THC Science

< January 31	February 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Donna's Dream House[edit]

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

Most of the coverage I found is local. The supplied BBC coverage is about the fire, whilst unfortunate, I don't think the fire adds to notability to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest wrestlers in WWE history[edit]

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

One of those bizarre fan made lists. The title is ambiguous itself, as the the heights are actually not real, but "billed" by the promotion. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Wrestling. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — While it's clear that reader interest exists for this topic, I'm not at all impressed by the sources which discuss it as a topic. Slam Wrestling is highly regarded as a source by WP:PW, but it appears to source the height of a particular entry, not the occurrence of the topic as a notable phenomenon. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, silly listicle, not notable. Fans who google the question can get exactly the same list from the fan sites referenced. Llajwa (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toss it out of the ring, then follow and stomp on it. Fails WP:NLIST obviously. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DX Studio[edit]

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

I am unable to find significant coverage for this game engine. The only sources I can find are press releases from Gameindustry.biz, which aren't remotely enough to demonstrate notability. OceanHok (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Technology. OceanHok (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on reviews already in the article. [1] [2] ~ A412 ^talk! 19:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IgelRM (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to say, above comment constitutes Keep. IgelRM (talk) 08:36, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ronja Maltzahn[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Germany. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rajeev! I find the article to be necessary, since it clarifies the life of Ronja, that has been in the talks of youtubers, tv and printed media because of the issue mentioned in the article, about Cultural Appropriation. When people search for the character mentioned, Wikipedia is a source of clarity. \**|Fedesav|**/ Insomnio Rock! (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Source 7 Der Spiegel is fine, so is this [3] and another half dozen hits in DE media in Gnews. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per Oaktree b, secondly i think there are already very few women's articles on Wikipedia, so it should not be deleted, we have to take women forward. in October 2014, only 15.53% of English Wikipedia's biographies were about women. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Already clearly met GNG per sources in article. I added another one, so even more so now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Central and Adams (talk • contribs) 16:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Taylor (businesswoman)[edit]

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

I've actually worked a bit on this article but am now thinking, this is WP:NOTRESUME. Her main claim for notability is being vice president of Geelong Football Club, I don't see her other positions/achievements adding to notability. Created by a single purpose editor years ago so possible promotional. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have just added her Order of Australia award, which should add to her notability.--Oronsay (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that. They give out 605 AMs a year, so I'm unsure if in itself adds much to notability as there would be thousands of recipients out there. LibStar (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability Llajwa (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A competent human with a nice corporate bio, but doesn't meet GNG.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Okoslavia (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suchana Seth[edit]

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

Non-notable article. All sources used are related to the murder of her son and nothing else can be found about her outside of this. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Crime, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable scientist, CRIME doesn't seem to be met. I don't see notability for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per above. Okoslavia (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multi Purpose Chemical[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's a section on tours, which would make the band notable; but there are no sources at all. Technically this is a WP:BLP violation. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG and NBAND. No WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if sources are found. // Timothy :: talk 16:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion, survived previous AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diosdado G. Alesna[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I found that some of his work is in anthologoes; see this Google book search, although that might not be enough for WP:SIGCOV. Can we aleert Cebuano Wikipedia? Bearian (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if sources are found. // Timothy :: talk 17:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't find enough coverage for this person; seem to be mentioned here [4] but I can't open it from my location. Oaktree b (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to We Are Glitter as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 00:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satin Boys, Flaming Chic[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to show this meets WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect or redirect to Goldfrapp, but it could unbalance that article. Boleyn (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to We Are Glitter: found no additional coverage or evidence of notability. Redirecting to the album is preferable for a song from that album, and there's really not much to merge here. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 00:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jiani Zeng[edit]

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

There is a solid case to be made for notability given the sources, but basically every line of the article is wholly promotional in tone. Seems like a case of WP:DYNAMITE to me.

I'd also note that the creator has written a very promotional draft about the company founded by the subject of this article (EDIT: actually two such drafts), and at time of writing has ignored queries about COI posted to their talk page. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough review of the article, and I appreciate the constructive feedback provided. I would like to address your concerns regarding the promotional tone and the potential conflict of interest (COI) related to the drafts I submitted about the company founded by the subject.

Regarding the promotional tone, I acknowledge your observation. I want to emphasize that my intent in writing about Jiani Zeng is rooted in genuine admiration for her contributions as a student of AIoT and robotics. I aimed to present an unbiased perspective, drawing attention to her noteworthy achievements. However, I acknowledge the challenge of balancing admiration with the need for a neutral tone, and I am committed to making the necessary adjustments to address this concern.

In response to your mention of the drafts related to the company founded by Jiani Zeng, I want to clarify that my involvement in writing about her is driven by a sincere interest in highlighting her accomplishments. However, I do not have any direct association with Jiani Zeng or the company, and I understand the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest on Wikipedia.

I appreciate your patience and guidance in this matter. I am open to collaboration and welcome contributions from the Wikipedia community to enhance the articles in question. Wikipedia's open-source nature allows for collective improvement, and I am committed to ensuring the articles meet the standards of neutrality and notability.

If you have specific suggestions or areas of improvement that you believe would address the promotional tone, please feel free to share them. I am eager to collaborate and contribute to creating a fair and unbiased representation of Jiani Zeng's achievements.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

~~Best regards~~ Employmentadda (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuserblocked sockpuppet Courcelles (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: PROMO. I can only find PR items for this person and this reads with the flowery prose we see here for people trying to promote their brand. Oaktree b (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've not looked into the notability sufficiently to be able to !vote, but the article is in a less bad state that was it previously and the main editor has since engaged in communication, so my feeling is more WP:DINC than WP:TNT at the moment. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even the nominator admits that "There is a solid case to be made for notability given the sources" and they are correct about this. Her invention made Time Magazine's list of the 100 best inventions of 2021. This alone would be enough to satisfy the GNG. Everyone's concern about the promotional tone is absolutely misplaced in a deletion discussion, where the *only* thing at issue is notability of the subject. Zeng clearly meets this standard, as even nom agrees. If the tone offends you edit the article. That's what we do.Central and Adams (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't fully understand how it operates, but her achievements are impressive, and I would love to hear from others about it. David renoo (talk) 18:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)— David renoo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Checkuserblocked sockpuppet. Courcelles (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As best I can tell, the 3 relevant policies at play here are the WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:NACADEMIC. Based on what's in the article and doing a WP:BEFORE I believe GNG is failed. GNG requires significant coverage, and being mentioned by Time as a top inventor in 2021 does not satisfy that. It may hint at other sourcing being available (which I have not found), but it within of itself is insufficient. Looking at [5], [6], and [7], in my view, they are focusing on the subject's inventions but not the subject, which does not meet the standards of significant coverage of Jiani. [8] is an interview and so is primary. The WP:TECHCRUNCH sources are not SIGCOV. Reviewing NACADEMIC, one could attempt to argue a pass of criterion 1. I would say it doesn't. The "Specific criteria notes" for academics lean very heavily on academic institutions providing awards or coverage (for this same reason I don't believe criteria 2-8 apply either). Fast Company nor Time qualify as such. NACADEMIC 1b seems the most appropriate, but I do not believe there is "a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers" (emphasis mine). Looking at WP:ANYBIO, criterion 1 seems most appropriate, but I do not find the Time or Fast Company awards to meet "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times". I would expect an award of such a level to be sufficiently notable where it's own article exists or could be created. Thus, I am leaning delete. I am happy to re-evaluate if someone provides sourcing I have missed. —Sirdog (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - I still disagree with your conclusion but this is an excellent analysis.Central and Adams (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find her product, the Heatic sensor, impressive. She has been recognized by many reputable media outlets such as the World Economic Forum, FRAME, Red Dot, and Times. Additionally, she was mentioned in Forbes 30 under 30 list in 2022. Therefore, I am inclined towards keeping.

