Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
< March 06 March 08 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Goh[edit]

Steven Goh (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:NTENNIS and more broadly WP:BIO. An unremarkable tennis career. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Fails WP:NTENNIS and more broadly WP:BIO; and agree that a modicum of notability does not achieve pass according to WP:GNG. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 23:59, 13 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ani security fence[edit]

Ani security fence (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 appears to fail WP:V and WP:GNG, as there are no citations, just an external link to what appears to be a section of an unsigned blog, and I couldn't actually find anything about this in Google Books or generic Google searches. WikiNav shows negligible reader interest. --Joy (talk) 23:19, 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. Despite the walls of text and the inordinate amount of links, the "keep" argument fails to convince. Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South-Eastern Sydney[edit]

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

There is some debate on my talk page on whether South Eastern Sydney actually exists or whether it is a subregion of Eastern Suburbs (Sydney). I think there is a lack of reliable sources to make it a stand alone article. LibStar (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Appears duplicative and the main article can cover this without a separate page. Reywas92Talk 02:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • South-Eastern Sydney should remain an article as it is separate from the Eastern Suburbs for numerous reasons for which I've already made a valid argument with significant justification on both Libstar and Daceyvillain's talk pages if anyone would wish to have a look at previous debates regarding this topic.
At the end of the day the article of South-Eastern Sydney was created over a decade ago for a reason and I've simplified all the valid reasons below as to why it's separate;
- The Eastern Suburbs is directly east of the CBD, the south-eastern suburbs are geographically south-east of the CBD, any map can show you this making a lot of this debate quite obviously unnecessary. Saying a suburb like Matraville is within the same area of Sydney as a suburb like Rose Bay wouldn't make any sense.
- The two have separate LGAs with the Eastern Suburbs having Waverley and Woollahra Council while the South-East has Randwick Council and Eastern parts of Bayside Council which fall east of the Eastern Distributor.
- The two culturally are separate with different NRL teams. The Eastern Suburbs having the Roosters and the South-east having the Rabbitohs which is referred to as South Sydney Rabbitohs.
- The two have separate Federal divisions. The Eastern Suburbs has The division of Wentworth, the south-east has the division of Kingsford Smith.
- The two have different parishes. The Eastern Suburbs has the parish of Alexandria, the south-east has the Parish of Botany.
- The two have different major Westfield shopping centres. The Eastern Suburbs has Westfield Bondi Junction, the south-east has Westfield Eastgardens which the suburb was named after.
- The two have separate series of postcodes with the Eastern Suburbs having postcodes 2021 starting in Paddington to 2030 ending in Watsons Bay, the south-east has 2031 starting in Randwick to 2036 ending in La Perouse. Randwick and Watsons Bay are nowhere near next to each other in case it seems like an articulate continuation.
- The two have separate local papers. The eastern suburbs has the Wentworth Courier, the south-east has the Southern Courier.
- The two have different railways of transport. The Eastern Suburbs has the 'Eastern Suburbs railway' to Bondi Junction, the south-east has the 'CBD and south-east light rail' to Randwick and Kingsford with possible future plans to extend to Maroubra.
- Major roads for the two areas taking people to the CBD are completely separate. The Eastern Suburbs has Oxford St and New South Head Rd, the south-east has Anzac Pde and The Eastern Distributor.
- If you were to look at the demographics and socioeconomics of Waverley Council & Woollahra Council vs City of Randwick you'd see a significant difference overall. Saying a suburb like Maroubra belongs in the same demographic as a suburb like Vaucluse wouldn't be coherent.
- Colloquially people who live in the south-east may say they live in the 'east' or 'eastern suburbs' and references to the 'Eastern Suburbs' in the larger sense can refer to the two areas by default but when Sydneysiders think of and/or refer to the 'Eastern Suburbs' they would include suburbs like Paddington, Bondi, Vaucluse, Rose Bay, Bronte, Watsons Bay etc. It would be highly unlikely by 'Eastern Suburbs' they'd be referring to suburbs like Matraville, Hillsdale, Botany, Pagewood and Chifley.
- Residents who live in suburbs like Vaucluse and Paddington wouldn't recreationally shop at Westfield Eastgardens and residents of Botany and Chifley wouldn't recreationally visit Watsons Bay. Residents of the Woollahra and Waverley Council areas in general also wouldn't think of a suburb like Matraville to be part of their area nor associate it with the 'Eastern Suburbs'.
While there aren't any maps that clearly outline the border between the two areas, the separation lies amongst the geographic proximity from the CBD, the LGAs, the federal divisions and the postcode sequences which are all mentioned above. The fact that the two are separate areas of Sydney is incredibly evident in every way.
I've attached a bunch of sources to justify my argument;
https://cambridgehotel.com.au/feed/blog/10-must-visit-places-in-south-east-sydney
https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/projects/current-projects/cbd-and-south-east-light-rail
https://profile.id.com.au/randwick/about
https://economy.id.com.au/randwick/infrastructure
https://dictionaryofsydney.org/place/randwick_local_government_area
https://www.secc.sydney/
https://www.scentregroup.com/our-customers/westfield-destinations/westfield-eastgardens
https://www.alp.org.au/our-people/our-people/matt-thistlethwaite/
https://www.linkt.com.au/using-toll-roads/about-sydney-toll-roads/eastern-distributor/sydney
https://www.sydney.com/destinations/sydney/sydney-east/la-perouse
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/southern-courier
https://www.rabbitohs.com.au/
https://lsre.com.au/commercial-south-east/
https://go4fun.com.au/locations/south-eastern-sydney/
https://sydneysoutheastpsychiatry.com.au/contact-us
https://www.sgsep.com.au/projects/south-east-sydney-transport-strategy
https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/australian-health-services/20072244/south-eastern-sydney-mental-health-services/services/randwick-2031--confidential-address- 203.49.228.129 (talk) 08:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This actually lists La Perouse in the east www.sydney.com/destinations/sydney/sydney-east
You should also create an account rather than using different IPs. LibStar (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You refer to id.com.au when it actually includes La Perouse in the eastern suburbs https://economy.id.com.au/sydney-eastern-suburbs LibStar (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does a business link https://sydneysoutheastpsychiatry.com.au/contact-us or https://cambridgehotel.com.au/feed/blog/10-must-visit-places-in-south-east-sydney prove that there is an official entity with boundaries called south East Sydney? At best it's a subregion of the Eastern suburbs. You can have different demographics, shopping centres and Federal electorates in the same region like in the Northern Beaches or Greater Western Sydney (different rugby league teams too). LibStar (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not one of the above numerous links supplied by 203.49.228.129 actually defines which suburbs are part of "South East Sydney" nor provides a map of boundaries. LibStar (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maps
Here are some official government maps that I posted in the earlier discussions.
I am yet to find any map that identifies so-called South East Sydney. But there are countless maps (government, commercial and otherwise) which clearly identify the Eastern Suburbs and show it extending all the way south to La Perouse
https://www.mysydney.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-05/South%20East%20map.pdf
https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/f402dd663f9a63efca256ad4007f6817/$FILE/Map%204%20from%20NSW_ASGC.pdf
https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2016/118 Daceyvillain (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eastgardens
Eastgardens describes itself as “a key retail destination for residents in the Eastern Suburbs”
https://apps.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/prweb/PRRestService/DocMgmt/v1/PublicDocuments/DATA-WORKATTACH-FILE%20PEC-DPE-EP-WORK%20RR-2020-98!20200912T090408.261%20GMT Daceyvillain (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eastern Suburbs Line
The Eastern Suburbs line was designed to terminate at Kingsford/Daceyville but was shortened to Bondi Junction due to budget constraints
http://www.coogeemedia.com.au/esr.pdf Daceyvillain (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Daceyvillain: are you supporting keep or delete of this article? LibStar (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought other people should decide, but I personally think it should be merged into the main article for the Eastern Suburbs Daceyvillain (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a nice diagram from 1968 of the "Eastern Suburbs Railway" terminating at Kingsford/Daceyville. http://honisoit.com/2020/04/sydneys-disused-stations-a-tale-of-three-fates/ Daceyvillain (talk) 08:23, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Borders
One of the arguments above is about areas having different cultures. For the sake of argument, let’s start with Bronte. If Bronte is culturally in the Eastern Suburbs, then so should its neighbour Clovelly. Ignoring the named beaches, if you were walking around streets in this area, you wouldn’t know when Bronte ends and when Clovelly begins. But if Clovelly is in the Eastern Suburbs, then so should its neighbour Coogee, for the same reason. Ignoring the named beaches, you wouldn’t know when Clovelly ends and when Coogee begins. You can continue this argument all the way down to La Perouse.
Aside:
In modern times, borders are often defined by motorways, as motorways are loud, wide, polluted and discourage walking between the suburbs on either side of them. In this way the Eastern Distributor and M1 act as an unofficial border for the Eastern Suburbs. Daceyvillain (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Light rail
The new light rail network is reusing routes from the old tram network (e.g. Anzac Parade). The old tram network continued all the way south to La Perouse and the routes were collectively called the Eastern Suburbs Lines
Trams in Sydney#/media/File:Eastern trams.png Daceyvillain (talk) 12:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Council borders
Council borders are not a reliable way to define something. The trend in Sydney is for councils to merge together every 10 or 20 years and form larger councils. One day soon, The City of Randwick is likely to have merged with Waverley Council to become a single council. It won’t make sense to try to distinguish between the councils, because they will be a single council. 159.196.116.163 (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge My vote is to merge (delete this page) for the reasons discussed here and previously Daceyvillain (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Warning Despite this page being considered for deletion, the anonymous author keeps trying to embed their concept of "South East Sydney" into other parts of Wikipedia, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sydney_image_with_region_labels Daceyvillain (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see lengthy discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Sydney_image_with_region_labels Daceyvillain (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This economic profile is a joint initiative of Randwick City Council, Waverley Municipal Council and Woollahra Municipal Council as local government authorities located in the Eastern Suburbs sub-region of the Sydney Metropolitan area.

The Eastern Suburbs study area is a sub-region of the wider Sydney metropolitan area, located east and south-east of the Sydney Central Business District. The Australian Bureau of Statistics identifies the Eastern Suburbs as an SA3 statistical subdivision that includes the local government areas of Waverley, Woollahra and Randwick.

The Eastern Suburbs extends from the peninsula of South Head at Watsons Bay in the north to La Perouse on Botany Bay in the south. The northern part of the Eastern Suburbs comprises the affluent suburbs of Vaucluse, Rose Bay, Darling Point, Dover Heights, Double Bay, Point Piper, Watsons Bay, and Bellevue Hill. Centrally located to the Eastern Suburbs is Centennial Park, surrounded by the suburbs of Woollahra, Paddington, Bondi Junction, Queens Park, Randwick, Kensington, Clovelly and Coogee. To the south, the area includes suburbs such as Maroubra, Matraville, Malabar, Little Bay and La Perouse. In total, the Eastern Suburbs covers an area of around 58 square kilometres, incorporating 34 suburbs. The Eastern Suburbs features an extensive coastline, including some of Sydney’s most popular and best known beaches such as Bondi, Tamarama, Bronte, Clovelly, Coogee, Maroubra, Malabar, Little Bay and

La Perouse. The region also borders Sydney Harbour to the north and Botany Bay to the south.

LibStar (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've basically just ignored everything I had to say about the topic and every point I had to prove so really there isn't even any point in trying to improve Wikipedia's accuracy if I'm just going to be come across ignorant editors pushing their own opinion and beliefs. I'm actually very tired of this debate when the truth of the matter is in plain sight. I hope more coherent editors come across this debate and see the facts. La Perouse's suburb description clearly states it is southeastern. There's even a high school in Maroubra called South Sydney High School.
https://sthsydney-h.schools.nsw.gov.au/
The eastern suburbs are east of the Sydney CBD, the south-eastern suburbs are south-east of the Sydney CBD. There isn't much more to it than that. 203.49.228.129 (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the school which actually doesn't include "south east" in its name hardly proves that "south east Sydney" exists. If it was called "South Eastern Sydney High School" you would have a credible argument but you don't. You have ignored an official report of council above (unlike most of your links) which clearly states the eastern suburbs stretches to La Perouse. It's got nothing to do with demographics or where people like to shop. LibStar (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What the Australian Bureau of Statistics considers as eastern suburbs, choose to ignore official government website as usual. https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2016/118 LibStar (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for a response from @203.49.228.129: LibStar (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Break

page 11 of official annual report. https://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/357397/2021-22-Annual-Report.PDF "Randwick City is located in the eastern suburbs of Sydney, bounded by Waverley Council to the north, the Pacific Ocean to the east, Botany Bay to the south and the City of Sydney and Bayside councils to the west." LibStar (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (I am not the IP editor above): "South-Eastern Sydney" certainly exists, if not necessairly under that name. It's the whole southern part of the Eastern Suburbs, aka the Parish of Botany. This is the part of the eastern suburbs that isn't the "traditional" Eastern Suburbs, being the LGAs of Waverley and Woollahra. The ABS Statistical Area Level 3 called "Eastern Suburbs - South" pretty much correlates with the customary "South-East": https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/11802 . That all being said, I agree it doesn't need its own article. There is evidently little to say about this sub-region. The "Eastern Suburbs" region can easily deal with both the traditional conception and the wider conception that includes the South-East. We have too many region articles already. Everyone seems to be snobby about the other parts of their region and want their own little bit to have its own article. It's only a matter of time before we get people wanting article about "the Paris End of Canterbury-Bankstown", or "the Lower Upper North Shore", or "the Inner Inner West Excluding Burwood and Strathfield". --49.255.185.235 (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concept is original research. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subject is original research and duplicates other articles. 11:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Cosley[edit]

Dan Cosley (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 does not meet any of the standards of notability in WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER. DVDhume (talk) 22:47, 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preeti Aneja[edit]

Preeti Aneja (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)

Khorang 22:17, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sun West Mortgage[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sun West Mortgage (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)

Previously nominated for deletion 5 years ago by @Meatsgains:. However, all three KEEP votes in that discussion were from accounts that were later blocked as covert paid accounts[1][2][3] bent on adding negative content; hence the Terms of Use warning at the top of the page.[4].

