement, where a news org is given direct press access to or exclusive coverage of events from a sports org, is different from the sports org being a PR client of an intermediary that produces articles for the sports org to distribute to the media. AFAIK the NBA does not have legal editorial control over what ESPN reports, whereas ASInfo is explicitly "[creating] PR information with great potential for publication in the media with a large reach." That is not an independent relationship. And I still do not see where you are finding he meets NBASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what non-independent means. Ortizesp (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; I cannot find in-depth coverage online - in fact Gazeta Krakowska has a blurb that sums up his career pretty well: "w seniorskiej piłce nie był skuteczny." ("in senior football, he wasn't effective"). There just isn't anything available that would be significant coverage. Jogurney (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the 13 sources I found above, I also found [34], [35], [36] and [37], among more Polish sources. Made 29 appearances and scored 4 goals for fully pro Polish top flight team and has extensive career in Polish lower leagues. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. 14 is passing mentions in routine match coverage, #15 is routine transfer coverage with barely 2 sentences on him, #16 is passing mentions in routine match coverage, #17 is more routine transfer coverage. Why would you link these? JoelleJay (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG, analysis of sources by JoelleJay clearly shows this. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I found 17+ sources above, many of which focus on Kaszuba or write about his career, with many more Polish sources on the internet I haven't listed here,. Made 29 appearances and scored 4 goals for fully pro Polish top flight team and also played in pro Polish lower leagues. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You found 17 sources that do not provide IRS SIGCOV, why should we trust your opinion that there are "many more Polish sources" out there over Jogurney's, especially when your !vote match rate across hundreds of athlete AfDs is nearly 40 percentage points lower than theirs? JoelleJay (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Amen Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors and I disagree with your opinion that the 17 sources do not provide IRS SIGCOV, as shown in the keep votes above (which outnumber the delete votes). Its fine, we can agree to disagree. Also, I have just spent an hour doing a WP:HEY and vastly expanded the article with the sources. WP:HEY states that it can be "invoked during deletion discussions to point out that an article has been significantly improved since it was nominated for deletion". Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the posted sources above establish notability. I disagree with JoelleJay’s analysis of the sources no matter how much WP:BLUDGEONing this user does to try to get their point across. Specifically, there is enough non-routine coverage and I consider the ASInfo page to be far enough removed from the subject to be independent therefore passing GNG. Carson Wentz (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets WP:GNG.KatoKungLee (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the assessment on the above the sources that they fail to establish that the subject passes GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - if this guy had been American and played a single game of pro-football or baseball in 1901 there would be a clamour of keep !votes with far less sourcing than this. I say if that's the standard we are working to, then everyone who ever played major sports at major teams are notable. JMWt (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thats simply not true, the standard is clear per WP:NSPORTS, pass GNG or GT*O. Those who do not pass GNG regularly get deleted or redirected, see recent examples of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Babcock, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marv Smith, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Comer (American football) and notably Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Green. Attemts to game the system, such as by trying to pass dozens of non-sigcov sources as sigcov, will only lead to the Wikipedia community coming down hard on the sports articles. Again. Alvaldi (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could list many more that have been kept. I'm not gaming any system, as far as I'm concerned, any person that plays sports but is only found as a brief mention in a database is not notable. But that's clearly not the standard in play for many American sports. JMWt (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that any person that plays sports but only has database sources or brief mentions in others is not notable. WP:NSPORTS2022 reaffirmed that athletes need enough SIGCOV to pass GNG for their articles to be kept. Despite that, there have been attempts by many users to bypass that in various ways, some successful and some not, and not just on articles on American athletes, such as the above mentioned. I follow various sport related AfD's, and if anything, American sport related AfD's are not the biggest culprit in the problems we are having with sport related AfD's. And even if that was that was the case, !voting keep here to prove a WP:POINT makes the !voter just as much part of the problem as those attempting to game the system. Alvaldi (talk) 10:48, 9 March 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 The Game discography. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by the Game[edit]