RamRamWiki1992 (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser blocked sockpuppet. Courcelles (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: This AFD has suffered from extensive sockpuppetry. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Americanpie1996. I've blocked the socks and ECP'ed this page to stop the disruption. Courcelles (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although there may be a case for creation of an article about this person, this is not that article. If someone's really interested, they can start again in draft. Deb (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Barr[edit]

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

Lacking reliable sources to establish notability. The majority of the current references don't even include the name "Justin Barr" and there's no depth of coverage or sites/sources that hold much weight. tedder (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Video games, Cryptocurrency, and Business. tedder (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage to be found for Justin Barr. Also no coverage for non-notable Honeyland (one WP:FORBESCON article aside) or TapIt, so no viable ATD. ~ A412 ^talk! 22:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to agreeing with everything above, it was created by an WP:SPA who has only ever edited this one page over a number of years... Sergecross73 msg me 22:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing for a business person, some criminal home builder [9] with the same name gets all the hits. Oaktree b (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Okoslavia (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TV BRICS[edit]

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

Notability hasn't been established independently with WP:RS Amigao (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Companies, South Africa, China, India, Russia, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Although some information about this TV was found online, I don't think they were WP:RS. Leaning delete as the article mostly mentions where they broadcast and due to lack of WP:N. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 06:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – political propaganda TV without Independent sources. Svartner (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atel Mohammed[edit]

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

This article has been tagged for unsourced since May 2008. Unable to find any citations, and there are no articles in other languages demonstrating notability (or citations). PigeonChickenFish (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The source for the single claim in this article appears to be:

Herold, Marc W., Conflict in Afghanistan is here-to-Stay: The Taliban’s Second Coming (Durham: manuscript, Dept. of Economics, University of New Hampshire, February 18, 2004) reprinted at http://www.grassrootspeace.org/herold_taliban_afghanistan.pdf (page 10).

Until I found that, I wondered if this were a hoax. It is entirely possible that the above source misreports the name. The village name looks like a person's name. Everything else looks like citogenesis. I'll give it a bit longer to see if I or anyone can find a genuine source showing that such a village exists and is recognised. GEOLAND is a very low hurdle, but as it stands, this article does not jump it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And updating this after more searching to confirm Delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find anything about this place, various hits on the name, used for names of people, not places. Oaktree b (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Anifowose[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG; if there is any independent coverage of Anifowose online at all (let alone significant coverage), Google has not seen fit to let me find it. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not much past the WP:ROUTINE stuff. Govvy (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The sources currently are all social media posts and/or are from teams the subject played for, thus lacking independence. Let'srun (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yağmur Karaoğlu[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. I'm not seeing significant independent coverage, with the best coverage I was able to find being a brief writeup of a transfer ([10]) and an interview ([11]), neither of which is typically considered a strong case for GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Turkey. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SPORTSPERSON. Not notable enough to have it's own article. Also, the Turkish article also doesn't mention much information about her. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 06:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Barely any independent coverage of her. Aintabli (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sándor Bohács[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, the one example of more than a brief mention in an independent source appears to be [12]. I was not able to find additional coverage online searching for both the English- and Hungarian-ordering of the subject's name. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Handball, and Hungary. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Manuel Artiaga[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage in independent sources is limited to brief mentions. Searching online I was not able to find anything more substantial, although it seems there may be a notable, unrelated baker by the same name _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Malta, and Chile. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isla Phillips[edit]

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

I am proposing the following diffs be deleted per RD5:

Savannah Phillips:

Background: I requested REVDEL by emailing Nthep, who declined and said that a consensus for deletion would be needed. An RfD discussion for these redirects was recently closed, in part on the basis of incorrect forum; per BLAR, AfD is actually the appropriate forum.

Rationale: Per RD5, revisions may be deleted for any valid reason under the deletion policy, including lack of notability. Both of these subjects are minor children who lack notability. They are not royals, they are far down in line to the throne, and they have done nothing notable in their lives other than being born. Additionally, per NPF we should remove content about non-public figures. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and United Kingdom. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion of all mentioned diffs (not the redirected articles themselves) of both girls as stated above by the nominator. Best, --Discographer (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as it is currently presented. Please raise these two articles separately at AfD. Savannah Phillips has attracted more attention (beyond mentions in relation to her parents) being the eldest great-grandchild of the Queen and a fore-runner of that generation. Sionk (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bundled AfDs are allowed for similar topics to avoid wasting time and duplicating discussion. You can present your notability argument for Savannah here. However, having tabloids write about you and being the eldest great-grandchild of the Queen does not establish notability; it's also not clear to me how you can possibly asses that a 13 year old child is a fore-runner of [her] generation. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- On her 11th birthday Gloucestershire Live described her as "the leader of the 12-strong pack of royal cousins", for example. She was the subject of media coverage on her 12th birthday in 2022 and when she became a teenager in 2023. Beyond the extensive coverage of her christening and, later, being the 'rebellious' youngster on the royal balcony, she seems to get ongoing coverage. It would be POINTy and excessive to erase the article history at the moment. Sionk (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  None of those sources provide significant coverage; they are all trivial reporting about a child going to events or existing. The Gloucestershire Live article is mostly about how royals send their kids to fancy boarding schools, and in that context it discusses whether Savannah's parents will send her to one. A child going to school is trivial, not significant, and that fact does not make that child notable. The Town & Country article states a bunch of random facts about Savannah, none of which amount to her doing anything notable other than being born and going to family/royal events. The Hello! article is basically a paparazzi photograph along with a couple of paragraphs about how she went to a church service with her family. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that children of royalty have a higher bar to reach than any other young person. But I appreciate that Wikipedia has republican leanings and also that WP:NPF suggests she should be allowed to decide her own publicity once she's older. Sionk (talk) 13:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note I'm a U.S. citizen and have no stake or positions in disputes over republicanism vs. monarchy. I would also treat an article on one of Bill Gates' children, for example, the same way. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that children of royalty have a higher bar to reach than any other young person in terms of notability. 99.999% of young people aren't even considered for Wikipedia articles; the difference for royal children is that they sometimes receive limited coverage in the media thus making it a possibility that they might have Wikipedia articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support and I agree with voorts. Coverage concerning either sister is trivial at best. The level of coverage they get is pretty much similar to that of any other celebrity child. Once they are old enough, maybe they will take up a career or lifestyle that will merit an article for each of them. At this point, they are just minors that go to school and have fun with their cousins; and they are not required to make public appearances or accompany their parents on international tours unlike their cousins that hold princely ranks. They are in the same boat as Mia Tindall (there are some diffs that have to be deleted for this one), Lena Tindall, Lucas Tindall, Sienna Mapelli Mozzi (also has problematic diffs), August Brooksbank (also has problematic diffs), and Ernest Brooksbank. Keivan.f^Talk 09:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore both articles. These are great-grandchildren of a sovereign, members of the most famous family in the world, in line to the throne and easily meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The only "live" version of both the Isla and Savanah articles are redirects, I don't see the need to delete them. The rest are historical pages... Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: The proposal is solely for RD5, not to delete the redirects. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to their father, Peter Phillips#Personal life, but with no need to delete the prior diffs which don't appear to be problematic. See Wikipedia:Revision deletion/examples for the kind of things that would be subject to deletion under WP:RD5; nothing in these diffs seems to resemble those examples. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note there are no examples listed under RD5 on the page you linked to, just RD1-RD4. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, but the examples under RD1-RD4 are all things that look really bad and clearly ought to be deleted from Wikipedia. The diffs here don't look that bad to me so they didn't seem comparable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the diffs here are not bad. They're articles about non-public figures and they keep getting restored by people asserting that anyone in line to the British throne has inherited notability. Additionally, the only reason these revisions are still here is because their father is notable. If their father were not notable, they would have been deleted long ago. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could, of course, say exactly the same thing about their father, being notable only because of being the son of Princess Anne. Other thaan that, he's just a random businessman. Sionk (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One could say the same thing. I haven't done a BEFORE search but it seems that he's not a very notable for his work and most of the press coverage about him is quite trivial: his dating life, marriage, showing up at events, etc. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Trivial and tabloid coverage are not acceptable for biographies, and the fact that these keep getting recreated suggests the potential for BLP harm from their existence in redirect history.