I have a disclosed conflict of interest (I work for Sun West). Would love to have a normal, unbiased page on Sun West, but wanted to see if impartial editors actually wanted the page to exist at all. Thank you for your time looking into this nomination and please look out for paid accounts when closing the discussion. Best regards. Imomone (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and California. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. I don't find much of any type of coverage. Even with the regulatory issues, it's all simply gov't websites giving decisions about their case. Tons of social media links, zillow, credit karma, no sort of discussions in media about the company. I assumed there might be due to their regulatory issues, but I can't see any. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:50, 14 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 merge to Neil Harvey. Of course, appropriate content may also be merged to other articles, provided proper attribution is made. Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Harvey with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Neil Harvey with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (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 is a WP:CONTENT FORK from the main article Neil Harvey. The person is a cricketer who played in 79 International Test matches. The content fork discusses just 2 of these Test matches, in neither of these matches did anything notable happen for him. Most of the article discusses tour matches all of which is WP:Routine. This tour is already adequately covered in the main article. Desertarun (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Neil Harvey. This article is from an earlier Wikipedia age. Just because something is true and sourced to RS does not mean that it is suitable for Wikipedia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, History, Cricket, England, and Australia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Too big to merge, well sourced and a valid fork. - Bilby (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination) for AfD discussions about similar articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All of these articles are highly improper and essentially prosified statistics. They never should have been created, and all of them should be deleted. We do not do articles on athlete with team in year. Neil Harvey is notable, the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is notable, but the intersection absolutely is not. I was the nominator in both examples Mike Christie linked and the first nomination, all of which go into more detail as to why these articles are inappropriate for Wikipedia. "Too big to merge" and "well sourced" are fallacious arguments. The article is large, and is seemingly well sourced, because it is a giant list of statistics and game results turned into prose. There is nothing in this fork that justifies it being split off from Neil Harvey's article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not object to a selective merge to Neil Harvey. Basically only the relevant parts of the "role" section should be merged, however. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I'll raise a few points. In my opinion, the requirement of notability exists to ensure that each article may at length consist of relevant, verifiable information. This, albeit of lower notability, is a topic which evidently can do that. In addition, the encyclopaedia is still a child: merging featured articles together is at this present moment unnecessary and serving to devalue content contributions. Moreover, this topic fairly obviously meets the GNG in my opinion – there's swathes of prose evidently sourced, and believe me these are not just statistics: they explain the how and why. At the moment our coverage of Harvey's career is imbalanced, but merging this article doesn't make our coverage of other parts of Harvey's career more thorough – only seem like it is. J947 † edits 00:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - After reading the article, I am not convinced this is merely a collection of statistics. Additionally, I'm not swayed by the argument the article does not meet the notability criteria or is not a reasonable split. It may not be worth the FA recognition but in my eyes it merits its own article. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 00:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Almost half of this article duplicate Harvey's article and the tour article. What's left is about 2,500 words which is mostly performance statistics in prose form, sourced to a statistics database. Anything encyclopaedic and reliably sourced that isn't already covered in Harvey's biography can be merged there. This seems to be in line with the consensus at AfDs for Dough Ring, Ron Saggers, Colin McCool, and Ron Hammence on the tour. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for all the reasons explained by HJ Mitchell for why merging is the most appropriate course of action. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: while HJ Mitchell raises valid reasoning, this situation is not like the other similar articles previously merged. This one is a correct use of summary style. The other main articles where content was merged are small:
While Neil Harvey is already at more than 11,100 words of readable prose. Separating out this one notable bit is a correct use of summary style for this case (which is different than the others), and merging it back in will make an already long article even longer. Notability is met, and summary style for this article, unlike the others, is appropriate and useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with content forks is that they can easily multiply. Harvey went on 10 or so tours so we could have 10 articles like this Neil Harvey with the Australian cricket team in India in 1956 or this Neil Harvey with the Australian cricket team in South Africa in 1951. Then there's the other Australian players, around 300, that played on overseas tours for Australia. So now we've got 10 times 300 = 3000 potential articles called Player X with the Australian cricket team in country Y in year Z. Desertarun (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except they do not exist. WWGB (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone tried the article would be back here and it'd be deleted. The only reason we have this one is because it was created a long time ago. Desertarun (talk) 12:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Desertarun, you haven't explained why that is a bad thing. If those were notable, and respected summary style, what's wrong with having more articles?
Consider a counterexample: we can have 15 song articles from the same album. By this logic, why wouldn't we merge and redirect all songs to the album?
You seem to believe that is a CONTENTFORK, where I see an appropriate WP:SPINOUT (which is an WP:OKFORK). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Switched from Keep to Weak Keep per subsequent arguments. 'Tis a dilemma. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy, would you mind assessing my last comment in the first AfD? My argument was that much of the content is way over-detailed and isn't actually DUE as it's mostly just editors prosifying raw stats. Plus a lot of it isn't actually directly on Harvey's role, it's just recounting the performance of his team in general. JoelleJay (talk) 22:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as the reasoning of others here has convinced me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why would we delete a Featured Article, "considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer". WWGB (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We can and have deleted featured articles in the recent-ish past. Simply being an FA is not a shield. Curbon7 (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you may both be using the word delete when you might mean merge. We have only ever deleted one featured article: ANAK Society. We have merged and redirected about a dozen and a half (you can search WP:FFA for the word "redirect"). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I was misremembering WP:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination), it's been a while since that one. Curbon7 (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Neil Harvey, Australian cricket team in England in 1948, 1948 Ashes series, and anywhere else that's appropriate. We have an article about every international match played on this tour; we have an article about the series; one about the Australian team playing the series; and one about the player. Any information that doesn't already belong in those three articles is, IMHO, too much detail to be covered in an encyclopedia: it is also essentially prosified statistics that we're not a database for, as others have pointed out above. I like sports biographies as much as anyone, but I believe we're straying from our core purpose a little bit here. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy moly, what's going on that even Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is 13,000 words of readable prose? With one sentence about Harvey. I don't know enough about the sport to understand what is driving the overall problem here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem, in my opinion, is that one editor has written some very good-quality prose on this tour, but at a length and in a level of detail, that's not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While these articles are clearly a labor of love, at some point we need to recognize that not every incident in a month-long cricket tour is worth incorporating into Wikipedia. It may be the most famous example of an Ashes series, but there's been one approximately every two years for over a century, and it's hard to argue that similar articles could not be written about every player in the more recent ones, relying on online news coverage. Not every verifiable detail is encyclopedic. I'm inclined to believe the international matches, and the tour itself, deserve articles, but it's hard to justify coverage beyond that. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what can, delete the rest. This is really Wikipedia going overboard. I don't see the equivalent in other sports – there is no Kylian Mbappé at the 2022 FIFA World Cup or Michael Jordan in the 1991 NBA Finals or Bob Gibson in the 1967 World Series. Anything that really needs to be said about this subject can be said in the article about him or about the team's tour in England. Yes, anything that won't fit in those won't get read, but that's already the case – in January and February this article averaged all of three views a day. It's one thing to write about an obscure but once important subject knowing it won't get many page views, but it's another thing have a narrow topic intersection like this that no one will read. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sandy, Airship and Bilby. Niche article of duplicate, to a minor degree, umbrella articles are neither unencyclopedic nor against summary style in being so. SN54129 19:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning selective merge per Vanamonde. I think this one is a little different from the four in this series already merged because those four were for figures that did little during the tour. Still, I can't quite get past the realization that this level of intricate detail on sporting matches is largely unencyclopedic detail. There's a place for highly detailed blow-by-blow recounting of sports matches, but that place often isn't Wikipedia, and spinning out a whole article for the purpose of allowing that level of detail generally isn't going to be a good idea. Hog Farm Talk 22:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per my and others' arguments in the first AfD and here. JoelleJay (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge HJ Mitchell summed this up well. There is no reason to fragment the subject into another article.  // Timothy :: talk  11:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per Vanamonde and HJ Mitchell. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, @WP:FAR coordinators: if this Featured article is merged, we will need to create a procedural FAR for the articlehistory bookkeeping. @WP:FAC coordinators: until the articlehistory is sorted, if the article is merged, it will show at Wikipedia:Featured articles/mismatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:02, 15 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor University[edit]

Windsor University (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 significant coverage of university by third-party sources. Fails WP:GNG. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:28, 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. LFaraone 19:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Mitchum[edit]

Orlando Mitchum (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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:06, 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. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Vaikundar[edit]

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

the article available in links of Wikipedia under the caption Ayya Vaikundar/Historical Vaikundar is factually wrong, Its against the primary source Akilathirattu ammanai Bindhur (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayya_Vaikundar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Vaikundar. The two divergent articles referred to above, according to me has inherent contradictions in both, and does not reflect the true divine nature and acts of Lord Vaikundar, who was reportedly the incarnate of Lord Narayana if one go by the text Akilathirattu Ammanai, which is akin to Veda Agama to the followers of Lord Vaikundar as the contents in them are reportedly dictated by the Lord himself to his disciple Hari Gopalan.

The observation that ‘few events referred to in the mythology have yet to be validated historically’, events mentioned in the historical Vaikundar, mention that ‘Research scholars regard Vaikundar as a teacher, healer and also a miracle worker’ cast doubt whether Lord Vaikundar was indeed divine incarnate or a human being like a preacher? Ayya Vaikundar was certainly not a healer or miracle worker like preachers, but divine incarnate and cured the suffering by his divine power like Perfect Masters of yester years.

My opinion is that, the documents should be redrafted to tell the life of Ayya Vaikundar based on the text Akilathirattu Ammanai, which is the primary source for all along with secondary sources as evidence.

If what I have read, understood and found in several sources was that Lord Vaikundar was undoubtedly Lord Narayana’s incarnation, manifested on earth in human form to end the misery and sufferings of eighteen classes of oppressed and suppressed in the deep southern states especially in Kerala where he commenced the reforms, series of social and self-respect movements etc were commenced subsequently toed by other eminent contemporary personalities like Narayana Guru, Chattampi Swamikal, Vallalar and Ayyankali. Therefore it would be appropriate if the life glory of Vaikundar is outlined strictly based on Akilathirattu Ammanai and Arul Nool without any deviation and historical events involving his presence his acts in human form can be classified year wise beginning from his manifestation, followed by different phases of penance, complaints of missionaries to the British Govt, acts of King of Travancore, imprisoned in jail and his release, marriages (Thirukalyanam), Muthiri Kinaru, establishments of Nizhal Thangals and Thuvayal Thavasu etc on various occasions. They could come as historical timeline of historical events involving Lord Vaikundar, mentioning the supporting documents wherever they are available including external documents available if any. Thanks

Strong Keep, Both articles are totally from different perspectives.