List of songs recorded by the Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Cites zero sources, no appearance of independent notability. QuietHere (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is a link to this page's first AfD from 2014. QuietHere (talk) 03:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Game discography where this kind of stuff belongs. We don't need two articles about the same thing. Also, someone doesn't understand where numerals land in terms of alphabetization. The come before 'A'. Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @QuietHere: Category:Lists of songs recorded by American artists shows how many of these there are from America, with Category:Lists of songs by recording artists showing all the other nations. Please don't nominate these one by one. Just discuss what should be done with them somewhere, then nominate all of them at once. Dream Focus 15:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A few years ago, we held a discussion at one of the music Wikiprojects, and there wasn't much agreement beyond well sourced/written ones (List of songs recorded by Mariah Carey) were acceptable and ones where an artist has few to no song articles (List of songs recorded by DJ Quik) didn't require theirs own song list article. (Kind of operating on the same concepts as WP:NAV.) There was a lot of gray area on situations in between, like this one. That said, unsourced articles are pretty firmly cemented as "not okay", so I don't see any grounds for lecturing like this. (Though I would have probably just boldly redirected it.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I just grabbed a handful that I saw had old AfDs where they got kept on poor grounds and hadn't been subsequently removed. Wasn't sure a bold redirect would be appropriate given they'd already been contested regardless of how many years ago it was (in this case it was 2014) nor how inappropriate the keep rationale may have been. And for what it's worth, I also support the redirect target DMartin listed below. QuietHere (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I hadn't realized this had been at AFD before. If that's the case, then you're right, bold redirect probably isn't ideal. Sergecross73 msg me 02:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears to be because it got moved in between from "The Game" to "the Game" that it isn't listed properly as a second AfD. Might be a technical error worth reporting at whatever the appropriate venue for that is. Will add a link to the first AfD to my opening. QuietHere (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So sourcing/presentation would be the criteria here as I see it, since this issue has blown up like this... There is no explanation why a mere collection of data for an average rapper like The Game would be in compliance with WP:NOTDATABASE.

  This article is clearly just a list and must not exist in current fashion. MitYehor (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Game discography: I can see no reason for this to be separate article. –DMartin 18:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Discography is not an appropriate redirect target because the discography is for album and singles. Many of the songs themselves were not released as singles. But there certainly are sources for the songs recorded by the Game, for example here. AfD is not for cleanup. Rlendog (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not a source, that's just a list of songs without any context. We have WP:NOTDIRECTORY for a reason. And disagreeing with the redirect target (which, for what it's worth, I don't) isn't a reason for keeping. If anything it'd be a reason for deleting. QuietHere (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a reliable source. NOTDIRECTORY addresses Wikipedia articles, not sources. Rlendog (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But the only thing that source would be good for is confirming the list of songs we already have here, which would still leave us with a list of songs recreated from there. We'd be recreating their directory and that's the violation. The sourcing needs to support notability, not just the existence of the songs. QuietHere (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that source confirms the list of songs recorded by this artist. And it is pretty well established that lists of songs recorded by an artist are acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines and do not violate NOTDIRECTORY.Rlendog (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And that was just one easy to find source. There are other sources that discuss selections of his songs collectively, such as this and this. Rlendog (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a standard type of list on Wikipedia and there are many examples of it. I agree with Dream Focus's sentiment that any issues with the notability of these kinds of lists should be discussed at a different venue rather than at an individual AFD. The redirect suggestion to the discography list also does not really make too much sense because a discography is a separate thing than a song list. Aoba47 (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is far from "standard" lists on Wikipedia, and there are not "many examples" of them. Lists must not be indiscriminate, they are kept for the reason of individual notability. The fact that this list exists doesn't make it right. See WP:NOTDATABASE. MitYehor (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per others - Fails WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 03:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect as best case scenario. An indiscriminate list like this has no place on Wikipedia (see WP:NOTDATABASE). The "other examples" people are referring to (like Category:Lists of songs recorded by American artists) are well written, sourced, and notable individually. A simple list is a clear violation of core Wiki principle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitYehor (talk • contribs) 22:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've seen WP:NOTDATABASE, but this is not an "indiscriminate" collection of information. It is very specific information on the songs by a particular artist. Rlendog (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is indiscriminate in that any song recorded by The Game (whether or not it is an album track or a basement recording released to 5 people) is apparently eligible for this list according to the parameters, despite no reliable sources touching on this group with SIGCOV. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 01:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. He's a notable artist and his discography is notable too, nobody disputes that. Sources are needed, but deletion isn't clean up. It seems logical to argue to move this into the article on his discography, but it's about 100kb in length WP:SIZERULE would direct us to fork the content. Keeping this as a list makes sense, as per the logic of forking, WP:NLIST and WP:SIZERULE. I'd have liked more clear indication that this list of dealt with by a group, alas "The Game" is such a non unique identifier, that I found it impossible to verify. CT55555(talk) 02:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This one is challenging. On one hand, I can understand the arguments for deletion while on the other, there are strong and valid arguments for keeping. Shawn Teller (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Game discography, fails LISTN, is an unneeded fork.  // Timothy :: talk  05:14, 8 March 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. (non-admin closure) Shawn Teller (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative wave[edit]