JoelleJay (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Haji Ismail Harun[edit]

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

This article is hard to understand. What it looks like, though, is a puff piece. WP:PEACOCK concerns are always fixable, but the real concern here is WP:RS. Can RS be located with community input? What I can state for certain, is that no person named Mustafe Ismail or Mustafe Haji is known in Norway in the slightest, yielding 0 hits in the nation's comprehensive media archive. On the other hands, there are considerable problems of how his name should be translated, and the article has already been through a disputed move. Unless the community has fruitful input, my opinion is that it's too indiscernable what makes him pass WP:GNG with WP:RS. Geschichte (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, Somalia, and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article meets WP:PSTS secondary source BBC News Somali, [27] — YT of Sheikh Shibli; [28] QalasQalas (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A single reliable source is not enough. Youtube is irrelevant. Geschichte (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY; Horseed Media, Hiiraan Online, MENAFN, and Sahafi Newspaper, may strengthen and reinforce the WP:RS, increasingly overall reliability of the WP:Article.
QalasQalas (talk) 05:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not swayed in the slightest. One of the sources is a letter to the subject. Another is a "newspaper" hosted by Wordpress. We need some non-involved eyes on this, which I hope the closer/relister agrees on. Geschichte (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered by BBC and other highly regarded news outlets. Also quite well known in the Somali-Norwegian community. Batmanthe8th (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you demonstrate that he is well known in the Somali-Norwegian community? BBC does not cover this claim, and a person by that name is demonstrably utterly unknown in general Norwegian society. And what is he known for? This is wholly incomprehensible from the article. Something about wisdom. Wisdom in which outlets, forums or publications? Which independent sources have assessed these publications? Geschichte (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: So widely known, there is no coverage about him? The BBC article seems to be all there is. I don't see anything else. Oaktree b (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Horseed Media is a RS per the CiteHighlighter (green), but it's a small article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional PR sheet - no RS support for wp:n. Llajwa (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS. BLPs require strong sourcing. QalasQalas did an exhaustive BEFORE and none of the sources they found meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 01:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Dolly Skilbeck. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katharine Barker (actress)[edit]

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

Minor mentions in coverage, but I couldn't establish that she meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 16:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. Shellwood (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dolly Skilbeck, her only significant role. She fails WP:NACTOR, which generally requires multiple significant performances, but 169 episodes is nothing to sneeze at. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dolly Skilbeck. BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. I considered a merge, but the sourced info is already in the target, I did not see proper sourcing for the remainder. There isn't even an IMDB EL in the article, I added it to the target. // Timothy :: talk 01:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 00:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Substereo[edit]

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

No indication of signifcance. Fails WP:NBAND. Refs are release news, social links and PR. scope_creep^Talk 18:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Hang on' tag added due to false claim of missing indication of significance.

Adherence to 'Criteria for musicians and ensembles' as noted on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music) as follows:

- Subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources from Reflist : [5](Newspaper), [6](blog), [7](newspaper), [12](Newspaper], [15](university article) etc..

- Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. As indicated by ref. [12], [2], [4], and [13] (itunes rock charts Denmark).

- Has won multiple awards for music videos a referenced.

- Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network. Ref [10]

Some of the independent links (news sources etc.) are dead but cannot be expected to be active after 10 years.

Notability is referenced in accordance with guidelines Tarajameson79 (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article, and the editor above, confuses the accomplishments of the band with those of one member, Chris Angel Walker. The lengthy list of awards at the bottom of the article are all for films and were received by Walker in his other career as a video director. Most of those awards are themselves non-notable and do not qualify as "significant" awards per WP:ANYBIO, even if they were relevant for the band which they're not. As for the band, I can find nothing reliable and significant about them, and the article is dependent on press releases listing their presence at various events or their own promotional statements. Finally, per WP:CHART their placement in a regional iTunes chart does not count for notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The festivals mentioned are directed by Chris Angel Walker but the works are listed as Substereo.

The article, as mentioned above is not reliant on press releases, but rather news articles, interviews and blogs. The fact that these are is not grounds for exclusion. Tarajameson79 (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simply by looking at the names of the sources at the bottom of the article, only one (#17 from France) comes anywhere close to "news" and even that's a bit of a stretch. Also, per WP:UGC blogs are not reliable sources, and per WP:INTERVIEWS an interview should be independent and investigative. You also have a serious issue with dead links as sources, which accomplish nothing for the article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is inaccurate. Ugeavisen, Midsjællands avis, TV2 are examples of independent and legitimate news sources.

Articles from 2013 cannot be expected to be maintained as these are archived after a certain number of years. Tarajameson79 (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't verify a single one of these reference against WP:MUSICRS. Obviously many are social media, blog links stuff like that, which are not reliable sources. But, I couldn't find anything on social media to support the band. Usually if they are popular its imediately visible. This ref url for example, [34] has 70-odd views. Its not a valid source. These is nothing on the streaming sites. Sometimes you can look and you can guage how popular the band is and that give you approval to find more valid sources with the assumption there should be something there. But there is nothing there. It is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 19:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the listings on WP:MUSICRS are from Denmark. TV2 is one of the main national broadcasting stations. Verifying references against a list that only features a handful of countries is not comprehensive and extremely exclusive. Even excluding Denmark from that list is questionable. As mentioned on WP:MUSICRS itself: "This list is merely a collection of suggestions".

The references are valid, they are from actual newspapers that were published in physical form as well as in digital format. To claim that anything that is old should be deleted from wikipedia simply because those sources aren't available anymore would only allow currently popular projects to be featured as valid information.

Amount of views are also not a requirement, and that being said, the channel you mention has 143,382 views.