Ayya Vaikundar is a belief/mythology article based on Ayyavazhi beliefs, Ayyavazhi Mythology. The details here is elobrated upon in Akilathirattu Ammanai, the holy book of Ayyavazhi. Moreover there are hundreds of commentaries/thesis/lectures/books published in Tamil, Malayalam and English languages based on this; and few are mentioned in the reference section too. Ayya Vaikundar is a spiritual figure worshipped by million predominantly in Tamil Nadu and Kerala. And so the spiritual views over him (based on Sacred texts Akilathirattu Ammanai and Arul Nool) matters.
On the other hand Historical Vaikundar refers to the life and teachings of Ayya Vaikundar, being reconstructed purely from a historical perspective with reference to various historical sources in contrast to the mythological Akilamic views as mentioned explicitly in the intro of the article. The Historical views over Vaikundar equally matters because the social impact of the teachings of Vaikundar have had significant impact in South Indian Society generally; Specifically it impact over the Tamil and Keralite society is huge as briefed in the intro section again
" Ayya Vaikundar was the first to succeed as a social reformer in launching political struggle, social renaissance as well as religious reformation in the country. Vaikundar was the pioneer of the social revolutionaries of south India and Kerala. Research scholars regard Vaikundar as a teacher, healer and also a miracle worker. He was also said to be the forerunner of all social reformers of India. He was in the forefront of movements for Human Rights and Social Equality. His teachings also effected many social changes in southern India, resulting in the emergence of a series of social and self-respect movements such as Upper cloth agitation, Temple entry agitation and other movements including those of Narayana Guru, Chattampi Swamikal, Vallalar and Ayyankali."
Academics often confuse the historical as well as the spiritual perspective over Vaikundar . Because both the academic disciplines, the Humanity/Society and Spirituality/Belief/Philosophy have mutually inconsistent opinions over several events, instances, happenings etc. Hence both articles are needed to reflect the different perspectives which often goes mutually contradictory otherwise. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 11:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've read the article and still can't understand what it's about. I don't find any sources for this "thing" the article talks about and it's too muddled to figure out what to be looking for. Seems to be about a religious person that either does or doesn't exist. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your level of ignorance is unbelievable that after such lengthy elaborations in the article you couldn't figure out what the article is about! Nomination of this article here (which was based on multiple third party sources) is Injudicious.
  • Academics all across Tamil Nadu and Kerala, including multiple university publications refer to the historical validity of the activities of Vaikundar and its impact. Please Be Responsible before making unwarranted opinions. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 15:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It badly needs a rewrite or TNT in this case. Still leaning !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not clandestine, the article is too wordy and ref-bombed out the wazoo. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is too wordly simply because it should be. Because, the article is about a personality who is considered as the front-runner of all social reformations in South India whose impact initiated atleast half a dozen Social Reformers consequently. Citing sources regularly is Ref-bombing?!!? I couldn't understand. Most of the Books cited are Publications from reputed Universities and Credible Biographers.- Vaikunda Raja:talk: 16:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, in the intro at least, every second or third word is cited. It seems excessive. Oaktree b (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the sentences are compound and complex since they are condensed with information; This is normal in Wikipedia. See this article. It is to be noted that years back somebody came up and complained that the article Ayyavazhi is not cited adequately. It's natural; But see to what extend that user went! He placed "[citation needed]" template at 90 individual sentence/words across the article. I was fresh to wikipedia then and was not aware of the MOS completely. Nevertheless, the regulations/guidelines of Wikipedia were not fully defined those days (comparing today's) since Wiki was still developing. 17 years later, now it is been complained that the article was "Ref-bombed"!
    Leaving it aside, Will you vote for an article TO BE DELETED on the ground that "it is over referenced"?! that too in lead section alone?! - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 02:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not notable as the nominator suggests. It could be merged into the main article about he person perhaps. Ref-bombing it is neither helping nor hindering notability. Rest is gravy at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I Strongly agree to delete this page. Since its redundant and create confusion to the readers. The historical perspective can be added in the Main Article Ayya Vaikundar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayya_Vaikundar). The content written in this page is factually wrong, there are two characters are mixed up here. One is Sampoornadevan and another one is Vaikundar. This is the self-made article with wrong information, its against the primary source Akilathirattu Ammanai. My question is, What we are going to achieve by doing this?
    The Article about Sampoornadevan already exists, here you go. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampooranathevan)
    The Article about Ayya Vaikundar already exists, here you go.
    (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayya_Vaikundar)
    Pls refer external sources of information:
    http://www.vaikundar.com/history-of-ayya-vaikundar.aspx
    I Kindly request to delete this page. Truth alone Triumphs. Bindhur (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect your belief and sentiments. You believe Vaikundar as a God incarnate. Then why you are bothering about the critical Historical views in a history article. (OR) Why you are arguing for adding the historical interpretation to the belief related article which may go contrary to your beliefs! - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 14:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why it should be merged into the main article? Why Historical Jesus was not merged with Jesus Article. The question of notability does not arises since we are speaking about a personality who is the forerunner of social changes across India; which means who impacted one-seventh or atleast 500 million people directly.
    Another major reason HERE is, both articles or not different perspectives about a same person. 4 Different personalities are involved with one character. Narayana, Sampooranathevan, Mudisoodum Perumal and Ayya Vaikundar. The spiritual amalgamation of all these characters is as per the Ayyavazhi Mythology. That is described in Ayya Vaikundar article. This view shall not be ignored since he is being believed as supreme God by tens of millions of people. (Actually, the complex relationships between these characters is not detailed in the article now. It's a laborious process and I am working on it).
    Our subject here is about the historical validity of the Personality. We might have ignored the Historical perspective if the social impact of him is negligible when compared to the religious one. We cannot go by the line that every religions personality shall impact the society socially as well as religiously. THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE. The Historical view about Vaikundar is directly against the religious views over him. While he is just a Social Reformer Historically he is the supreme most worshippable God as per Ayyavazhi Mythology.
    The most important thing is that, these two articles ARE NOT DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ABOUT ONE PERSON TO MERGE BOTH OF THEM. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 14:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are passionate about the subject, we understand. I'd simply let the process play out at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yon need not be dispassionate to be rational. Thanks. - Vaikunda Raja:talk: 15:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not sure why there is a debate at this point; there's a religious figure with religious significance who also had a historical life. The pages are significantly different and the content is well sourced from what I can see. Both potentially need cleanup, but I don't see any compelling reason for delete or merge. JMWt (talk) 07:50, 15 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) 02:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Lal[edit]

Marcus Lal (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)

PROD concern by User:Pichpich was Hasn't played a single game in a fully professional league or in senior international competitions. No sign of significant coverage. Removed by article creator without any edit summary or improvement to the article. The creator also removed the notability tag by User:Onel5969 without any edit summary or attempts to improve the article. Taking to AfD as I can't see any evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC being met in my own searches either. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.manlyunitedfc.com.au/2022/10/21/lal-brothers-off-to-the-world-cup/ No Manly United is Lal's employer so clearly not independent of Lal No ~ Discusses his family a bit ✘ No
https://www.theroar.com.au/2022/06/17/fijis-football-youth-revolution-is-on/ Yes Yes No Mentioned in one sentence ✘ No
https://amp.suara.com/bola/2023/02/10/174313/sepak-terjang-timnas-fiji-u-20-calon-lawan-timnas-indonesia-di-turnamen-mini Yes Yes No Not mentioned ✘ No
https://www.fbcnews.com.fj/sports/football/junior-bula-boys-shine-in-nz/ Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://fijilive.com/football/2023/01/27/lal-joins-u20-camp-for-wc-prep/14068/ Yes Yes No Confirms his age, name of father, name of brother and little else ✘ No
https://www.bolatimes.com/boladunia/2023/02/10/164500/profil-fiji-u-20-lawan-timnas-indonesia-u-20-di-turnamen-mini-jelang-piala-asia-u-20-2023 Yes Yes No Squad list mention ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I stand by my PROD rationale. Just a note on the three sources provided. The first is not independent of the subject since it's published by his team. The second has a passing mention: "Then there’s the prolific junior striker Marcus Lal, who’s coming off a great season with Manly United in the NSW NPL." (which is a dubious statement since he's a forward and has scored only 1 goal). The third is in Indonesian but it does not contain the words "Marcus" or "Lal". Finally, he plays in the New South Wales Premier League which is a semi-pro league. Pichpich (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - would have remained a few years ago prior to the downgrading of NFOOTY, but does not pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 19:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources added. These were easy to find, and it would be useful if people checked first, before going straight to deletion.--IdiotSavant (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did check first, if you look at my source analysis above, you can see I had found both of those sources already and explained why they don't show WP:SIGCOV. For those that didn't see my SA, FBC News only mentions Lal once so is clearly and obviously trivial coverage. Fiji Live is better but it still only mentions the names of two non-notable members of his family and the fact that he is 19 years old and nothing else. Nothing else at all. I don't see how this is worthy of a stand-alone article in a general encyclopaedia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @GiantSnowman:, sources added to article and article expanded. Clearly significant young figure in Fijian football with ongoing international career and club career abroad. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, no significant coverage that I can see. GiantSnowman 18:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He does not have an "ongoing international career". He played in one friendly against the development team of the semipro Auckland City FC. This was in preparation for the 2022 OFC U-19 Championship but there's no indication that he played in the actual tournament. Similarly, he attended the camp for the Fiji U20 camp but there's no indication that he's on the team and in particular, it seems clear that he has yet to play a single match for the U20. I'd also argue that being on the junior team of Fiji (which is what, 150th in the FIFA rankings?) does not make you notable, far from it. As far as a "club career abroad", let's get real. He's playing for a semipro team so he probably needs to have a second job to pay his rent. (And of course, none of the proposed sources meet WP:SIGCOV.) Pichpich (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Multiple primary sources were posted with some secondary sources to assist, so he meets WP:GNGKatoKungLee (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you are aware, WP:SECONDARY sources are way better than WP:PRIMARY. Also, which sources count towards GNG? Do you disagree with my source analysis? If so, which parts have I got wrong? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think both of these should count as significant coverage and meeting WP:GNG - https://www.manlyunitedfc.com.au/2022/10/21/lal-brothers-off-to-the-world-cup/ and https://fijilive.com/football/2023/01/27/lal-joins-u20-camp-for-wc-prep/14068. I don't think the reliability concern is needed.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Manly United would be his employer so doesn't count as independent - see WP:IS, section 3 - the table classes a person's employer as non-independent. I have 'significant coverage' on my own employer's website through a few things I've done such as Employee of the Month, charity events etc. but I don't qualify for an article because none of that has made it into independent, reliable sources that don't have any interest in promoting me. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not being used to unfairly promote the players or something. I would disqualify it if they were saying, "Here's the great Marcus Lai. He is the best player ever and is sure to be the MVP of the tournament" or something of that nature. It's just mainly quotes from him.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a promotional source, correct, but it's obviously non-independent as it's his employer. Per WP:NIS, and I quote, Non-independent sources should never be used to support claims of notability, but can with caution be used to fill in noncontroversial details. Hopefully this settles things now. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Despite the sources added, I still think this fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV based on Spiderone's source analysis. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spiderone's analysis is spot-on. The sources added and being defended here are of the same miserable quality as those pushed by the same group of editors in hundreds of other AfDs closed as delete. It would be helpful if whoever closes this acknowledges that anti-consensus behavior like continuously asserting non-independent and clearly trivial sources meet GNG is disruptive. JoelleJay (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Spiderone's analysis of the sources. Subject fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG with not one single example of independent SIGCOV. Avilich (talk) 18:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG, don't agree with analysis of above sources for fijilive.com, which I think is significant.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One source is not enough to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Find me where it says that. Ortizesp (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the use of the plural reliable sources in WP:GNG is a big clue. But if you want an even more explicit statement, WP:NBASIC 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.". Pichpich (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am astounded you're asking that. JoelleJay (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per source analysis by Spiderone, though I think the Fijilive source is borderline acceptable (either way, that alone wouldn't satisfy GNG). Frank Anchor 18:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obvious failure of WP:GNG with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:58, 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 keep. LFaraone 19:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Labrada[edit]

Carlos Labrada (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 and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per sources below which show notability. Yes, it's all "look at this Mexican playing for Virgin Islands", but it's enough. GiantSnowman 21:39, 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. LFaraone 19:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ganrapota High School[edit]

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

Article was created 10 years ago, a time in which schools were presumed to be notable as long as their existence could be proved. This is no longer the case and they need to meet WP:GNG and WP:NORG standards as with any other organisation. The article was previously given a PROD in 2018 and there is still no evidence of notability five years later. The sole reference is just a directory listing, which is trivial coverage. My own searches only yield similarly poor sources such as Justdial and Schoolsworld.