Conservative wave (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:INDISCRIMINATE. It is just a random listing of centre and right-wing governments in Latin America, with no clear context of what would tie them all together as a unity. There used to be a "Background" section, that I removed because it had no actual relation with the article (it was focused solely on Brazil, and discussed a perceived cultural hegemony of the left in the 1980s and 1990s).

The leaders of the Pink Tide have the common project of the "Patria Grande" (basically, a reenactment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics but in South and Central America), but there is no right-wing analog project that unites the right-wing presidents in a similar way. As it can be seen in each individual entry, those leaders stayed focused on their own domestic contexts, and none mentions other countries.

To make things worse, there are no clear temporal boundaries, so anyone can be included. And the distinction at the list between "center-right" and "right" seems original research: who can measure the "degree of right" to classify things this way and not another? Cambalachero (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and Latin America. Cambalachero (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I agree with nearly all your points, and I think the article needs a major rewrite, there was a generally a conservative shift in Latin American governments in the mid 2010's that was observed by political scientists and pundits. This phenomenon is worthy of an article, despite not being a movement in any real sense. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree with your point but this shift of events was very notable in the 2010s.`~HelpingWorld~` ^(👽🛸) 20:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a definite phenomenon, and was observed in numerous reliable sources. Article needs a lot of work, but should be kept. Unknown-Tree (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Source 1 in the article makes no mention of "conservative wave" or "blue wave" in its text. Source 2 same, with only a single mention of "conservatism" or "conservative" between them. Contrary to the above !votes (which provide a sum of zero demonstration of their claims) I have not found anything that ties these governments together in reliable sources. Fails GNG as a concept. A lot of sources mostly speak about the United States, while many sections of the article go on a WP:COATRACK about corruption. Draftify and apply TNT at the very least, but even I struggle to justify that with the lack of appropriate sourcing. At best this is currently a SYNTH and at worst, pure OR. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 15:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment, hoping this causes a ping...I'm optimistic that if you read my justification below it might be persuasive. CT55555(talk) 02:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  CT55555 I have this on watchlist, but in the future I'll get notifications if you use {{u|GhostOfDanGurney}} or {{ping|GhostOfDanGurney}}. I can look everything over later, but if this is closed as keep it will need a rewrite (probably still in draftspace) to better explain how or why these governments are tied together. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a notable thing, and the translated version of the name is notable and found in reliable sources. You can see that most easily by going to https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onda_conservadora and searching the citations for "conservadora" and you'll see the following https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/internacional-39459751 as well as eight other sources using the exact phrase. CT55555(talk) 02:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That article fails the WP:GNG, as it is just trivial coverage. The article is about the elections in Ecuador, and only mentions in passing the "onda conservadora". And that, only to list other governments with a similar political alignment, without adding any further information. It only proves that WP:ITEXISTS, but Existence does not prove notability. Can you cite a news article that actually discusses this "Onda conservadora" as its main topic? Cambalachero (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples, the first two from the links in the Wikipedia Portuguese article, the second from the Wikipedia Library:

1. https://www.pagina12.com.ar/39228-la-restauracion-conservadora-comenzo-con-mi-derrocamiento
2. https://veja.abril.com.br/coluna/noblat/derrota-poe-em-questao-o-avanco-da-onda-conservadora-por-gilmar-mendes/
3. DA SILVEIRA SOARES, JMM The conservative wave: essays on the current dark times in Brazil. In Pauta , [sl] , v. 15, no. 39, p. 271–275, 2017. DOI 10.12957/rep.2017.30390. Available at: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=125530061&site=eds-live&scope=site. Accessed on: 2 Mar. 2023.

CT55555(talk) 14:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 1 is an interview, reference 2 is an editorial. Neither is valid as a reference for statements of truth, just for "X says something", and can't be the sole references of the article. The third one is only for subscribers, but I found part of it (if not the whole thing, it's CC-BY after all) in here. It's all about just Brazil, and the "conservative wave" of the title is only a reference to Bolsonaro and his supporters. Cambalachero (talk) 16:05, 2 March 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 as proposed by Gidonb. This proposal has remained essentially uncontested since it has been made. I'll leave the actual redirecting to interested editors. Sandstein 20:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meeuwenplaat[edit]

Meeuwenplaat (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. Lacks coverage. WP:SIGCOV Kstern (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

Varenbuurt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sportdorp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Waalhaven district (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Het Lage Land (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Groenenhagen-Tuinenhoven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ‎

Feijenoord (neighbourhood) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Oudeland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nieuw Engeland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ‎

Molièrebuurt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ‎

Molenlaankwartier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Millinxbuurt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)‎

Middengebied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Middelland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keep. Seems to easily pass WP:NGEO, which has a low bar, all that is needed is verifiable information beyond simple statistics

1. Lefaivre, L. (2007). Ground-up City Play: Ground-up City. Netherlands: 010 Publishers.
2. Graaf, P. v. d. (2009). Out of Place? Emotional Ties to the Neighbourhood in Urban Renewal in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press. CT55555(talk) 03:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because it still passes WP:NGEO and there are sources on the Internet (see above) which could be used to verify it. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - consensus on validity of NGEO has been tested many times and in my opinion it is way too difficult to formulate an alternative notability criteria for this topic area. JMWt (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all to Districts and neighbourhoods of Rotterdam or respective districts like Hoogvliet for the top one. Just because they exist doesn't mean there should be useless one-liners for them. Anyone is welcome to actually write a legitimate article with sources, but a redirect is better than junk like this. These are smaller neighborhoods within official districts and don't have presumed notability either. Reywas92^Talk 14:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all, each neighborhood to its own borough. The neighborhoods are VERY notable, as the keep-sayers rightfully note, and all are RIDICULOUSLY premature WP:SPINOFFs of their respective boroughs. There's nothing in each but a definition. Their boroughs, which is the previous spatial unit in the Rotterdam spatial hierarchy, are listed only in the infoboxes, not in the sole phrase. The list mentioned in the directly above opinion is for outgoing links and is a very low priority for incoming links. gidonb (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you explain why the neighborhoods are "very notable"? I'm asking with genuine interest in both the topic and the WP rules. The main article only mentions submunicipalities (possible synonym of "borough") as administrative divisions (see Rotterdam#Composition). Perhaps that info is out-of-date because the abolition of boroughs is discussed in Government_of_Rotterdam#Boroughs, but still no mention of the neighborhoods or why they are significant. Kstern (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Very notable: as explained above the bar for notability of geographical units is low: verifiable information beyond simple statistics. In addition, the units also meet the high bar of significant coverage in WP:NEXIST many times over. Of course, one could argue that for all recognized geographical units (with the exception of statistically designated areas and other loosely defined areas) this is the case and that the bar was set low so we would not waste time with needless discussions about notability.

2. As is clear from my position, notability is a required but insufficient condition for keeping an article. For example, these topics are notable but the articles still need to be redirected.