The claim that there is nothing on streaming sites is also inaccurate, as the references clearly show, the band has has a streaming platform presence since 2013. Not all ref sources are necessary, but all the necessary sources from newspapers and independent media are listed as required.

You cannot simply delete a project because it is not 'currently' popular. Tarajameson79 (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, the Substereo channel has 143,382 views, not the subtalks channel. Although views are still irrelevant to the topic matter.

Tarajameson79 (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarajameson79: The normal practice on WP:AFD is to post up WP:THREE references that prove the article is notable. Three references is the standard. If you have three good secondary references, please post them up. Hearsay and viewing numbers don't count here, unless its backed backed by a valid reference. scope_creep^Talk 07:47, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I question why this keeps getting relisted, as there is only one true vote (by me) and that is to delete, and the article's supporter has made comments to the contrary but the nominator has debunked them quite convincingly with policy-based rebuttals. Articles are often soft-deleted for less than this. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why its been relisted either. There is nothing here. scope_creep^Talk 16:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to The Durutti Column. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Rainford[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Possible WP:ATD is redirect or merge/redirect to Factory Records, but it may unbalance that article. Boleyn (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Durutti Column. Seeing as what little about the band has come up mentions how obscure it is, I think we can safely consider the odds of an individual member being notable rather dismal. Mach61 (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suspect he is probably a keep based on his role as producer of two Nico albums and engineer of a third. I'd tread lightly, in any event. Carrite (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Carrite’s argument above. Llajwa (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Durutti Column. Both the article content and the target will be improved by the merge. As a stand alone BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 02:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. SIGCOV and GNG guidelines met. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Alliance[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. This has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; I hope we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough available to pass WP:NONPROFIT. Some examples: two pages of discussion in Attitudes Aren't Free: A Call to Action (pp145-147), mentioned in ABC News article (2012), recognition from the USAF itself, Gay graduates stepping out at Air Force (2011), Gay students savor military's openness (2012). Clean up, yes, deletion, unnecessary. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that the notibility standards for nonprofits have been low in other articles, but that’s not an argument to ignore policy in this case. There are no sources justifying notability. Llajwa (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (weak): Meets GNG: [35], [36] meet SIGCOV from IRS. might be more, didn't look because these two are enough for me. WP:NONPROFIT just points to GNG, "The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization." Agree that if kept, cleanup is needed. // Timothy :: talk 03:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. SIGCOV met. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Hong-kyun[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. None of the sources are of any use in establishing notability, nor is his position. (Kim Hong-kyun (rower) should be moved here afterward.) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article you mentioned about the rower is exactly the type of article that ends up not being kept in discussions these days. Geschichte (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (A profile of him in Yonhap, coverage of his visit to Germany in Yonhap, coverage of his appointment to the Korean Peninsula Peace position in Yonhap), something to be expected for someone who was previously also a high level diplomat (South Korean ambassador to Germany since October 2022). I will say the article is outdated since it hasn't been updated since 2017. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 14:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. F4U provided I think enough reasonable sources. toobigtokale (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by F4U. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify.‎. Moving to draft space. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drugstore June[edit]

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

This film fails WP:NFF. The only sources are press-release announcements of the release date. There is no production information that has been reported in order to satisfy the guideline that the production itself is notable. Only knowing the release date only tells us that it was filmed, not that it was notable. This should be sent back to draft until someone uncovers some information on the filming, or until the film is released and receives at least a couple reviews to meet WP:NFO #1. Until that happens, this is a WP:CRYSTALBALL. For all we know, this could get released with nobody reviewing it, leaving the WP article without any notable information. - 2pou (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 2pou (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - making clear as the nominator that sending back to draft to preserve the work thus far is my preference over deletion. I'd have sent back to draft, but that was already done. -2pou (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Have you even glanced at the cast list? Why not nominate their entries for deletion and see what happens? Choclair (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not nominate those entries, because each one has established its own notability, warranting a WP article, while this has not. Notability of a film is WP:NOTINHERITED from the cast that makes it up; it needs its own coverage. If that entire cast joined together to create a commercial, it would not be notable unless some independent sources covered it in a significant manner. -2pou (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Six months of development may make a difference. Should go through AfC before returning to mainspace. // Timothy :: talk 03:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of fermented foods#Fermented drinks and beverages. The Keep views have not successfully refuted the claim that this is an unnecessary content fork. Owen× ☎ 01:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koso (drink)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NOTE, promotional in nature, and contains multiple dubious claims not supported by any reliable independent sources. No evidence that this drink has a 100 year history. Cited sources have conflict of interest or are low reliability sites repeating promotional material. Referenced studies have no direct connection to this product. Climpaloon (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, this is a category of drink, not a product; the Japanese title simply translates to something like "fermented beverage" (i.e. made from yeast, bacteria, or mold) and the relatively promotional source found in the references was added later to a preexisting article. It's true that this is basically one of those categories containing products that often make dubious claims about health benefits, but it's not clear to me that this means it's a promotional article. It's two words, one meaning "fermented" and the other meaning "drink", and it's unclear why there would be anything particularly Japanese about it. I suggest that we redirect this to List of fermented foods#Fermented drinks and beverages. Dekimasuよ! 00:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear that this name truly applies to a category of Japanese drink. A web search primarily points back to a single brand, R's Koso, which is the source of most of the claims in this article. The Japanese language article is much broader, but I cannot locate a reliable source that describes koso as a category of beverage. Climpaloon (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate, I am not saying this is a category of Japanese drink. Rather, it is a Japanese-language phrase that can be translated into English as "fermented drink", which is why I suggested redirecting to our article on fermented drinks as a whole. As I said above, any references to the particular brand you mentioned were added to the article later on. The current article is similar to creating a separate article for cheese under the title "fromage" under the assumption that "fromage" and "cheese" are fundamentally different. Dekimasuよ! 16:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

See the Japanese Wikipedia article, ja:酵素ドリンク, in translation. The Japanese Wikipedia article has 53 references, so this subject is notable.

I've deleted the reference spam.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 07:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this would result in a redirect: the Japanese article is about all Fermented drinks, not a particular type called "koso". Note that if kept the correct transliteration would be Kōso, which would make the parenthetical unnecessary. Dekimasuよ! 11:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seemingly meets notability and Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup jengod (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like meeting GNG. 2A01:E0A:375:3810:B82B:91C2:DC5C:A05F (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Jengod above. I usually like to say more in AfDs but Jengod said it all.Central and Adams (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior arguments, it seems to meet the threshold for individual notability. I also agree that it should be moved to Kōso so hopefully someone is bold and does that. DCsansei (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Dekimasu. The keep arguments don't make any sense - the subject is notable, no one is disputing that. The problem is that we already have an article on this topic. -- asilvering (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Notability and SIGCOV met. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruan Ribeiro[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, I was not able to find any additional independent coverage beyond the one secondary source cited in the article ([37]), which provides a brief announcement of the subject's trade from Palmeira to Valmiera. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per [38] [39] [40] [41]. Satisfactory WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. Svartner (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those don't appear to generally be independent RS. The first one is affiliated with his club, the second doesn't publish a masthead and appears to primarily be a gambling site, Verdazzo is a group blog (see [42]). The last one, Gazeta Esportiva seems ok, although the prominence of gambling and advertising links on the site isn't a great look. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verdazzo has no direct connection with SE Palmeiras, and even though it originated as a blog, currently provides very in-depth informative coverage of players. Goal.com also has no relationship with betting sites. They are reliable sources, and demonstrate that Ruan Ribeiro's numbers in the youth categories are significant to support an article. Furthermore, there are even more complementary sources from more famous sites like Lance! [43] and Placar [44]. Svartner (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:58, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 12:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Young player with ongoing career alrady with decent sources. Article needs improvement, not deleiton. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above, pick any three or a combination, I think this passes GNG. // Timothy :: talk 03:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Discussion withdrawn as nominator. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahn Eru[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The one example of coverage beyond a brief mention in a secondary source is this clubrugby article, which falls short of meeting GNG by itself. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing, not sure why the French article didn't come up in an internet search, but I agree with Rugbyfan22 that it adds up to GNG together with the existing identifiable coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, France, and New Zealand. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has made over 100 appearances in the top French league. There appears to be lots of coverage in a routine search, which makes me think that there will likely be lots of coverage in French and local sourcing. I'd suggest there's even potentially enough in this, this and the article nom has listed for a WP:GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 23:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Serenko[edit]