This article is way, way overdue an AfD. If any genuine evidence of any notability does arise, please ping me. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:54, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azeus Systems[edit]

Azeus Systems (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)

Holding company doesn't seem to meet NCORP - insufficient coverage meeting the WP:CORPDEPTH thresholds. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond stock pricing stories and a new CEO they've hired, it's all routine business announcements. I was looking at the Azeus brand for a redirect, but I don't think it's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 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 keep. LFaraone 19:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill L. Norton[edit]

Bill L. Norton (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 LA Times article is the only source on page which primarily discusses Norton himself and not his films independently. Couldn't find any additional coverage. Even with a WP:FILMMAKER #3 pass, I hardly find it valuable if sources only wanna mention the man in passing when he's credited for something rather than actually discuss him specifically. QuietHere (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. QuietHere (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FILM 3 is for a collective body of work or well-reviewed films, one cult classic that didn't become so until 36 years later and only just barely gets mentioned now is a weak claim for notability. I'd be willing to revisit if we had more discussion of his work, the LA Times is fine, but that's about all I can find as well. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as mentioned, Cisco Pike is enough of a classic/cult classic that it has been written about consistently since its release: Variety, Film Quarterly, Film Comment, Sight and Sound, Los Angeles Times. Whatever the quality of the other films, they were "major" in the studio/stars sense, and More American Graffiti and Baby were reviewed by sources such as Variety, Oakland Post, The Globe and Mail, San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Globe, etc. Caro7200 (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the LAT obit is for a different Norton. Caro7200 (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I didn't realize there were multiple LAT sources here. The one I was referring to above is "The Celluloid Time Capsule". That obit is for Norton's father who has a mostly similar name. And I've already said my piece on the #3 pass alone so I need not repeat myself. QuietHere (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Directed multiple movies with pages here and TV shows and was mentioned in multiple books.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I've looked over what's given and what is discussed above. Not the greatest, but it's just barely notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 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. There are strong arguments against redirecting. No objection to creating a disambiguation page if so desired. Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Buchanan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Paul Buchanan (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)

Paul Buchanan

There are two related problems with this Lugnuts sports stub. First, its only source is a database entry, which does not provide secondary coverage. Second, because it only states that he exists (and we knew that from the database entry), it does not even attempt to satisfy general notability. It also does not satisfy the revised cricket notability guidelines. The Heymann criterion is to expand this article within seven days with a reliable source. If someone thinks that sources exist, draftification is a reasonable action. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note, the first deletion debate was about a different person, a boxer of the same name. Cullen328 (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Jamaican representative cricketers Looks not to pass GNG, however there is a suitable redirect here per WP:ATD. I doubt we'd be able to find coverage of him that would suggest a GNG pass with sourcing for West Indian non-internationals of the era limited, but redirecting saves the history if something is found, and probably preferable to draftfying. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5 ("Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources."). Article is a micro stub based solely on a database and fails to cite any SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The long sanding consensus in cases such as this is to redirect to a suitable list if one is available. This ensures that the attribution, sourcing and so on remain and is per the policy (not guideline) WP:ATD. The chances are that there is at least some offline coverage of the person from when they played cricket, but I would think it unlikely in this case that we're going to be able to find anything in the way of reliable sources over a sensibly short timeframe. A redirect is slightly more complex in this case due to the musician and there may be a need to sort out some page moving and so on first - that would probably have been better discussed ahead of an AfD I imagine, but there you go. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Jamaican representative cricketers as a valid WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No to redirecting. Redirecting is not a viable alternative here. Paul Buchanan is an extremely common name. The football player is virtually unknown and far less notable than other Paul Buchanans. For example, there is the Scottish musician and lead singer of The Blue Nile (see here and here). It does our readers a major disservice to redirect them to a list of Jamaican cricketeers when they are far more likely to be searching for the musician. (There is also the boxer who was the subject of the prior deletion discussion here). Cbl62 (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, there may need to be some page moving involved first. That may warrant a possible dab creation. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting we create a Paul Buchanan (disambiguation) page with one entry on the musician redirecting to The Blue Nile and another for the cricket player redirecting to List of Jamaican representative cricketers. That doesn't sound bad. Cbl62 (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not redirect. Instead, make Paul Buchanan a disambiguation page linking to the pages Cbl62 mentions. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP without proper sourcing to show notability. No objection to a redirect to a disam page, or another appropriate target.  // Timothy :: talk  11:50, 15 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 merge to Piers Anthony. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Letters to Jenny[edit]

Letters to Jenny (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 refs on the page for many years. I have a few short reviews but nothing which seems to me to be significant coverage in RS as per the GNG JMWt (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with a merge to the author's page here as discussed. The sources given in the discussion above are ok-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 20:50, 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. Consensus is clear. Whether some of this content is added to grapefruit is a separate question (I note that Watermelon and Pumpkin list the largest-recorded instances). BD2412 T 01:51, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas and Mary Beth Meyer[edit]

Douglas and Mary Beth Meyer (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 couple. We don't consider World Records notable unless there is sourcing that talks about them in detail. Beyond confirming the largeness of the grapefruit, there is nothing about these people. Gsearch goes straight into social media links. Oaktree b (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is much comparison between someone who is famous, briefly, for growing large grapefruit and high scorers in the NBA. For a start, people who have long careers in the NBA are notable as per WP:NSPORTS JMWt (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The record is ongoing. It's not a one and done record. It could be broken, correct? I have information about the original grapefruit record. I could post that if it is needed to show that this is not some one time only thing. Just really looking for clarity here on how to judge the importance of Record A vs Record B to a non-fan.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the "world record for growing the largest grapefruit" is not notable, why would you think "person who holds record for growing the largest grapefruit" was notable if their sole source of notability was the grapefruit growing? I'm not understanding your logic. JMWt (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Growing a large grapefruit is perhaps notable, Guinness is not. You can pay them and they'll come to certify your record. Being featured in a non-notable book, is not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to the ruling on here where Guinness is marked as a non-reputable source or purposely excluded? This would definitely be important for me to know going forward, as would this general world record but not-notable rule that nobody has been able to show me yet.KatoKungLee (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've never claimed it wasn't notable. If you think I should also post information about the previous record holder, I'd be up for it. Is that what you mean?KatoKungLee (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
um. I think maybe I need a timeout because now I'm very confused. JMWt (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Louisiana. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. What? People think that's what makes someone encyclopedic? No. Neither the topic nor the sourcing make this acceptable. Delete Drmies (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete please before anyone is tempted to start a run of articles on world-record fruit and veg. Mccapra (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Too late, this same editor also has Christian Cavaletti, and Jackie Miley, and Harry Sperl, which I'm also probably going to nominate. Onel5969 TT me 01:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is completely and totally against Wikipedia:Assume good faith. It goes against Wikipedia:DLS, Wikipedia:Don't attack the nominator and seems to break Wikipedia:DLC and Wikipedia:REVENGE. I think an apology is in store @Onel5969. Nominate any article that you feel there is a problem with. I'm not personally offended. Any nomination should have to do with what is in the article, not with me personally. KatoKungLee (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps I'm blind, but I'm failing to see where Onel5969 allegedly failed to assume good faith. I'm also failing to see what Onel should apologize for, given that the discussion was centered around the notability of a specific topic of articles which is entirely appropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fram and others - everything relevant has already been said. --hroest 20:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fram and others - In general, world records about growing vegetables and fruits are not notable for an encyclopedia. Paul H. (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I can see that these people are notable for one event WP:BLP1E. But I think that the well-sourced content of the article would make a useful section to add to the article on grapefruit.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (highly selective). Best mentioned in a short phrase on grapefruit, without the names of the couple. The proof in the anonymous grapefruit pudding is in the newspaper titles. gidonb (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E, Guinness World Record aren't inherently notable. Don't see much content worth merging into grapefruit, apart from maybe the one sentence The grapefruit weighed 7 pounds and 14.64 ounces and measured 28.75 inches in circumference. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very good. That and some refs. This opinion and all other opinions that support a selective merge should be read as such, which receives priority also as an WP:ATD. gidonb (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. The opinion of people believing that this doesn't even warrant a mention at "grapefruit" are just as valid as those preferring a merge, and nothing in WP:ATD says that merge opinions "receive priority". "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Including trivia into the grapefruit article doesn't improve that article in my opinion and presumably some of the other delete !voters. These are not more or less valid than the opinions of people who believe that this factoid would improve the grapefruit article. Fram (talk) 08:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Preserving the edit history should be preferable if at all possible. Even if we're preserving one sentence. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 14:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, preserving the edit history is not preferable, why would it be? If there would be consensus that nothing here is worth merging, then it is not preferable to keep the edit history, it would serve no purpose. We shouldn't do a merge as a means to keep the edit history, we should keep the edit history if and only if a merge is deemed the best solution. What I dispute is that merges would somehow receive priority over deletion (I've even seen the claim, though I don't remember if it was made by Gidonb, that one good faith merge !vote would automatically overrule all delete !votes). Fram (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pretty clear cut example of WP:BLP1E. Not opposed for a brief mention at grapefruit. Not a ton here worth saving though. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Grapefruit per Toddy1 - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 14:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – not notable for stand alone article. WP:NOTNEWS applies. Kierzek (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Awards. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 14:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a pretty standard WP:BLP1E. I don't see any value in a formal merge here either. If there is something to be said at grapefruit, that can be done independently of this article or AfD process. KoA (talk) 20:27, 13 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 Circle route. It's clear that there is no desire for the article to exist at this location, though there is no consensus where exactly to go. I've boldly chosen circle route as what is in my view the best target, but others are welcome to modify that either boldly or via a talk page discussion. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loop line (railway)[edit]

Loop line (railway) (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:NOTDICTIONARY. We already have information covered in Circle Line; thus this page serves no purpose and should be merged or deleted. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 16:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Circle route - Tbf69 🛈 🗩 11:57, 11 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 both. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of first ice hockey internationals per country: 1909–1999[edit]

List of first ice hockey internationals per country: 1909–1999 (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)

These lists both fail to meet WP:LISTN, with no independent reliable sources to validate why a standalone list is notable. The lists currently have only Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill citations to box scores, which do nothing to state why the list is notable as a whole. Flibirigit (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons as above:

List of first ice hockey internationals per country: since 2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Lists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom and rationale for the related discussion at List of first women's ice hockey internationals per country: 1987-1999. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. WP:INDISCRIMINATE and many of the reference links don't work. Ajf773 (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both: per my vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first women's ice hockey internationals per country: 1987-1999, and for much the same reasons. Ravenswing 21:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Per WP:LISTN. These items are valid for the national team of each country and already listed there. gidonb (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. The origins of hockey programs are notable, but this list is not. Some of the entries that are 'sourced' do not make any logical sense and reveal how useless the source itself is; do we really believe that Iceland never played an international game until they showed up at an IIHF sanctioned championship.18abruce (talk) 12:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. Rlendog (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- “appropriate” reasons are not suffice to describe the incompetence with reasons listed here being happy with less information, the article is beneficial to people such as myself on the autism spectrum, and I believe this wasn’t well thought about by the supposedly “fair” social thinkers listed above Dweisz94 (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahem. You will find, in point of fact, that there is no exemption from Wikipedia policies or notability guidelines just because an article is allegedly beneficial to those on the spectrum. Being on the spectrum myself, I don't see it. Perhaps you can explain precisely what unique benefits this article -- as opposed to the other sixty-eight articles nominated for deletion on the same day -- confers to that population. Ravenswing 20:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that although different individuals may be on the spectrum we have different aptitudes oriented to different abilities, I assume keeping elemental and factual or in correspondence to “Trivia” is an advantage however there may be linguistic oriented people on the spectrum which would also still be factual), I absolutely understand about the policies but this is not being deleted due to a policy it’s due a subjective impression of the policies which haven’t actually proven to be qualified impressions Dweisz94 (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't seem that you do understand the relevant policies, judging from your utterly meritless and disruptive attempts to take this to ANI and AE both. I strongly advise you to quit while you're behind, respect the consensus that has developed, and drop the stick on these bizarre arguments, before your competence as an editor is brought into formal question. Ravenswing 16:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn’t take this to ANI nor AE, I didn’t believe it was possible to be acceptable to add a non AfD article with an AfD article and only went to ANI and AE against Flibirigit as that’s exactly what he did Dweisz94 (talk) 01:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, taking it to ANI is, indeed, taking it to ANI. Ravenswing 02:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying taking “this” to ANI means taking the entire issue of this deletion page to ANI that’s why I’m saying I didn’t do that because I did not Dweisz94 (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Main argument was my reply of 01:21 March 14, 2023 Dweisz94 (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody here has a problem with keeping up the first Soccer internationals per country, it’s a disgraceful double standard that isn’t based on something that would keep a thriving Wikipedia community Dweisz94 (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dweisz94, removing the template from the list is incorrect. Please see Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process. Have a great day. Flibirigit (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Going a few steps ahead you are threatening such that I comply with something that actually is not correct, the importance would rely on you hearing what you like Dweisz94 (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A reference to Wikipedia policy is not a threat. It is an explanation of why the edit was reverted. Flibirigit (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The reference to the policy isn’t what I’m talking about Dweisz94 (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: suffice to say, the article constitutes an example of everything Wikipedia is not. SN54129 13:38, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Statistical errata, really makes no sense in a list like this. Zaathras (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons listed above and at the women's 1987-1999 AFD discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:12, 13 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. Sourcing provided, nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Megachile relata[edit]

Megachile relata (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 is allegedly a species of bee, but I can't find any convincing evidence online that it exists. Most sources that do mention it say "Megachile relata is a species of bee in the family Megachilidae. It was described by Smith in 1879," which is the page's own text. The page has one reference and the species name is not included there. Moonreach (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Organisms. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep I think you may have missed out on some obvious databases there. It is present in BioLib [12], CoL [13], and ITIS [14], with no indication of invalid status. The original description is here. What say I fix up the referencing and you withdraw this? :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how to formally withdraw (apart from blanking this section) but I'd appreciate that. Moonreach (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'll do the honours. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:50, 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 2021–22 UEFA Youth League. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 UEFA Youth League final[edit]