3. Rotterdam DOES NOT have sub-municipalities. When it did, these covered only some of its area. The status was granted to areas that had been more recently annexed to Rotterdam to provide these a greater degree of autonomy than other regions.

4. The boroughs were NOT abolished. The link you provided says so. Boroughs are the primary spatial division of Rotterdam. Neighborhoods secondary. gidonb (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There's a LOT more of these linked from Template:Neighborhoods of Rotterdam. So many unsourced articles with a single line stating that they're a neighborhood of Rotterdam. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between those advocating Keep and those seeking a Redirect. And if you prefer a Redirect, please be kind to the discussion closer and specify what the redirect target should be for each article that is nominated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Per Liz's request, to have listed right here to which borough each neighborhood belongs:

Varenbuurt → Prins Alexander

Sportdorp → IJsselmonde, Rotterdam

Waalhaven district → Waalhaven (move infobox to target)

Het Lage Land → Prins Alexander

Groenenhagen-Tuinenhoven → IJsselmonde, Rotterdam ‎

Feijenoord (neighbourhood) → Feijenoord district (rename the target Feijenoord)

Oudeland → Hoogvliet

Nieuw Engeland → Hoogvliet‎

Molièrebuurt → IJsselmonde, Rotterdam ‎

Molenlaankwartier → Hillegersberg-Schiebroek

Millinxbuurt → Charlois

Middengebied → Hoogvliet‎

Middelland → Delfshaven‎

Waalhaven, as a port area, is a bit of an exception in the nomination. It's the only item that should move with the infobox (i.e. smerge). District will be no longer needed for Feijenoord's target (Feijenoord is already a redirect here). gidonb (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to do this, gidonb. If the closure is for Redirect All, this will really help the closer handle the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an acceptable solution to me. However, if we are going to redirect each neighborhood to its corresponding borough, all the existing neighborhoods should be evaluated for redirection, not just the ones in the nomination. As previously mentioned in this discussion, there are others that are one-liners or sparsely sourced. Kstern (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz and Kstern, glad you like it! Kstern, go for it!!! Please, other nominations in a separate batch or batches at this stage in the discussion. Liz implied that merger of article sets is far more complex than it seems. She got that point well across after running through the full implications of my proposal for each one of 13 spatial units. gidonb (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For fair disclosure, in all unnominated cases, these will be my recommendations: just a definition → redirect; elements missing on the borough or equivalent page → merge; long writeup that would create an undue situation at merge → keep. gidonb (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect all per gidonb suggestions. Fails GNG. NGEO is not an excuse to fragment subjects endlessly and force readers to chase links.  // Timothy :: talk  05:24, 8 March 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!} 07:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martin J. Mack[edit]

Martin J. Mack (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 enough in-depth coverage about him to meet WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:POL, being a small-town mayor and a deputy AG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Small town mayor, deputy attorney general, appointments secretary to me is noteworthy. Appointments secretary is the important noteworthy job here. It has existed in statute since the creation of the state, and is responsible for the naming of commissions, boards, job, commissioners, and judges. For example, NYS just went through a failed chief judge nomination, appointments is where this played out. The governor chose a lieutenant governor, that is the appointments office. The governor brought in Kathyrn Garcia, that is an appointment. This area as a historian is a hole in nys history. We know who the deputy mayors are, the commissioners, but the not the patronage political people who make the government function. In addition to that, there are other NYS civil servants that I have found via wikipedia that have helped my own research. They are lesser figures than this person. With that, I only created this because like other pages I created there was a historical hole on something i was researching. To delete, is to remove valuable information for future historians interested in Eliot Spitzer, or New York's first african american governor, or its first female, and the type of people they chose to work in their government. In addition to this, New York state does not that have that many towns that have a mayor. As a small town mayor, whose father was a mayor, who was appointed to be chair of the local SUNY college council you allow a local town to research their own history better. Joco179 (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP 242baileyave (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm assuming your !vote is to "Keep". If that is correct, you should preface your comment by typing the word, KEEP, and surrounding it with 3 apostrophes, ('''). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There is routine coverage regarding his appointments by Paterson and Hochul along with an article about an award he received. I can't find anything that is in-depth enough to meet GNG, and he doesn't meet NPOL either. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I disagree. There are various articles describing his work in picking Lieutenant Governor Delgado, in being spitzer's patronage boss, in releasing government files on attica. In addition, to his work with Hochul and Paterson.Joco179 (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. More research needed. Let me have a few days. 19:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs) 19:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I have added a few citations demonstrating the type of work he was doing as Executive Deputy Attorney General under schneiderman. Joco179 (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have already stated my opinion, but SUNY Cortland College Council Chair, Cortland County Attorney, Democratic Cortland County Chair, Mayor of Cortland, Executive Chair of the New York State Democratic Party (1998), Deputy Attorney General (Spitzer), Deputy Secretary for Intergovernmental Affairs (Spitzer/Paterson), Appointments Secretary (Paterson), Executive Deputy Attorney General (Schneiderman, Underwood), Appointments Secretary (Hochul), Cornell Board of Trustees (Hochul) is notable. I have added various sources that demonstrate this, from ny times, to syracuse press, to local awards, to governmental releases.