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

Written in very poor English (possibly WP:MACHINETRANSLATION). CyberTailor (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Poetry, Politics, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the BBC 100 Women list among other things, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Geschichte (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good sources, style can be improvedHermann Heilner Giebenrath (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources seem to indicate this is a notable person. I don't see any issue with the English grammar, but if there is, just edit the article. Elspea756 (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A WP:BEFORE search shows she easily passes GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 09:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete by Ponyo as a CSD‎. TarnishedPath^talk 05:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Maropost[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Third nomination, sources haven't improved much from the second: Bloomberg and Entrepreneur were already analyzed back then, Power Retail is explicitly from a press release (PR Newswire) and Forbes is from a "former contributor". Still no good RS other than Bloomberg, not enough to establish WP:NCORP. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 19:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Advertising, Companies, India, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as author. Notable company as per WP:GNG & WP:NCORP. Company demonstrate notability by significant secondary coverage in independent reliable sources. I would like other editors to review resources before making any comments or judgement.Lifeiswhatnow (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've CSDed the article - G4, G11 and G5 all apply somewhat, but not completely, so WP:IAR it is. UPE socks shouldn't be able to twist our policies and guidelines to collect their paychecks.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talitha Irakau[edit]

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

Poorly sourced footballer BLP. I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches was a half-dozen sentences of coverage here. JTtheOG (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romana Trajkovska[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a Swiss–Macedonian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches were a couple of sentences of coverage here. Everything else is passing mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, North Macedonia, and Switzerland. JTtheOG (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edoardo Stella[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. As written the article cites some significant coverage in Rugbymeet ([45], [46]), a publication that does not list any editorial policies and whose reliability is unclear. Outside that publication, I'm unable to find any independent coverage of the subject. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, Germany, and Italy. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. There is some coverage in a routine search, but I don't think it reaches WP:GNG coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pianeta Design[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP, coverage is limited to non-independent and/or trivial coverage. Searching online, I found media portals reprinting pianetadesign.it's articles, and a false positive in the form of this research paper that has a similar title but otherwise appears unrelated, but nothing that would meet WP:ORGCRITE _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, and Italy. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Davidson (rugby union)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG; cited coverage is primarily about Robert's brother Tom and perhaps makes a weak case for his notability more than it does Robert's. The sole example of significant coverage about Robert is this writeup in a local Yorkshire publication. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, Latvia, and England. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. I'm seeing very little in searches and the player had a limited career, which makes me think that there won't be anything offline of note either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing the notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tatjana Veržbickaja[edit]

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of the subject, a Lithuanian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. It seems like she has moved on to coaching, but the coverage of this is minimal as well (1, 2) JTtheOG (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Lithuania. JTtheOG (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 23:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Mills[edit]

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

Not enough sources currently in the article to meet GNG, and my BEFORE check didn't find much. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:HEY I have started improving the article. Time of nomination vs time of writing. I have added a reception section, award nominations, information on the character's writing and development. I found a good selection of secondary sources. I have demonstrated the subject passes GNG. I have more sources to aid further expansion and I will continue to improve it over the coming days.Rain the 1 23:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV with User:Raintheone's efforts. Also WP:HEY. - JuneGloom07 Talk 03:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – sorry to sound like a parrot, but per WP:HEY this article has massively been improved due to RT1's efforts. The character meets notability standards due to the number of secondary sources that show significant coverage both from the years he was on the soap and thereafter, many sources of which come from sources not related to TV at all. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ICC Men's T20 World Cup officials[edit]

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

Delete. Seems unnecessary as categories and templates suffice for this sort of navigation aid. Batagur baska (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Batagur baska (talk) 17:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no actual articles for officials that this page links to, therefore it seems pretty redundant. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely redundant and unnecessary. Let'srun (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just use a navbox. Ajf773 (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Telltale (Rainbow)[edit]

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

There are no notability-supporting sources in the article currently, and my BEFORE check did not find any to add. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, and United Kingdom. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

US Conference of Chaplains[edit]

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

didn't find sourcing to indicate notability of this org Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing's coming up besides the official website. Doesn't look notable at all. ❤History Theorist❤ 01:23, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn‎ in this edit Star Mississippi 13:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Li Yan (artist)[edit]