2022 UEFA Youth League final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I redirected this to 2021–22 UEFA Youth League, but was reverted. This is just the culmination of the tournament, not a match that in itself is terribly notable (every week, there are soccer matches which get a lot more attention). Coverage in the main article for the event is sufficient for this youth match. Fram (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Every season of UEFA has a finals page, Champions, Europa, Europa Conference and Youth Tomrtn (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Same page appears in previous years.Tomrtn (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The importance or notability of the Champions League final is hardly comparable to the Youth League final of course. Fram (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:SPORTSEVENT allows that finals are almost certainly notable but this strongly implies that it refers to top/professional competitions rather than youth competitions. I can't find any reliable sources either, so fails WP:GNG. WJ94 (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops, I meant to say redirect rather than delete! Same rationale applies. WJ94 (talk) 10:40, 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. The "delete" !votes have the stronger policy-based arguments. Randykitty (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Euker[edit]

Megan Euker (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 book agent. Fails WP:SIGCOV. US-Verified (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: There is a sizeable coverage of the subject in several credible sources related to their field of art and those count for WP:SIGCOV. Though some of the sources cited do not count for notability but that is not to say that there are no sources that support their notability. It requires a careful one-by-one review of the sources cited to be able to find reliable ones due to large number (20) sources cited in the short article. There is already a problem of RefBomb. A before search indicates the subject of the article has done some notable works as well as exhibitions. The issue of COI raised on the article should not have been the reason for bringing it to WP:AFD because AFD is not a place for resolving such issues. If there is COI content the article should be cleaned to comply with editorial guidelines. Myna50 (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - some of the sources cited are reliable and count for notability. LocomotiveEngine (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which ones?  // Timothy :: talk  12:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:Artist. Of the three references I checked, two failed verification and one is behind a firewall "meuker" School of the Art Institute of Chicago]. The very specific birth date points to COI as well. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the analysis of the sources offered by Myna50 as there are verifiable sources cited in the article. It only takes due deligence reviewing the sources to find useful and verifiable sources. Subject of the article has done a number of international art exhibitions and is a two-time Fulbright grant recipient to Italy. This is an internationally recognized grant. The subject has also mentored several students who have made some inventions and attributed their success to the subject. These events are reported by verifiable sources. Carinco Tuck (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hope other reviewers will look at the many assertions in the article that have failed verification. Also receiving a Fulbright travel grant does not add to notability. Reviewers might also want to check to page history and contributors - one subject editors. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The sources are not Ind RS, most are promotional, none are secondary sources with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indpeth. None of the keep votes above cite sources or notability guidelines. The article has been refbombed with non-independent sources, but no one has bought a single, independent, secondary source. BLPs need clearly reliable sourcing for notability and content.  // Timothy :: talk  12:01, 15 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Myo Myint Kyaw[edit]

Myo Myint Kyaw (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)

Brief mentions, a bit promtional tone, fails WP:SIGCOV. US-Verified (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, and Myanmar. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree. The first one [24] (Moda Magazine) gives biographical information about his education and career: A student who sold potato chips, established Revo Tech in 2012 and was able to shape it into one of the largest digital companies in Myanmar within five years. He graduated from the UK with a degree in computer science and worked in the tech industry in Singapore for four years. Along with the successful Revo Tech, Akhayar Media, which was established in 2016, was also able to achieve a high viewing rate in Myanmar. The Second one [25] from The Myanmar Times (which is not mentioned in the article because the link is dead, I recovered it via wayback machine), that detailed information shows that he played an important role in the improvement and reform of Myanmar's technology sector (see also nytimes article). The third one [26] (Frontier Myanmar) gives fairly detailed information about his career. The fourth one [27] (Nikkei) meanders in topic somewhat but also includes biographical information about him. and also in Bagkok Post BABY SILICON VALLEY. I can go on if you'd like, but I don't think any of the sources I linked can be described as just passing mentions. He is the CEO of Revo Tech, a highly notable company and the country's biggest one (mentioned in the source). In general, CEOs of major companies or the country's largest companies like this are notable enough to have their own articles, so rewriting rather than merging would typically be the best choice. Other than the mention of the three recognitions, which can be removed or fixed later, I don't see how the rest of the article is a puff piece, as it just mentions the basic facts in a neutral way. There are enough reliable sources online to back up this biography, so some of the press release references can eventually be replaced with better sources later on. Overall, it fits into the scope of an online encyclopedia. Myanmar's tech industry remains modest due to long-term military rule, but he is the country's most renowned technopreneur and the only one who has earned local and international attention. Moreover, the person in question serves as an exemplary representation of the many young individuals in Myanmar who have a strong interest in the field of technology (Myanmar is not the United States). With the ever-growing influence of technology in today's world, there has been a surge in the number of Burmese youths looking to enter the tech industry and explore various avenues for growth and development in this field. [28], စွန့်ဦးလမ်းထွင် အရှိန်မြှင့် အစီအစဉ်. So, his notability will be determined by another local editor. Thanks Taung Tan (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with Taung Tan's new source additions showing notability. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and agree per Taung Tan. Technology industry in Myanmar is still in its infancy, and there are only few individuals who have made significant contributions and achieved notability in this field. The subject is among one of the pioneers and has made significant contributions to the field, making him a worthy subject for an article on Wikipedia.. Htanaungg (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. He is notable in our country. 103.200.134.90 (talk) 13:30, 14 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. Assuming zh sources check out, please ping me if not. LFaraone 02:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NewBornTown[edit]

NewBornTown (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 indication that this passes WP:NCORP, and I found nothing even close, but I don't have the ability to check Chinese sources. Gnomingstuff (talk) 14:39, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cork Caucus[edit]

Cork Caucus (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 event or event-series that fails WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. I've spent some time, as part of a WP:BEFORE, seeking and reviewing sources to help improve this article. I cannot. And so am left with AfD. Most of the refs in the article (many of which I'm not sure even ARE refs and may just be ELs formatted as refs) do not even support the text. Not to mind supporting notability. In terms of WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources, all I can find are the passing-mentions I've already added. Which do not add up to notability. The only coverage that I can even consider contributing is that single book (Cork Caucus : on art, possibility and democracy [34][35]). But this doesn't seem to be independent and (even if it were) I don't see how it, alone, confirms notability. In terms of WP:NEVENT, while the "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cork_Caucus&oldid=1143408299#Legacy legacy]" section appears to try and set out some lasting impact/relevance claims (which might help with WP:LASTING), the section is not supported by a single verifiable/reliable/independent reference. If I pared back the article to what can be supported it would be a DICDEF/sub-stub. That the article was quite promotional from the outset does little to help... Guliolopez (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable event, meets WP:GNG due to significant coverage Note:
  1. COTTER, L. Cork Caucus: Where Do We Go from Here? Circa: Art Magazine, [s. l.], n. 113, p. 56–61, 2005. DOI 10.2307/25564343. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asu&AN=505162962&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 7 mar. 2023.
  2. PACKER, M. [Cork Caucus]. Irish Arts Review, [s. l.], v. 26, n. 1, p. 135–136, 2009. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asu&AN=505412540&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 7 mar. 2023.
  3. WILSON, M. Terms of Art and Tricks of Trade: A Critical Look at the Irish Art Scene Now. Third Text, [s. l.], v. 19, n. 5, p. 535–543, 2005. DOI 10.1080/09528820500232470. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asu&AN=505147115&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 7 mar. 2023.
It is easy to verify notability using the wikipedia library. I've started article improvements and more will follow. CT55555(talk) 15:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With thanks for your note above, and the identification of additional sources (such as Cotter (2005) and Lerm-Hayes & Walters (2011)), I would note that some didn't immediately support the nearby text. And, apart from Cotter, don't all deal with the subject as a primary topic. Packer (2008), for example, appears to be a book review of one of the linked sources, and not direct coverage of the topic itself(?) And Wilson (2005) appears to be an essay on the art scene in Ireland generally in 2005 which perhaps affords (max?) 10% of the text to the subject here. Certainly it isn't the primary topic of Wilson's piece. If you can add the other source you mention, and if they do (as expected/suggested) "easily verify notability", then I'll be delighted to self-close nom as withdrawn. Right now I'm still not seeing it though. Guliolopez (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that the article needed improvements and me adding citations that didn't solve all of the sourcing gap is besides the point. There is no rule that significant coverage requires the source to be mostly about the topic, it's ok for it to be 10% about the subject if it is significant coverage (I quote from WP:SIGCOV ... does not need to be the main topic of the source material.) I should not need to add the sources to the article, I need only establish that the topic is notable to make a valid keep !vote. I did not suggest that the list above is exhaustive. Your comment is setting the bar too high, the onus was on editors nominating things for deletion to do the searches WP:BEFORE. CT55555(talk) 18:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya. Thanks so much for responding. RE: "onus on editors nominating to do searches". You are 100% correct. And I probably didn't look enough outside mainstream/news/related sources, and so overlooked the Cotter (2005) and Lerm-Hayes & Walters (2011) sources that you helpfully highlighted. Thanks again! RE: "should not need to add more sources to article". Apologies if I wasn't clear, but I wasn't asking you to add to the article. Rather to mention here. To see if they were of similar to the Cotter (2005) and Lerm-Hayes & Walters (2011). As, if WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:DIVERSE were met, I'd just withdraw the nom. Obviously no obligation/expectation. RE: "doesn't need to be main topic". You are, of course, correct. I guess my point was simply that many of the sources, like Wilson (2005), represent transient coverage that is 'of the time'. And don't really help much with WP:SUSTAINED. Anyway, this is why I opened the AfD. To prompt discussion. Personally I still don't see this as clearly notable (black/white). And, the shade of grey that I perceive is perhaps much darker.... Anyway, absent an AtD (like a redirect to a National Sculpture Factory article, given that the seems like a "WP:PRODUCT" of that org), I'm still not sure that notability/GNG/NEVENT is clearly demonstrated for a standalone article. Guliolopez (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply and for the tone of it. I've looked again and actually you are correct that it is less black and white than I stated. When I read further into the sources that I found on Wikipedia Library, they are not sufficiently robust to add to what is already mentioned supporting notability. And indeed the issues of independence and one of my sources being a book review of a non-independent book that was produced about the event are correct.
I did note in my searches a handful of book authors who are quoting what I think are essays produced at the event, or after the event, that appear in that book. That might not be the clearest example of WP:PERSISTENCE. Noting academic sources, The Irish Times, The Irish Independent and books covering the event appears WP:DIVERSE to me.
I am undecided if I should adjust my !vote to a weak keep. My thinking is:
  • Quality of sources: Borderline weak keep/keep
  • PERSISTENCE/SUSTAINED: weak keep
  • DIVERSE: keep
CT55555(talk) 15:09, 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! 03:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ikram Akhtar Films[edit]

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

I doubt this production company meets the notability requirements set by WP:COMPANY. My quick google search produced no significant discussion of the company. AmusingWeasel (talk) 14:04, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Madcap (software)[edit]

Madcap (software) (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 is charmingly specific (note it's only for fluid milk! :) and the software is clearly a known quantity in the industry [36], but unsurprisingly the wider world appears not to have taken much notice of it so far. Primary and almost-primary sources seem to be the only ones, plus the odd passing mention (see the thesis above). Not sure if it's worth merging to New Zealand Dairy Board? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help strengthen the credentials of the software if information was included about it being used in over 24 countries to manage the collection of milk from over 200,000 farms by the largest food and beverage company in the world, Nestle? They refer to it as their "Global Milk Solution" which is MADCAP.
Also, there is other software in the dairy supply chain space, such as Ever.Ag and Milk Moovement that could be included to be more inclusive about this particular dairy software niche.
One issue I have with citations is that the software originates from 1974, so there are not many external internet sources to verify some of the history. Any suggestions for how to handle this?
Let me know what else is required to substantiate the significance of the software and prevent deletion. Z4nath (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Z4nath: sorry, didn't see this. - Genuine lack of coverage is frequently something that just cannot be overcome. Since we only collate existing coverage, if that doesn't exist to a sufficient degree, then we are stumped as far as writing a standalone article is concernced. Specialist software often suffers from that. However, I think there might be more mileage in covering the various software solutions in context at an existing page (notability concerns do not apply when something is treated as a subtopic within an article). For example, Dairy farming#Supply management could well take a subsection on management software. Grotesquely, that subsection currently concerns itself exclusively with Canada - no idea how that happened - so it could use an overhaul anyway. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response @Elmidae Great suggestions! I'll look further into this avenue and see if that will work. 203.109.150.9 (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 13:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment what is clearly missing here are reliable, independent sources that attribute to the importance of the software. So far I count 3 sources tied to the company and one source tied to JADE, the platform used to build the software which seems semi-independent to me (they have a financial incentive to hype projects built on their platform). --hroest 15:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If the page is kept, some effort at linking should be made. The only current inbound links are two redirects and a bunch of user pages. I'm not sure if that meets the formal definition of an orphan page, but if not then it's close. Moonreach (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not much mention in any sort of RS that discusses it at length. Could perhaps be a merge to the NZ Dairy Board article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is Contec Group International notable enough for this to be turned into an article about that, rather than merging to New Zealand Dairy Board? Nurg (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence notability requirements are met. If kept, copyedit needed, not least to change to sentence case. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing is sourced, no one has been able to find sources. No objection to a merge if someone can find an Ind RS.  // Timothy :: talk  12:07, 15 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniele Servadei[edit]