Delete. Mack is more accomplished than I could hope to be, however, accomplishments do not equal notability aka existence ≠ notability. There are two claims to notability here. Local politician and state government. Local politicians are not automatically notable, nor are they not automatically not notable. Reasons a local politician could be notable are unusual longevity in service (see Robert L. Butler, Margaret Doud, or Hilmar Moore), an atypical level of coverage and fame (see a pre-Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman), or qualifying under another criteria in relation to their local political role (see Betty Loren-Maltese and Rita Crundwell as WP:CRIME). Nothing about Mack's local roles with either Cortland, New York government or Democratic politics meets this standard. His state positions are by and large either civil service positions with run of the mill coverage or non-notable appointments. Executive Deputy Attorney General is a civil service position. Civil servants and mid-level "pleasure of the officeholder" appointments are not notable. They may not be automatically not notable, so let's review the record. Few of the appointments are even the top political appointee (assistant/deputy secretaries, university trustees, etc.). Also, there is a lot masking the lack of notability. He was "part of a team that helped appoint Delgado," and he "was able to secure a settlement in favor of New Yorker's." The phrase "Mack worked on appointing people to the" is a description of the job and nothing about Mack in particular. There is a lot of filler in this article to buff it out. This article should be deleted.--Mpen320 (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substantial coverage about the individual. I get hits for a cease-and-desist issued for Walgreens and others back in 2015, when he worked for the NY Attorney General. Plenty of mentions about him doing this and that, nothing substantial. The article as it is now is basically a play-by-play of a career civil servant. Nothing notable from what I see. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Mpen320 and Oaktree b. Lots of citations, but lacking the significant coverage in WP:RS-compliant sourcing needed to pass the notability bar. Sal2100 (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My searches (of google, google news, google books, Wikipedia Library) found nothing to suggest notability. My assessment of existing sources is that they are a lot of press releases, primary sources, routine announcements of roles, and I didn't see any significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG CT55555(talk) 02:06, 2 March 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 Genese Davis. Redirecting as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Holder's Dominion[edit]

The Holder's Dominion (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 novel does not seem to meet Wikipedia's standards for book notability. Specifically, the guidelines say a book is notable if "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself," and while there was some fleeting coverage in RSes of the author (Genese Davis) around the time of publication- mainly interviews by video gaming outlets focusing on the gaming angle of her writing- I cannot find any non-self-published reviews of the novel itself, suggesting the book's notability, apart from its author, is quite limited at best.

The article was created by an editor, Ericd83, with a probable COI- their talk page shows they tried multiple times over the course of about five years to create or have created an article about the author (and the article mentions a trailer directed by an "Eric Davis")- and was originally inappropriately promotional in tone, with too much detail on the plot, and inappropriate sourcing. These issues have been mostly fixed, but the article still doesn't really make a case for why the book is notable.