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

Withdrawn per WP:HEY and the sources brought by Cunard. -I'm unable to find reliable sourcing in an online BEFORE search on this artist. There is another artist with the same name but born long before this one, their work is very different. All I am seeing is social media or user-submitted content, or work by the other Li Yan. The article as it stands is sourced solely to the "Saatchi Gallery" website; this is user submitted content as any artist anywhere can submit their work to this commercial website; it is not the same as Charles Saatchi's collection. Therefore it does not contribute to notability. The External link is his own website. Does not pass WP:GNG, nor WP:NARTIST. Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Arts, Visual arts, and China. Netherzone (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative delete. I can't rule out that there might be notability in Chinese language sources that I can neither find nor read but there is no Chinese language article so I can't assume that. Based on what we have here it looks like notability is not demonstrated. None of those solo exhibitions look like they confer enough notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While there's no one whose judgement I trust more on ARTicles (pun absolutely intended ;-)) than Netherzone, I'm pinging Cunard in the event they can help with Chinese sourcing as both editors' specialties overlap here. I currently fall in the same camp as nom and DanielRigal in that I'm not finding sourcing, but want to see if we can determine whether there is non English sourcing. Star Mississippi 14:30, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the ping, Star Mississippi (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Selection of two sources:
  1. Farabee, Mindy (2008-07-24). "A Chinese artist makes the leap from reality to greater truths". Los Angeles Times. ProQuest 422224986. Archived from the original on 2024-02-03. Retrieved 2024-02-03 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "For 31-year-old Beijing painter Li Yan, news is a muse, and in "Quotidian Truths," his first solo U.S. show, Li explores the various intersections between Chinese sports and politics. In seven painting clusters, called "Snippets," Li relies on splintered details to get at larger truths. ... The artist culls images from television and newspapers, then disembodies them, stripping photos of captions and other contextualizing information and reinterpreting them in acrylics, which he clusters according to a new, internally devised logic. Juxtapositions spark new connections and meanings. ... For Li's most recent Beijing show, "Accident," he set his sights on examining the war in Iraq and the wider issue of terrorism. For the new series, which will be presented in three installments, sports was a natural choice."
  2. Forstbauer, Nikolai B. (2014-03-06). "So still, so laut. Deutschlandpremiere: Bilder des chinesischen Malers Li Yan in der Stuttgarter Galerie Friese" [So quiet, so loud. German premiere: Pictures by the Chinese painter Li Yan in the Stuttgart Friese Gallery] (PDF). Stuttgarter Nachrichten (in German). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-02-03. Retrieved 2024-02-03.
    The article notes: "Die Augen müssen sich erst eingewöhnen. Die Szenen des chinesischen Malers Li Yan, 1977 in der Provinz Jilin geboren, spielen auf kleinem Format. Schmal rechteckige Blicke in das Innere des zentral gesteuerten Riesenreiches. Was wir sehen, ist wenig verheißungsvoll. Auch erst im Bau befindliche Gebäude zeigen sich in ihrem Inneren bereits dem Verfall nahe. ... Mehr noch, da der in Peking lebende Li Yan schon rein technisch mit Inhalten spielt, den Farbauftrag eigentümlich roh hält – gerade so, als sei dieser schon wieder abgekratzt worden. ... So gewinnen die Bilder von Li Yan, auf den ersten Blick in Gefahr, zu einfach lesbar zu sein, zunehmend an Kraft. Sie überraschen, gerade auch dadurch, weil sie nicht überwältigen."
    From Google Translate: "The eyes have to get used to it. The scenes by the Chinese painter Li Yan, born in Jilin Province in 1977, are set in a small format. Narrow rectangular views into the interior of the centrally controlled vast empire. What we see is not very promising. Even buildings that are just under construction are already close to decay on the inside. ... Li Yan's images, which at first glance appear to be in danger of being too easy to read, become increasingly powerful. They surprise, especially because they don't overwhelm."
2. Other sources:
  1. "[專稿] 事件——李演" [[Special Article] Accident——Li Yan] (in Chinese). China Internet Information Center. 2007-10-25. Archived from the original on 2024-02-03. Retrieved 2024-02-03.
    The article discusses his solo exhibition Accident at the Platform China art gallery in Beijing. The article notes: "表現戰爭的影像，文字，並不等於戰爭本身。殘酷的影像，畫面也不等於殘酷。索性把看得見，摸不到的影像畫面拆解開，打碎，重新組織在一起，呈現出一個關於事件的圖畫，關於事件的色彩，關於事件的形式。"
    From Google Translate: "The images and words that express war are not equal to the war itself. Cruel images, pictures do not mean cruel. Simply dismantle the visible but intangible images, break them into pieces, and reorganize them together to present a picture of the event, the color of the event, and the form of the event."
  2. Sečka, Libor (2012-02-12). "Yan Li - Li Yan Two Sides of a Mirror" (PDF). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-02-03. Retrieved 2024-02-03.
    Libor Sečka [cs], the article's author, was the ambassador of the Czech Republic to China from 2009 to 2015. In the article, he calls Li Yan a "friend" so the author may not be independent. The article notes: "Li Yan is a reporter, chronicler, catcher, who mercilessly inscribes into his paintings all that is unusual, unexpected, destructive and cruel. All that got out of the traditional order and control. All that in one second changed the lives not only of individuals, but of hundreds and thousands in misfortune and disaster. He is not only interested in the dynamics and internal tension of a moment, but also in the silence that follows. He gives testimony about the human suffering of today, as well as about places where events took place and about their atmosphere, one would even want to say mood."
  3. Hinds, Makeda (2014-01-10). "Spotlight on London Art Fair 2014. Artfully ring in the new year by exploring all that the London art fair has to offer". Artnet. Archived from the original on 2024-02-03. Retrieved 2024-02-03.
    The article notes: "For work by promising Contemporary artists Wolfgang Stiller, Li Yan (Chinese, b.1977), and Jose Castiella, head over to Python Gallery."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Li Yan (Chinese: 李演) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're amazing! Netherzone (talk) 05:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RISE Editor[edit]

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

I couldn't find that this meets WP:N or a good WP:ATD. Not my general field of expertise, so I would be interested in seeing what others think. Boleyn (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find evidence that it meets WP:N -- not even close. It's mentioned on various websites that offer downloads of the software, but nothing close to in-depth coverage by a WP:RS. The article doesn't do itself any favors: it makes a lot of claims, but nothing is cited to a reliable source. The only citation is to an interview, which doesn't seem to mention RISE. Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm finding download links and some forums where people are asking questions about how to troubleshoot this, but no coverage at all, let alone in WP:RS. -- asilvering (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Notability established. Side note: The society is notable too. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhabani Prasad Mandal[edit]

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

Lack of WP:SIGCOV, does not meet WP:GNG. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Education, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 11:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: May pass WP:NPROF as a distinguished professor and a fellow of the National Academy of Sciences, India. Curbon7 (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that being a Fellow of the National Academy of Sciences should be sufficent to remain. DataScientist1986 (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

*Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. I don't think sourcing supports NPROF#1, but I'm open to sources showing otherwise. Sources in article are primary, BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. Ping me if sources with WP:SIGCOV are posted, I'd like to see this kept, but absent sources a BLP shouldn't be kept. // Timothy :: talk 07:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the scholar link two inches above. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Keep.Passes WP:Prof#C1.Tame Rhino (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I don't think his citation record [47] is adequate for #C1 in a high-citation area. But his being a fellow of the National Academy of Sciences, India may be enough for #C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think this is a C1 pass. Here's the text of the society's constitution, for those wondering about C3: Fellows, whose number shall not exceed 3000, will be elected on the basis of distinguished contributions to new knowledge and for promotion and application of Science & Technology for social welfare. They shall be elected on the basis of their scientific contributions in terms of documentation, publications, patents etc. However, everything being equal, special attention may be given to the women scientists. In case of scientists working in National Security Areas, e.g. DRDO/DOS/DOAE etc. their overall contribution to the progress of that field may be given special consideration. I think "whose number should not exceed 3000" is pretty strong evidence of notability in a country of nearly 1.5 billion people. But I'd like someone else to double-check since I don't have any prior knowledge of this society. -- asilvering (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (weak): I think David E and Asilvering make a point, there are probably sources we are missing. Definitely more notable than a lot of the athletes and entertainers we keep. // Timothy :: talk 03:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 02:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More Starlight to Your Heart[edit]

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

I couldn't find the sources to show this meets WP:N, or a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Redirecting to Monthly Comic Blade#Serialized manga would be better than deletion. --Mika1h (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep; this article is really poor, but it does contain a couple of good sources in its further reading section (Mania, ANN which meets WP:100WORDS) and there also exists a review in Manga: The Complete Guide by Jason Thompson. Link20XX (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Link20XX found reliable sources giving it significant coverage. Dream Focus 01:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources found by Link20XX mean it meets the threshold for notability. DCsansei (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Maxar Technologies. ✗plicit 00:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neptec Design Group[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to show it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Maxar Technologies: Some coverage [48], [49], but nothing that can't be covered in a few lines in the Maxar article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - Either way, can't stay here in present form as is MaskedSinger (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Okoslavia (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UNC-Chapel Hill Master of Public Administration[edit]

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

This is a WP:BROCHURE for a masters degree. It should be redirected to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill BrigadierG (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, United States of America, and North Carolina. BrigadierG (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominationm this is indeed a WP:BROCHURE. Qflib (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking evidence of notability. Specific degree programs are rarely notable so I'm skeptical that this particular one meets that bar. I also don't think this should be made into a redirect as it's highly unlikely that readers will find such a redirect useful. ElKevbo (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable and self-promotion.Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Jackson County, Oregon. Per consensus as a subtopic of the parent article. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson County Sheriff's Office (Oregon)[edit]

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

Lacking significant coverage to base an article on. It certainly exists, there is some coverage (eg this), but what I've found is run of the mill, no deep coverage.