Daniele Servadei (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)

Semi-advertorialized ("paving the future of digital ecommerce and revolutionizing the way digital products are sold online") WP:BLP of an e-commerce/cryptocurrency entrepreneur, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for businesspeople. As always, CEOs of their own startups are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they and their companies exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing -- but two of the four footnotes here are pieces of the subject's own bylined writing, and the other two are Q&A interviews in which he's answering questions about himself and his work in the first person, which means that absolutely none of them represent third-party coverage about him in sources independent of himself. We require sources in which he's the subject of coverage and analysis being written by other people, not sources in which he's the one doing the speaking.
There may also be some form of conflict of interest here, as this was created by a brand-new user who appears to have intentionally tried to game autoconfirmed status: they basically twiddled and fiddled with unnecessary busywork edits to this in sandbox ("just infobox, then save, then section headers without content, then save, then remove entry fields not planned for use from the infobox, then save, then finally add the actual body text only at the end") to turn the page's creation into a 14-edit processs instead of one, and then immediately moved the page into mainspace themself as soon as they'd crossed the four-day hump for gaining page-move privileges -- and the body text edits both tripped the "Possible self promotion in userspace" filter due to the semi-advertorialism. Bearcat (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator unless additional reliable third-party coverage can be found. BogLogs (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator, fails guidelines, looks like self promotion. --hroest 15:11, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete more crypto fluff, trying to meet GNG. Hardly even mentioned in anything that isn't a crypto blog or PR piece, long way from notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. Would not be surprised if the SPA that wrote this article was a UPE. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It seems like his company Selix might be the thing to write an article about if it has as much money and as many employees as it says. It doesn't seem like this person has much coverage on his own.KatoKungLee (talk) 17:15, 11 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 deleted as G3. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 14:00, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dnieprpetrovskbass independentism[edit]

Dnieprpetrovskbass independentism (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)

Unsourced, unverifiable[37]. Fram (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Ukraine. Fram (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7. Google turns up nothing around this. — Czello 13:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no refs, no context, as noted a search turns up nothing, possible hoax. Probably should be just speedy deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It occurred to me it might be a hoax, but as far as I can see the creator of the article is a good faith editor who might struggle with WP:GNG at times. — Czello 13:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have seen "unintentional hoaxes" before, when someone creates a good-faith article based on bad information. In this case that is hard to ascertain, because no refs are cited to check up on their origins. This certainly fails WP:GNG. One other note: in searching for information on this I found that some Wikipedia mirror sites are already picking up this article and republishing it, so you will want to watch out for the article getting WP:CIRCULAR referenced. - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem to exist. Neat flag though. BogLogs (talk) 13:49, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wakayama Telecasting Corporation[edit]

Wakayama Telecasting Corporation (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)

Current sourcing includes zero in-depth coverage. while more sources were added, they were simply more of the same db entries and brief mentions. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 13:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Current sources are enough to support the article. More than 3 independent sources (Nikkei, Inc., Chiba TV, MIC, JBA, Good Design Award), and covered the contents mentioned in the article. Onel5969 can't provide any evidence to support that current sources are not in-depth coverage. Onel5969 often deleted or merged articles that were sufficiently sourced and without any discussion. This behavior is not constructive, and very harmful to the collaborative culture of Wikipedia.--Suicasmo (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being the only commercial television station in a prefecture is sufficiently important for the article to remain. Bensci54 (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well sourced and any TV channel is really going to be notable. There will be no information found in the English world on this, so you'd have to search in Japanese and have some understanding of it. The article also has 3 other pages listed, so we know it's notable.KatoKungLee (talk) 03:38, 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.

Nomination withdrawn. Could have fallen under WP:Snow as keep. (non-admin closure) Meanderingbartender (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clement Richardson[edit]

Clement Richardson (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:ANYBIO as well as WP:NAUTHOR. Twinkle1990 (talk) 13:03, 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:48, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Büşra Taşkın[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Büşra Taşkın (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)

Clear consensus to delete in 2021 due to failing WP:GNG and nothing has changed apart from a couple of transfers with little news coverage. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC as well. A Turkish source search yielded a few database sources and some coverage on unrelated people of the same name such as a former lawyer. Source analysis to follow. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.tff.org/Default.aspx?pageID=30&kisiID=1188115 No Her own FA's database site No No Databases are not acceptable for WP:SPORTBASIC ✘ No
https://www.spor41.com/haber/amator-futbol/busra-taskin-kirecburnundan-ayrildi/55611.html Yes Yes No Brief announcement of departure from a club. No depth to the article and just a brief quote from the subject. No third party analysis. ✘ No
https://www.durumgazetesi.com.tr/spor/kirecburnu-3-bayan-futbolcusunun-pesinde-h12979.html Yes Yes No Mentioned once in a list of players ✘ No
https://ajansspor.com/haber/kadin-futbol-ligi-transfer-donemi-uzatildi-son-gun-ne-zaman-595736 Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://www.kocaeligazetesi.com.tr/haber/11351369/busra-taskin-kirecburnuna-veda-etti# Yes Yes No Copy of #2 ✘ No
https://www.bizimyaka.com/haber/3146059/bu-gurur-derincenin Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://aktuel53.com/rizespor-kadin-futbol-takimi-evinde-maglup-oldu-1-2/ Yes Yes No Mentioned once in a squad list at the bottom ✘ No
http://www.guneysu53.com/haber/3928/disi-atmacalar-seytanin-bacagini-5-macta-kirdi.html Yes Yes No Mentioned once in a squad list at the bottom and once in the actual article ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. Sources as above don't help, I don't see any sort of sourcing in Gsearch we can use either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: and @CeeGee: I have expanded the source analysis to include the three new sources. Please let me know if you have any queries. I personally don't see any notability established from these new sources as they are all just single passing mentions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. GiantSnowman 18:35, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Television Oita[edit]

Television Oita (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)

Current sourcing includes zero in-depth coverage. Was redirected to Nippon News Network, but that was challenged, while more sources were added, they were simply more of the same db entries and brief mentions. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Current sources are enough to support the article. More than 3 independent sources (Fuji TV, Nippon TV, MIC, JBA), and covered the contents mentioned in the article. Onel5969 can't provide any evidence to support that current sources are not in-depth coverage. Onel5969 often deleted or merged articles that were sufficiently sourced and without any discussion. This behavior is not constructive, and very harmful for the collaborative culture of Wikipedia.--Suicasmo (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is very little in the way of assertions of importance here. As it is, this comes close to meeting the requirements for an A7 deletion. Bensci54 (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No English sources are going to be found for this one due to it being a regional Japanese channel. There's multiple sources listed and it's clearly notable due to being a station that many people could watch. It also has 3 other wiki pages, so we know there's notability. KatoKungLee (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Based on a review of WP:NBROADCAST I have come to the conclusion that merely stating that it is a regional TV station can be considered assertion of importance, so I am revising my opinion to Keep. Bensci54 (talk) 17:39, 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 keep. In addition, I urge Suicasmo to read WP:NPA closely. Randykitty (talk) 17:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mie Television[edit]

Mie Television (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)

Current sourcing includes zero in-depth coverage. Was redirected to JAITS, but that was challenged, while more sources were added, they were simply more of the same db entries and brief mentions. Would have draftified, but with the creating editor's attitude, did not see much point. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 12:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Current sources are enough to support the article. More than 3 independent sources (Bloomberg, Chiba TV, MIC, JBA), and covered the contents mentioned in the article. Onel5969 can't provide any evidence to support that current sources are not in-depth coverage. Onel5969 often deleted or merged articles that were sufficiently sourced and without any discussion. This behavior is not constructive, and very harmful for the collaborative culture of Wikipedia.--Suicasmo (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being the only commercial television station in a prefecture is sufficiently important for the article to remain. Bensci54 (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Television station, which means tens of thousands or more are going to see it. The article has 3 other pages linked, so clearly it's notable. An un-notable TV station is a non-existent TV station, but even channels that have closed still have pages here. KatoKungLee (talk) 03:40, 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goghat High School[edit]

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

Unsourced stub on a school with no evidence of meeting WP:NORG or WP:GNG. I found Aglasem, which mentions the school only once, trivial coverage, Education Bengal, which is a Wikipedia mirror so doesn't count either, and Edu Gorilla, an exhaustive listing for every school in India, whether notable or not. I could not find any independent coverage in news sources. If any WP:SIRS does exist, please provide evidence in this discussion. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:15, 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hakola Umesh Chandra High School[edit]

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

No WP:RS cited in the article and no indication of passing WP:NORG or WP:GNG. In my WP:BEFORE, I found nothing better than a Facebook page with 14 followers for the school, which is not a valid claim to notability, and then a bunch of user-generated database pages and Wikipedia mirrors. If anyone wishes for this article to be kept, please provide evidence of WP:SIRS to justify keeping this article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:05, 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 Gracie family. Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ralek Gracie[edit]

Ralek Gracie (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:NMMA and hasn't won any world titles in BJJ Nswix (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple references saying he signed with Bellator does not show WP notability nor does routine sports reporting like fight announcements, results, or databases. I see no evidence that shows he meets the notability criteria for MMA fighters (WP:NMMA), actors WP:NACTOR, or musicians (WP:NMUSICIAN). The promotion he created folded after a small number of shows and doesn't appear to be notable. If you find evidence he meets WP notability criteria please let me know, but as of right now I am not seeing it. Papaursa (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Papaursa - He easily passes WP:GNG. He should not be put fully under the MMA category since he was never a full-time fighter.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't just claim he easily passes WP:GNG, I'd refer you to WP:THREE. Show the best sources and if he really "easily passes" it shouldn't be hard to convince us. You're inexperienced at AfD discussions, so please consider this some helpful advice. Papaursa (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually see you say that he does not pass WP:GNG. Are you even making the claim? He's got ESPN, USA Today and Score Media and Gaming (One of the top Canadian sports publications) writing about him, which they aren't doing for other 2 win fighters. He got to semi-main a 12,700 fan show with Sakuraba, whose the most famous Japanese MMA guy ever minus Inoki. He got roles in movies, television shoes and got a song made about him and his promotion was deemed notable enough to have its own article here. And he just happens to be from the most famous MMA family ever with his brother Rener Gracie, having an article here despite doing less and having less sources. I'd even make the case he's more notable judging by accomplishments than Ralph Gracie is and perhaps Rodrigo Gracie is. Him getting coverage before he even did anything is also another sign of notability, as he did in the 2 Black Belt Magazine sources. He also has two other wiki pages as well.KatoKungLee (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is unclear about my initial statement, "I see nothing that shows he meets any WP notability criteria"? The sources you mention are two that mention him signing a one fight contract with Bellator and one fight result. None of these qualify as a source meeting WP:GNG. Again, being a Gracie doesn't show WP notability and comparing him to other articles is meaningless (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Notability is not inherited from his opponent. Please look at the SNGs I mentioned previously to see that having movie or TV roles also is insufficient to show notability. To avoid WP:BLUDGEON, this is my last comment on this topic unless you can show GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've provided ample evidence as to why he's notable KatoKungLee (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @Nswix - Please see the updated references as I added a bunch. He was featured in some movies, television shows and songs. He has his own IMDB page. He has his own Sherdog profile. He semi-main evented important MMA shows. He was part of the arguably most famous MMA storyline ever with Sakuraba vs The Gracie Family. Also, The Gracies have their own page here for a reason as their contributions to MMA are endless and you really do have to judge them as a whole than as judge individual parts.KatoKungLee (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having Sherdog and IMDB profiles definitely doesn't mean you meet WP:NMMA, neither does being from a famous family. Nswix (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nswix - He easily passes WP:GNG. He should not be put fully under the MMA category since he never was a full-time fighter.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't appear to meet WP:NMMA. As mentioned above, notability is not inherited and being a part of the Gracie family seems to be their primary claim to fame. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also support a redirect to Gracie Family. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree with Papaursa's assessment, the sources do not show he meets GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also support redirection. JoelleJay (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gracie family: Article lacks SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs should always have clear and unambiguous sourcing and this article does not have it.  // Timothy :: talk  03:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is pretty much a consensus to delete but relisting once to allow consideration of the redirect option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:19, 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:45, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Telangana Tholi Velugulu[edit]

Telangana Tholi Velugulu (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 has no references, article content states this is a self published book. No sources with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from independent RS.  // Timothy :: talk  09:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NOTBOOK. No coverage of this book in English or Telugu. Fancy Refrigerator (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like WP:SPA self-promo to me. Anyway, search showed nothing, too. Suitskvarts (talk) 22:03, 12 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.