I would have merged this article into its author's article, but it doesn't really have any useful content that isn't already there (eg links to interviews), as it's mostly a plot summary. My understanding is that the article needs to go through the AfD process as it was PRODed and then de-PRODed before- though the de-PRODing was potentially inappropriate, having been done by the article's creator, who argued that it shouldn't be deleted because it's a "big deal in the gaming community" that has had an "incredible reception." Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Video games. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 03:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article, while merging the small reliable reception information and interesting interviews (about the author) with the author's page. I'm coming at this from a video game background for context-- I find the Wired mention to be a significant passing mention (more than what you might see normally, but not enough to establish notability), and the Engadget interview comes form a reliable source. But the problem is.... it's a lot of interviews (primary sources), passing mentions, and just very sketchy sites that wouldn't pass WP:RS standards. I think the brief snippets from Wired and some of the interview material could be useful information for the author's page, but this book isn't notable enough on its own.

One other note though -- on WP:DEPROD-ing, there's no real inappropriate way to de-PROD an article. They aren't required to give any rationale -- but it means it gets to come to us for larger discussion. Nomader (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the work by the nom here on Davis's page, I would also be fine with a redirect as well. Nomader (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Unfortunately, it doesn't have the two reviews for WP:NBOOK. The testimonials page for a book will essentially always include independent reviews when those exist, but this just cites praise by private individuals. A "keep" decision would have to rest on WP:GNG based on the video game angle, but I don't see much support for that. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Did you also check this source from Bleeding Cool? It's considered a reliable source per WP:VG/RS, and while it does revolve around an interview with the author, the article seems to also contain analysis of the book as well. Specifically, the article contextualizes the book in terms of gender and feminism in the entertainment industry along with the author's struggles in publishing the book, and even aspects of the plot as well. It would be a useful source to discuss the development and themes of the book, but on its own I can see how editors may still not consider the book notable. Admittedly, I was also unable to find an actual review of the book itself, which is why I couldn't bring myself to vote Keep. However, I think this source could at the very least prove that a Merge to Genese Davis would be a suitable alternative to deletion, as editors may add info about the book to her article and expand it. It doesn't look like info on the book's development is on her page, so I think it's an appropriate course of action. PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that any good, reliably-sourced info relevant to the book should be incorporated into Davis's article, and I also agree that there are useful/notable things that might be written about her writing and publication of the book. The trick is that none or almost none of the novel's article's text, as it stands, falls into that category (it's almost entirely plot, characters, trailer), such that, AFAICT, there's not much meaningful distinction between merging the article-as-it-exists into the author's article, and simply deleting it. I guess probably the novel title oughta redirect to Davis. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  (Now, a couple hours later) I've gone over Davis's article and worked in the Bleeding Cool source, so it now covers the novel and its publication in brief. Yspaddadenpenkawr (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Genese Davis instead of a merge per WP:ATD, since Yspaddadenpenkawr merged information about the book to her article. If more reviews come in the future, the book may justify its own page. For now, having the book redirect is preferable to straight up deletion in my opinion. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 03:59, 1 March 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. This is the third AFD on this subject and they have all closed as No consensus. Maybe it's time to take a break from nominating this article for a while and see how the article develops. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nadir Ali (comedian)[edit]

Nadir Ali (comedian) (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 Pakistani YouTuber, having no substantial coverage in the RS. Saqib (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - I find it difficult to assess the reliability of Pakistani sources and we don't appear to have a WP:RSN page for the country. However, there does appear to be in-depth coverage in sources which I assess as probably reliable, covering multiple events / aspects of this WP:BLP. Keep, monitor for neutrality and overdetail. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WJ94 (talk) 10:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While I agree with what's given above, as I'm not familiar with RS for Pakistan, I'm ok to keep it as is. Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All I find are tabloid-type listings (his wife had a baby!) and mentions of some sort of legal trouble. Nothing of substance. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources found and discussed in the previous AfDs. For example, Daily Pakistan, Voice of America (Urdu) (Audio interview in Urdu but indicates notability), ARY News, Daily Ausaf, ARY News, and others. Insight 3 (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just wanted to mention that this is the 3rd AFD for this subject, the first was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadir Ali. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Majority of the sources are mere links of his YouTube videosLillyput4455 (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Senegal relations[edit]