The content is poor enough that it's been turned into a redirect to Jackson County, Oregon in the past, where it's mentioned much less than the Bigfoot trap. See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_17#Jackson_County_Sheriff's_Office_(Oregon). tedder (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Oregon. tedder (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jackson County, Oregon. Subtopics are better off redirected than deleted. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 23:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What section would you redirect it to? tedder (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably no specific section. There probably should be one added, maybe as a subsection of "Politics" or "Demographics". - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 01:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to get it back on the logs, longer comment TK below
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closer comment relisted per TP request from Jay. I closed as redirect which I still believe is correct because that's almost universally how these end up since they (schools also, frequently) are considered part of broader infrastructure of the town/county/etc in which they operate. That said, we don't need bureaucracy and I'd rather relist than have this land at DRV or elsewhere for more discussion and then another relist since it was also at RfD. Star Mississippi 13:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the relist. Delete if one of the outcomes is not improvement, merge or redirect to a different target. The RfD mentioned in the nomination did not see support for this title to be a redirect to Jackson County, Oregon, so redirecting it back as is would be against the RfD outcome. Jay 💬 15:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Jackson County, Oregon per - Sumanuil. There was very limited participation in the RfD and it shouldn't take precedence over a consensus formed here. The info in the article looks to be sourced to the website which is reliable for it's own operations. It can be reasonably added (or perhaps summarized) to the county article. It's better to _add_ a mention to the target article rather than create a red link in the hope that someone will create a better article as a general matter, and certainly in cases like this where notability is limited at best. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jackson County, Oregon. There is nothing appropriate for a merge, the source is 404. // Timothy :: talk 03:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of sovereign states in Europe[edit]

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

I don't know whether this is an article or a list, but nevertheless it is a poorly organised mess of synthesis and original research. The term "sovereign state" does not even have a meaning for most of the periods this timeline purports to cover. Nice colours, though. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Lists, and Europe. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a great idea for a graph of some sort, if it had some solid sources. But it will never be a good idea for a wikitext table. I count 100 columns and 40++ rows, making it more appropriate for a wall than a browser. To quote Indiana Jones: "It belongs in a museum!" Wizmut (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Horribly organized. NavjotSR (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination. While it may look cool, it doesn't seem appropriate due to it's poor structure. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 07:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Armin Wirth. ✗plicit 12:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Djshop[edit]

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

All sources are affiliated or press releases. As with Feiyr, this appears to be the work of company employees. 14.12.72.97 (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Armin Wirth, where it is mentioned, as proven existent yet failing NCORP. Do not merge so not to create undue coverage in Wirth. gidonb (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Spam failing WP:NCORP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ronzio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article subject still fails WP:NACTOR and the WP:GNG same as last time this was at AfD. A WP:BEFORE yielded no significant coverage, just brief mentions in books. Although the American Air Museum source appears to be new, it is apparently a user-generated source written by an author with no expertise. The actor has been deceased for over thirty years and more coverage is unlikely to come up. The Night Watch (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 15:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the nominator's assessment of the American Air Museum source and I have been unable to find anything beyond a passing credit or phrase about his role as Litmus. Officer-turned-actor sounds like an interesting life story but we've got to wait for others to write about it before there's enough for a Wikipedia article. — Bilorv (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Health Alliance[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. One source is to the company's (now defunct) website; the World Health Organisation citation doesn't mention the company; the third reference is one I added when seeing whether the charity is still active - seems they had zero employees and an income of £32 and expenditure of £267 in the year to May 2022, and it looks like they stopped operating in 2019. A before search found nothing other than routine coverage. The article itself reads as a promo piece. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Medicine, and England. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it certainly seems to be an academic-led charity which has been inactive for a long time. However, there was a bit of buzz about it for a while see this (pdf) and this and this. The trouble is that there doesn't appear to be a whole lot of information about what was actually achieved (most of these seem to discuss the idea of the alliance being good/bad) so it is going to be hard to write a page here. I'm not sure how to resolve this. JMWt (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good finds. In depth coverage in The Medical Journal of Australia. The piece in Diabetes and Primary Care only has two paragraphs about OHA so not significant coverage. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Police Trainer. ✗plicit 12:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Police Trainer 2[edit]

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

Non-notable. Unsourced article - a WP:BEFORE genuinely comes up with nothing at all. Not eligible for WP:PROD as the creator undid a historical nomination - completely within their right to do. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Police Trainer as WP:ATD. It got a mention in a source, so at the very least it should be noted. Whether that article in itself is notable is an open question, but I did find a couple of sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Police Trainer per Zxcvbnm.Timur9008 (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paweł Mróz[edit]

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

I couldn't find any significant coverage of this bobsleigh athlete, even in Polish. The best I could find is biography, but I don't think the source is reliable. He also never had medal record.

It's also strange that the Polish Wikipedia is actually linked to basketball player of the same name and birth year, instead of the correct one. Corresponding article of bobsleigh athlete Paweł Mróz is likewise a stub without major changes since its last editing in 2022: Neither of the two sources cover Pawel Mroz himself... only brief mentions. Otherwise, it would copy over English Wikipedia.

Given that bobsleigh athlete Paweł Mróz is almost 40 years old, his career is probably over and he might never make anymore comeback in bobsleigh tournament.

CuteDolphin712 (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's his bio at the Polish Olympic Committee website, there this interview a local site from where he's from had with him. Rest are mostly tangential mentions that he was on the team that got disqualified in 2014. I suppose this is worth being added but would it be enough to rescue the article? --Ouro (blah blah) 09:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping a note here for @Piotrus: in the event they can identify potential sourcing and/or fix the interwiki issue. Star Mississippi 01:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Not seeing anything except passing mentions, but I am also not listing Polish article at Polish Wikipedia's AfD's equivalent as they are more inclusionist (we have decided a while ago participation in the olympics does not give automatic notability, but Polish Wikipedia disagrees). So I guess he can survive there, and of course at Wikidata. As for us, this should be a redirect to Bobsleigh at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Four-man.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS. According to pl wiki he also participated in the 2014 olympics, which makes it a toss where to redirect him... shame no info can be found to save this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, participation in two Olympis don't make him notable person. Marcelus (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hüseyin Mutlu Akpınar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Kadı Message 10:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Turkey. Kadı Message 10:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown as the subject of substantially more GNG-worthy media coverage than has been offered here. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Meets GNG amd SIGCOV. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kazuo Mogi[edit]