French ship Héros (1752)[edit]

The result was Snow keep. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


French ship Héros (1752) (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 refs on the page for many years. I see some refs to the ship in offwiki databases but I don't see anything to suggest it did anything particularly notable and WP:NOTDATABASE JMWt (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and France. JMWt (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There appears to be plenty of content and sourcing in the fr.wiki article. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have generally considered all commissioned warships to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a substantial naval vessel (a third rate), and we generally keep naval vessels. I have added a secondary source that gives part of her service career, and have added some info about that service. I don't have access to French sources such as Troude, and my knowledge of French is minimal, but I suspect that a little search might add more info. Acad Ronin (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wish editors would realize that any lack of expansion or referencing over time has no bearing on notability. There are tens of thousands ship articles that are all notable. It takes time to get to them!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:BURDEN to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds the information - or presumably any wikiproject that takes responsibility for it. WP:VERIFY also states that quote "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source". So, by rights, I can challenge any facts which do not have inline citations (which to be clear is everything on a page that has zero references) and then remove them until an inline reference is supplied. I appreciate that your WikiProject may well have internal notability standards, but the overall standards for inclusion are the WP:GNG, and as far as I can see those references on fr.wiki are primarily short brief mentions and from databases. It is entirely possible that I'm wrong, but in that case instead of attempting to shut down discussion about pages that have had zero references since 2007, how about offering reasons why this page meets the WP:GNG other than because your special area has special status at AfD discussions. JMWt (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. Nomination implies there is an expiration date on WP articles. There isn't. Nominations should be based on an analysis of potential sources (unless it is a case of NOT, potential TNT, or move/merge through AfD). Here, the sources were only one click away. gidonb (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do rename to Héros (1752 ship). The title is very improper. gidonb (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that's not how we do ship names. See WP:NCSHIPS--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. This is regulated by a navy exception. The global standard is better but rules are rules. Thanks for pointing to these! gidonb (talk) 13:52, 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 Gracie family. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reyson Gracie[edit]

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

Another member of Gracie family that hasn't accomplished enough to meet notability. Page was created as a vanity page by his daughter Kendra. Nswix (talk) 07:05, 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 Gracie family. Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relson Gracie[edit]

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

Another non-notable member of Gracie family. Nswix (talk) 05:29, 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 Gracie family. Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carley Gracie[edit]

Carley Gracie (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)

Being a member of Gracie family doesn't automatically make you notable Nswix (talk) 05:18, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Childcare Trust[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Nothing in gnews, plain google search reveals directory listings. 3 of the 5 sources are its own website. LibStar (talk) 03:06, 14 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! 03:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The 2009 Guardian item probably isn't independent coverage either; it appears as part of material on and probably by the charity [38], which also featured in a later "International Development Journalism competition" there. However I have added a referenced link to ChildHope UK, a distinct organisation into which this charity eventually merged, which may make a merge/redirect a possible WP:ATD? AllyD (talk) 09:59, 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) 03:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Originally a WP:SPA article describing this organisation's partner projects; some time later an IP added unsourced information / tributes to various individuals. I am not finding the independent coverage needed for WP:ORGDEPTH. As I half-suggested above, a redirect to ChildHope UK could be an option, though I feel any content merge could be WP:UNDUE and anyway would require to be based on WP:RS sources, which appear lacking. AllyD (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unfortunately, this lacks significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. US-Verified (talk) 15:04, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Bart[edit]

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

The article appears to be self-authored based on the IP address tracing to private Bell Internet IP addresses. Although Prof. Bart's accomplishments, if a bit embellished, are not in dispute, I do not think that the article meets the Wikipedia:Notability criteria.

The article largely repeats self-written biographies that appear more like self-promotion than encyclopedic:

  • McMaster_University faculty biography page (3 citations, including two on DeGroote's Directors College). Incidentally, all references to Prof. Bart on McMaster's websites have been removed, likely as a result of his forced retirement from the University in 2013. References to that 2013 incident and its subsequent litigation have also been scrubbed from this Wikipedia article.
  • Corporate Missions Inc., of which Bart appears to be both the owner and sole employee. There also does not appear to be any notability to this organisation
  • Caribbean Governance Training Institute, of which Bart appears to be both the founder and one of five people who work there. Again, no apparent notability to this organisation
  • Terra Firma corporation, a small real estate financing company at which he is a director.
  • Biographies from speaking engagements he has done in the past, which have since been removed

This seems largely to fall within the purview of Wikipedia:No_original_research rules, where these biographical sources are largely self-referential. Even his birthdate is dubious, as it would be quite exceptional for an MBA professor to win teaching awards at age 6!

Prof. Bart cites his other accomplishments:

Beyond this, there is very little third-party research to establish notability. Although cited in numerous articles that collectively have a few thousand citations plus a few business texts, his publishing and speaking history is consistent with most academics with careers spanning 3 decades. There do not appear to be any articles or books he has published that are seminal enough to establish notability.

Author(s) have not been notified as the substantive authors do not have accounts. AgarWhisper (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It needs cleanup, but Google scholar shows significant citations of published papers, passes WP:NSCHOLAR. Slywriter (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Criteria, if I understand your argument, the article should be kept under criterion 1. There is not a claim of notability on the other 7 criteria. Prof. Bart might have a claim under criterion 5, but it's impossible to verify after McMaster purged references to him on its website.
Because he's a co-author and not principal author of his 'top' publications, I'm not convinced that the criterion for having "a significant impact in their scholarly discipline" has been met. I never heard of him in any of the Ontario business schools I attended (and I took governance and strategy courses). I appreciate the standard is subjective, but I can think of far more notable Ontario business professors for inclusion into Wikipedia.
Nevertheless, I definitely agree on the clean-up, considering that many statements are poorly (if at all) supported by the references and that there is suppression of the 2013 McMaster disciplinary incident that compelled his retirement AgarWhisper (talk)
  • Weak keep. Seems that there's enough, just. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Checking the references, I cannot confirm most of the information in the article. The few awards with cites link to PR that he himself wrote, or a very brief sentence in a non-independent article that features other persons more prominently. The statement: "The College is Canada's first university-accredited certification program for corporate directors" is not found in the source cited. None of the sources are independent, and the article was created by an SPA, not unlikely a paid one. The scholar results do not, IMO, over-come the PROMO. If we removed all of the non-sourced or non-independent info, there would be nothing left. Lamona (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's excellent phrasing. I noticed that Prof. Bart tends to embellish the truth a bit. For example, to the best of my research, the United Way Chairman's Award goes to organisations not individuals. So whilst it's likely that Prof. Bart was in an organisation that received the Chairman's Award, he did not receive it personally.
Nevertheless, as you correctly note, there's no way to corroborate this achievement or almost any others. The only independently verifiable awards are the Jubilee medal and the FCPA designation. Whilst I'm sure he's not lying, the fact that there has been so little written about him (that's not written by him), in and of itself, ought to establish that he's not sufficiently notable.
If the decision is to keep, then there should be an aggressive purge of everything that cannot be third-party corroborated. As you said, that'll effectively reduce the article down to a link to his scholarly articles, the Jubilee medal, and his FCPA designation. About 3 sentences. AgarWhisper (talk) 11:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • TL;DR for those joining: there seems to be agreement that the claims in the article are weakly, if at all, supported with third-party sources. The keep arguments appear based on WP:NSCHOLAR criterion 1. I have seen no other arguments supported with other WP:NOTABILITY criteria. AgarWhisper (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have this article from the Hamilton Spectator that talks about him and a few other professors that were dismissed at the time [39], but that's about it. I'm not seeing notability, could perhaps be mentioned in relation to the university and the kerfuffle around the dismissal. I don't think he's notable by himself. Delete Oaktree b (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, might be no consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep per WP:NPROF#1 based on a large number of highly cited publications in the field (per GS he has 19 article with 100+ citations which is an accomplishment in almost any field, probably even more in a field like his. Clearly the article needs cleanup and all statements not supported by external references need to be removed but deleting the article is the wrong way to go per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Also clearly the circumstances of his "suspension" at McMaster should be worked into the article: [40] and [41] --hroest 14:42, 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. Even ignoring the "delete" !vote by a sock, I find the argument that the sources listed do not meet the required depth most compelling. Randykitty (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nile Walwyn[edit]

Nile Walwyn (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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Canada, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in my WP:BEFORE search, I noticed that there are mentions of this figure, but not in any way unfortunately that would constitute sigcov. This mention for instance comes from espn, but does not appear to offer us anything to work with? If we can't find more or better sources, then I would need to stay with delete. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 03:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Found sources in Icelandic media such as 1, 2, 3, 4 and New Zealnd sources such as 5, 6. If this survives deletion, I'll try to spruce up the article with these and other sources (Edit: I've now since updated the article from this to its current form. RedPatch (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RedPatch, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 19:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman, can you point to which two sources demonstrate GNG? JoelleJay (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The NZ Herald is the best, when combined with the other sources there's enough to satisfy me. GiantSnowman 18:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman that's not an NZ Herald piece, it's from Hawke's Bay Today which is a much smaller paper in the NZME network that gets hosted on NZ Herald (presumably due to its circulation being too low to maintain its own website). The author is specifically dedicated to local sports. And anyway GNG requires multiple SIGCOV articles. JoelleJay (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @Moops: Per above. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. The Icelandic sources are far too brief to provide sigcov. They are also routine signing/match coverage and the MBL source cites his club's Facebook page. Sporty.nz is a club website and something written by his club Hawke's Bay United. "For all involved in Hawkes Bay United, that is very much what we want to see from our new number 19". NZ Herald is the only half decent source provided which isn't enough to pass GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 10:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the news station citing the club's Facebook page has anything to do with anything. They're citing the club. Everything gets written about something someone said. The team made an announcement through one of their official channels and this media source is reporting it. When team's make announcements they post it on their social media so people can find out about it. So they're reporting what the team revealed. That comment just sounds like trying to discredit something that is entirely reasonable. It's not like I posted a link to the club's facebook page claiming that was a GNG news source. It's a third party news report. When PSG signed Messi, they also announced it on Twitter, and Instagram, and Facebook. Same as every club in the world making any signing/injury announcement/etc. RedPatch (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And such transactional announcements are rightfully excluded from contributing to GNG for being routine and non-independent. JoelleJay (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can make an argument for being routine, but it is clearly not non-independent, given its a third party source, which was my point. How else can a third party organization report on something (in any field of life, not just sport), if it hasn't happened yet. How can the third party report a signing if there is no signing. RedPatch (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the article doesn't contain any info beyond that included in the PR package the club provides media, it is not intellectually independent. JoelleJay (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 1 is a routine transactional announcement, Red XN. 2 is another routine transactional announcement by the same outlet as 1, Red XN. 3 is yet more routine transactional news by #1, Red XN. 4 is 2 sentences of transactional news regurgitated from the ÍR facebook page, not secondary independent analysis, Red XN. 5 is a release from his own club, Red XN. 6 is an ok piece in hyper-local news (Hawke's Bay Today): not enough on its own, especially given how local it is. JoelleJay (talk) 02:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Expanded the article. Looking at WP:SPORTCRIT which is the determining criteria, it says Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. All participants have accepted that it does have at least one (there has been debate as to whether the other sources are sufficient addition "significant" for 2-5+ significant sources, but all agree there is at least one. SPORTSCRIT also says Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability & Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. There are these types of sources which have been used to support in addition to the other main "significant ones", in addition to other secondary sources as well. Also the final criteria is Local sources must be independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage. The local non-primary sources are independent and go beyond routine match coverage (beyond a couple of college games, there is nothing about individual matches). When there is this combination of significant, medium, and smaller coverage to make an adequate length and solidly detailed article (with sources not too difficult to find), I feel its a fairly clear article that qualifies for inclusion. I have voted delete (and even nominated) on other football articles in AfD, where sourcing was far less available (and nearly non-existent). So I'm not just voting keep just because it's a football article. RedPatch (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, especially considering a WP:HEY has been done on the article. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting that everyone (or in fact any of the delete !voters) agrees there's a SIGCOV source? I certainly don't think a hyper-local article is sufficient to meet SPORTBASIC (the local sources requirement is a caution that independence isn't a guarantee with those outlets, they need to be more strenuously vetted). And there definitely isn't consensus that any of the other sources contribute anything to notability, so it's not possible to just combine them and meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In your post, you said the "NZ Herald" one was decent, but not enough on its own and you want more beyond that one. You then asked GiantSnowman for what was the second source that shows notability, implying that NZ Herald was a source that implies notability. Dougal also said similar when referring to the NZHrald one. That's the way I took those comments as the all accepted there was "one". Given that both delete votes said that source was good and all the keep votes agreed with the six I posted, that's how I took that as everyone accepted that "one". Sorry if that's not what you meant, it was the way I interpreted it based on the previous comments - that it was acceptable as one but wanted more in addition. RedPatch (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would characterize my and @Dougal18's (correct me if I'm wrong) opinion of the Hawke's Bay Today source as somewhat less than GNG-compliant despite having much more coverage than the other sources. I asked GS what the second ref was because I already knew we disagreed on the status of the first and since multiple pieces of SIGCOV are required it's important to specify which of the sources are being asserted for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also there are 4 delete !votes, including the nom. JoelleJay (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the 2 votes who posted after the additional sources were posted, since the ones before hadn't seen them and haven't returned to comment on them. RedPatch (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I'd say we should keep this partially per WP:BIAS (St. Kitts and the Nevis barely has anybody with articles), partially as a pass of NBASIC (If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability), and because as shown by the expansion, we clearly have enough material to write a biography on this player. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. The Icelandic sources are absolutely not SIGCOV, not even close, just routine transfer stories. The Hawkes Bay United source is a WP:PRIMARY source. The Hawkes Bay Today is decent but GNG requires multiple sources of significant coverage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvaldi (talk • contribs) 20:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention there is a lack of SUSTAINED coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article has been siginifcnrly expanded with the new sources (WP:HEY). 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) 00:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I looked at the HEY, and checked the article revisions, but it's still woefully short of passing WP:GNG. The November 2016 HBT source is by far the best (and only thing that counts toward SIGCOV). The rest are not independent of the subject, or are routine/trivial coverage. It's interesting that his fellow trialist at 2nd-tier ÍR, Robbie Crawford (footballer, born 1993), that actually had a little more coverage in the Icelandic source seems to also come up short on the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:17, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BrokerChooser[edit]