Bangladesh–Senegal relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article is mainly based on 3 references from the same source in March 2012. No evidence of ongoing notable relations like significant trade, migration, agreements or state visits. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Senegal, and Bangladesh. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 02:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Due to lack of ongoing coverage making this a standalone subject (such as for example the Russo-Ukrainian war, sorry for bringing this up), this specific article fails the core principle of WP:NOTDATABASE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitYehor (talk • contribs) 21:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with above that there is no evidence of SIGCOV. Yilloslime (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• keep clearly the relationship between two sovereign countries is relevant - article needs cleanup but not deletion. Being the first country to recognize independence needs sourcing but is relevant. --hroest 21:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "clearly the relationship between two sovereign countries is relevant" is not a criteria for notability. Bilateral relations are not inherently notable. 100s have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Senegal was not the first country to recognize the independence of Bangladesh. It was the 18th or 19th, depending on whether sources rank Tonga before it or after it. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources used to demonstrate notability should be secondary sources. They also should be independent, not press releases. The four cited sources are primary source press releases published by Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha (BSS), a news agency run by the government of Bangladesh. Searches of academic works (independent secondary sources) about the foreign relations of Bangladesh, specifically Wright 1988, Ahmad 1989, Kabir 1989, Rashid 2001, Tajuddin 2001, and Baxter 2005, result in only two hits for Senegal, in two footnotes, each of which lists several countries. Relations exist, but no reliable, independent, secondary sources have written about them in any depth. Consequently, WP:GNG tells us Wikipedia should not have a stand-alone article on that subject. Any relations "relevant" to the encyclopedia can be covered briefly in Foreign relations of Senegal or Foreign relations of Bangladesh. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A prime case of WP:NOTDATABASE, in addition to failing WP:GNG and the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Shawn Teller (talk) 01:43, 8 March 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sicilian Defence, Accelerated Dragon[edit]

Sicilian Defence, Accelerated Dragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article should be merged (WP:BLAR) with Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation since the article is somewhat short. Also, the openings are similar enough. Mast303 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 00:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is a rather unhelpful AfD as the subject is already being discussed at the talk page of Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation where currently the proposer has proposed the merge, and two editors have disagreed; there is currently no support for the merge there. I would recommend discussing this in one place only. Elemimele (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Incorrect AfD. The Talk page for Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation explains that Accelerated Dragon and Dragon Variation are completely different styles of play, which means that this article should be included in main Sicilian Defence which it already IS. This article must be kept as a standalone expansion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitYehor (talk • contribs) 21:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although some transpositional possibilities exist between these two opening variations, they are considered to be different variations. For instance, they have different ECO codes: the Accelerated Dragon is B34-B39, and the Dragon proper is B70-B79. This situation is similar to how the Modern Defence is considered to be different from the Pirc Defence, even though transpositions between the two are possible. There is more than enough literature on both the Dragon and the Accelerated Dragon to justify separate articles. Cobblet (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems an unnecessary AfD as the nominator is not asking for deletion but making the same merge proposal that they did on the talk page recently. In any event, I disagree with the need to merge. The most popular chess defense of them all, there is such a vast amount of literature on the Sicilian that it makes sense to have separate articles on all the major variations. The Accelerated Dragon is distinct enough from the Dragon that I do not think a merger would be helpful. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. They're different animals. Agree w/ other keeps. --IHTS (talk) 08:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:CSK#1. There is a difference between a merge and a BLAR, and the nominator has given their rationale for a merge, but they have not provided any arguments that would support deletion, userfying or redirection instead. They are making an argument that supports an alternative action such as moving or merging, meaning that this should be speedy closed as keep. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article subject is sufficiently notable to merit a separate article without the proposed merge. Shawn Teller (talk) 22:12, 7 March 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 Otago representative cricketers. (non-admin closure) Shawn Teller (talk) 01:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daryll Reddington[edit]

Daryll Reddington (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)