BrokerChooser (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 has appeared at the same time that we have started see the domain being spammed xwiki by bots, and it beggars credibility that they are both happening simultaneously. I believe that the notability of this site needs to be independently checked, and the independence of the contributor needs to be verified. Concerns about both paid editing and conflict of interest. I was tempted to blacklist the whole domain forthwith based on the spambots, though feel that it is better to have a conversation first. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page was created by a WP:SPA and there is some clumsy cheating in the sources. E.g. the naive calculation that the paywall won't allow one to discover that the Financial Times article does not mention BrokerChooser at all. However, gNews shows that the thing itself may be notable. So, at first I was going to suggest draftification instead of removal, but the promotional tone of the article is such that I think it would be better to start from scratch. Suitskvarts (talk) 21:38, 12 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! 05:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bi-Zi Farms[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Local farm with no sources outside of the Portland metropolitan area covering it natively (the lone Spokane mention is a reprint of Vancouver's paper), and no in-depth sources from major regional papers like The Oregonian. SounderBruce 03:04, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Pack[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Natalie Pack (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 Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the sources would need to be removed if the article is kept as they are nowhere near to meeting WP:RS.-- Ponyobons mots 23:54, 14 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) 01:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:59, 28 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) 03:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Though the refs are subject to link rot, they include articles by the LA times and HuffPost, both reliable per RSP, whose main focus is Pack. small jars tc 17:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While existing refs could be improved, that is not unique to this page, as there are other pages which experience link rot too. The lack of concrete reasoning by the OP and the claim that the "majority of the sources would need to be removed if the article is kept" is silly, as Ponyo claims. There are citations for the LA Times, Huff Post, and Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Additionally while this may be a reliable source, I believe that Sports Illustrated is a reliable source as is GQ, and PRABook, to name a few.Historyday01 (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She's notable. The sources could have been better, but it's not worth removing. Perhaps some sort of template that encourages article improvement would make sense. Suitskvarts (talk) 21:00, 12 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Autopsia[edit]

Autopsia (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)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I grant that the sources are a tad obscure, they're par for the course for the group's profile. I would hate to lose an article about an important (sub)cultural phenomenon because of The Rules. And here's the right time to WP:IAR. No such user (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@No such user: If that's the case, the article needs to be expanded to explain better what it is, and as usual, better referenced. If you are familiar with this project, you should improve it! Jdcooper (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jdcooper: AfD is not cleanup and should not be used to coerce users into doing anything on an entirely volunteer project. I haven't evaluated the sources, but most appear to be fine on a surface level. All we need to establish notability (which is the sole issue raised by the nominator) is to determine that sources that meet WP:GNG exist. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (work / talk) 17:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, it was not intended as coercion, merely a suggestion/invitation, as it sounds like this could be an interesting article. Jdcooper (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seeking more opinions on the sources provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 03:03, 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! 01:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkic monarchs[edit]

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

WP:UNSOURCED for 12 years. WP:OR random lumping together of various states with their supposed founders that were somehow "Turkic". This violates WP:OCEGRS. Category:Turkic countries and territories was deleted 3 years ago as WP:NONDEFINING; a current CfD proposes to also delete "Turkic states" and "Historical Turkic states" as WP:NONDEFINING. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No significant coverage whatsoever, unless any sources are added, which given the timeframe of 0 in 12 years, is highly unlikely, and therefore the article should be deleted. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 02:59, 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 speedy delete. Per G5, although for the record, the subject is also clearly judged to not be notable per the discussion. SmartSE (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hartley[edit]

Jon Hartley (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:NACADEMIC doesn't apply, as he is still a PhD student and his publication record is not sufficient for that. Evaluating the sources as in Special:PermaLink/1143060926: 1-3 are short self bios; 4 is a profile on a student, not particularly independent; 5-9 are written by Jon Hartley so not independent; 10 is a single-sentence quote from him; 11 only indicates that he chairs the club; 12 is from a think tank about their own employee - not reliable or independent; 13 is Forbes under 30 with a very short bio and not a notable honor in terms of WP:NBIO. I really don't see the sources for WP:GNG (nor could I find any more). Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable and, likely as a result of the sources, the article has a very promotional tone to it. FranklinOfNull (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No pass of WP:Prof wildly promotional. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete agree with source assessment, this is promo. I don't find any mentions in RS for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While there are sources applied, I see no sourced assertion of significance and notability. Why are they more notable than other student economist? This is a BLP with many biographical assertions without any citation. This article is about an ordinary academic and might be really handy if the subject was looking for a gig... Wildly Promotional, as has been mentioned by wiser than me. BusterD (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree, also this might be off-topic I'm kind of surprised that this BLP article was marked as patrolled by an experienced new page patroller when it was in this condition... VickKiang (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Might perhaps become notable in the future (like any living person might) but not there yet. Jeppiz (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Good analysis of sources by the nominator. Doesn't pass WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:BASIC. The evidence for the latter is that from all the sources assembled one can not derive a few paragraphs of encyclopedic prose, which is observable from the promotional character of this biography (multiple weak sources + trying too hard to include almost everything of what's in them). —Alalch E. 23:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons given above. --Bduke (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G5. Creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, so there is likely UPE. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 12:05, 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! 00:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of 1997 This American Life episodes[edit]

List of 1997 This American Life episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not see notability or an encyclopedia need for an unsourced WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of TV episodes. Wikipedia is not suppose to be a TV guide. Otr500 (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Otr500 (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTESAL, as the entire body of work of This American Life has been commented on by many sources and we have many lists of television episodes for exactly this reason. Note also that the nominee is fundamentally confused about this being a radio program, but the point still stands: This American Life's entire scope of episodes has been discussed in terms of themes, spin-offs, development, etc. To quickly find some substantiation of this that is already on Wikipedia, see discussion of the innovation of the programming, detail of reportage, and scope of work at This_American_Life#Critical_reception, among others. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Lists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You can't just nominated one of them without all of them at Lists of This American Life episodes. Dream Focus 11:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep: Either nominate all or nominate none. Why? I Ask (talk) 13:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no assertion of BEFORE conducted to demonstrate these as unsourceable. We keep list articles of all episodes per season on a ton of notable television shows--what's specifically different about this one? Nom doesn't say. Jclemens (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this legitimate WP:SPINOUT. gidonb (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but it needs to be reformatted into a more readable table, as per the general format for all these "list of X episodes" articles. Flip Format (talk) 10:45, 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 Draftify. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MÜDEK[edit]

MÜDEK (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 org, I find few mentions of them in RS. This appears promotional as well. Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. This non-wiki-style article contains a lot of garbage like "Organizations other than MÜDEK that are authorized to...". However, I'd consider redirect to to Washington_Accord_(credentials). Suitskvarts (talk) 20:12, 28 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! 00:53, 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 World Conference on Women, 1995#Preceding the Fourth World Conference on Women, Beijing, 1995. The two "keep" opinions don't make much of an argument for keeping and so are given less weight. Rough consensus is therefore that the document is not notable independent of the conference it was produced for. Content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 07:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UNDP Beijing Express Declaration[edit]

UNDP Beijing Express Declaration (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 very very odd bird this orphaned article is. It mostly consists of the text of what apparently is some declaration by a UN working group. That causes it to ping highly in copyvio to a 2020 blog post by Lesley Abdela, who was involved in its development. The text doesn't seem to exist anywhere on the UN site, though there are some references to it. And there are very few mentions of the declaration in reliable sources. Speedy declined in 2010 when the article was created. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've made improvements to the article after some online searches. I think it's in much better shape now, basically 100% rewritten. CT55555(talk) 21:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Lesley Abdela. Delete There does not appear to be WP:GNG support for a standalone article, but there is a source she authored, available on EBSCO with several grafs about the train and the declaration (Abdela, Lesley. 2016. “A ‘Boots-on-the-Ground’ Perspective: Fighting for Gender Balance and Gender Justice.” Britain & the World 9 (1): 116–31. doi:10.3366/brw.2016.0217) and three grafs of Irish Times coverage, but this declaration appears to be a contribution to the Conference (UN.org) that produced the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, and there does not appear to be secondary coverage of the context or significance to help support a merge to that article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC) - !vote updated - the potential for a brief mention in the Lesley Abdela article based on the two sources identified in this discussion does not support a merge. Beccaynr (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would a merge to World Conference on Women, 1995 not make more sense? CT55555(talk) 00:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry I was not more clear with my wikilinks - I don't think there is secondary coverage of the context or significance to support a merge to that article at this time. A merge to that article was my initial thought, but there does not seems to be a WP:DUE place to add it without sources describing how this declaration impacted the Conference and/or the Beijing Declaration that was produced there. Beccaynr (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh wow, I had not even seen Beijing Declaration now I'm less clear about things, specifically how much the Beijing Declaration is refined version of UNDP Beijing Express Declaration. It doesn't help that Beijing Declaration is so badly cited. CT55555(talk) 00:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a discussion of these conferences generally (including the Fourth World Conference on Women) at pp. 212-213 in International Human Rights in Context (Oxford University Press, 2008), more about the conference in the preview at p. 12 in A Short History of the Commission on the Status of Women (UN Women), and no preview available for Reality Check: Women in Canada and the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action Fifteen Years On, a Canadian Civil Society Response (Canadian Labour Congress, 2010). The first two sources seem to speak to the breadth of participation involved in the Beijing Declaration. Beccaynr (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    International Women’s Rights Law and Gender Equality: Making the Law Work for Women (Taylor & Francis, 2021) describes an "unprecedented" 17,000 participants and 30,000 activists producing the Beijing Declaration, and there appears to be no mention of the Beijing Express group. Beccaynr (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Arbela piece is not independent. At the very least a declaration needs signatories...who were they? 25 Eastern Europeans subsidised by the FCO to travel to Beijing....out of "17,000 participants and 30,000 activists". To me appears little more than a working document produced on a train...what happens a thousandfold before every UN conference (notwithstanding the trans-Siberian rail trip aspect...interesting but not notable). There's simply no depth of content available, no assessment of influence, independent discussion of impact on the elaboration of the Beijing Declaration, or demonstration of any long term significance. The sources simply establish the document's existence, but nothing else. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:48, 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) 00:13, 28 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! 00:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the conference. This is a few lines about a pre-conference document, with no explanation as to what it is or why it's more notable than the conference was. Not fussed if we !delete it either. Oaktree b (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I think the article uses reliable sources, at the same time, it needs improvement to be a stronger article than just being a sub.Historyday01 (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's three sources; two are not independent and the third simply contains three paragraphs describing the text. I've searched myself and found nothing further. There's no independent sourcing that establishes the significance of the document (rather than its existence) nor its effect on the Conference and the elaborabtion of the Beijing Declaration; unfortunately, I do not see that the article can be made stronger because the subject's notability cannot be establised. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:01, 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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_March_7

Leave a Reply