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

BLP of a retired racing driver. The two sources provided are just passing mentions. The ja.wiki article has no better sourcing. A search in English and Japanese turns up other passing mentions and database/table entries with no in depth coverage at all. (It also turns up a few unrelated individuals who happen to have the same name). Given the age of the subject there may be specialist sources offline in Japanese, but failing that, he’s not notable. Mccapra (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Japan. Mccapra (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for that he is a triple national touring car champion and has one sportscar racing championship title to his name. However, a lot of those results sourcing can be obtained from JAF (source) SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment meets criteria 4 of WP:NMOTORSPORT — A round of any primarily-professional series of significant national importance, such as the British Touring Car Championship, Stock Car Brasil, or Super GT. Not to forget that he is listed as a national champion in 1992 according to link by Japan Automobile Federation. However, I do recommend removed any unsourced claims such as [he] is a three-time Japanese Touring Car champion, winning the title in 1985, 1989 and 1992; he is the only driver to have won championships in all three classes in the series, when the official source claims just one. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a national champion per WP:NMOTORSPORT. DCsansei (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DT Carnage[edit]

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

Non-notable. A WP:BEFORE yields two IGN reviews for PS2 and PSP. Unfortunately for IGN's efforts that's as far as the significant coverage goes. Internet Archive yields nothing. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Similarly, I am only finding IGN sources and nothing else. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG per nom, was similarly unable to find coverage showing notability. Waxworker (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Agetec (the game's publisher). As an alternative to deletion. Timur9008 (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found these sources [50] (Chinese Review ?), [51]. there is also a review from an unreliable source. Timur9008 (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking for alternative sources. Can't comment on [1] but [2] strikes me as falling well short of significant coverage. Open to whether there is much to redirect to the developer's page. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC) ‎[reply]

Qianliyan (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Invalid and unnecessary disambiguation page containing the primary topic and only one other topic. AfD is issued after PROD got declined. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 1st, the page has additional relevant dabs. They're simply being deleted by the nominator. 2nd, who ignores the reverts and refuses to take the discussion to the talk page. 3rd, yes, which they should knock off. Wiki's terrible WP:BIAS against non-European topics doesn't mean they're non-notable, as already (repeatedly) pointed out. I could end this waste of time by going through and creating stubs for all the topics but that isn't terribly helpful. The better outcome would just be for the nominator to recognize they're notable topics (try cursory googling for the name) and leave the necessary dab alone until full articles are created. — LlywelynII 06:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the curious who might come in the middle of this, here's the notice on NmW's talk page to stop the disruptive editing and come to the talk page for a discussion, which they subsequently blanked and then copied with their own "warning" to my talk page... telling me to join the discussion that I initiated or else. At the end of this, editors might prefer I go through and create all the stubs instead of having only the dab page (fair enough, although I think it's unnecessary)... but obviously this editor shouldn't be acting like this. — LlywelynII 06:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, disambiguation pages disambiguate between topics on which we have articles. They come after the articles, not before. So yes, at least a stub must exist. This is nothing to do with laziness or bias, it's just a practical matter, similar to writing the book before attempting to write its index. Elemimele (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my original !vote: There are now multiple topics and likely to be more Elemimele (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[in response to the original post:] @Elemimele: but it's more helpful to have something than nothing. The policy against only red links is to discourage nonnotable cruft. Cursory googling shows the drones are more relevant now than the god, all the moreso in the event of a conflict in the East or South China Seas.

There's a reason that MOS:DAB has an entire section recapping WP:IAR... and combatting Wiki's lack of information about East Asia (WP:BIAS) is a primary reason for invoking it. WP:DABRED only applies to "articles that are unlikely ever to be written... or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics", neither of which is the case here for Qingdao's island or the drones. The only issue is a lack of English language sources and the PRC's blocking of Chinese editors from reaching Wikipedia at all. — LlywelynII 06:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as the articles are out there - even if they're short/stubs - the DAB's fine, but we do need the articles. Without a place to grow the information about the drone or island, the DAB doesn't help the reader. They'll only come across this page if they already know the name, so they're probably already aware that the topic exists. I honestly think you'd do better to write something about the drones and the island rather than pursue this DAB at this stage. Elemimele (talk) 07:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele: Done. — LlywelynII 03:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. As Elemimele noted, disambiguation pages are for articles that actually exist, and "But they should exist" isn't a valid reason to keep the page. Cortador (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cortador: Actually, reread WP:DABRED. "They should exist" is a valid reason because the only rationale for the no-red-links-policy is concern over future notability. That said, the pages have been created now. It's better to change your vote since it's likely the valid dab page will now be deleted for similar procedural reasons to what got us here in the first place. — LlywelynII 03:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The disambiguation page now has two articles - Qianliyan and Qianliyan Island - with the latter having only two sources, one of them a news sources that barely escaped deprecation last time it was discussed, and one being a report that is not about the island and only mentioned it in passing a few times. You have not demonstrated notability. Cortador (talk) 08:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they have also created the stub Mount Qianliyan, whose notability is not warranted by reliable sources though. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cortador: The page is locked. When it's open again, the drones'll be shunted to the talk page pending article creation (everyone's very clear they prefer that vs. leaving them) and Mount Qianliyan (which is minor but notable regardless of the lack of English sourcing) will be added. If NmW... keeps up the silly opposition on the basis of article count, I'll just have to find sourcing to spin off the Qianliyan Conservation Area and Qianliyan Lighthouse. Those are currently (and appropriately for now) handled on the island talk page, but they also are notable and separate topics from the island itself. It's just better to handle them with the island at the moment because this shouldn't need to be such a needlessly WP:POINTY waste of everyone's time.
There are other notable Qianliyans; the dab page should exist to direct to them; and we should be able to move on with our lives. — LlywelynII 16:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cortador, I have cleaned up the dab and will withdraw the AfD nomination. I hope you are fine with that. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Qianliyan" is simply not ambiguous with any other subject with content on English Wikipedia, except perhaps the list entry at List of protected areas of China, which is why I inserted this hatnote [52], now deleted by LlywelynII. Delete the void disambiguation page and restore that hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but @LlywelynII: needs to understand that this is not a satisfactory way to conduct business: it wastes editor's time. First write the articles, then write the disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shhhnotsoloud: All due respect but, seriously, take it up with the talk page on WP:DABRED. If there's a new consensus that all red links are always verboten, fine, the policy should actually say that instead of what it currently does: that red links should not be posted where the article is unlikely to be created or unlikely to survive a notability challenge. These were patently notable and it was a waste of everyone's time... to try to delete the dab page just to make people recreate it later for procedural reasons. This is why WP:IAR and WP:POINTY exist. (Again... fine if you think my understanding is wrong, but get your new consensus enshrined in the actual policy or other people—not me of course—will keep doing this.) — LlywelynII 16:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the DAB should’ve been created only after at least two more blue-linked items were added besides the primary topic. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I'd have to vote to delete. Even aside from the question of the notability of the listed entries, concerns about bias, and the chaos that ensued after the PROD was removed, this disambiguation page should be deleted on the basis that DABs are created for one sole reason, and that is to disambiguate extant articles. This page is not helpful to the reader and is arguably costly, as DABs are not made to bring attention to red links. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I change my vote to keep per the creation of Mount Qianliyan and Qianliyan Island and points made by Sirdog. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough to the points above but @Elemimele:, @Cortador:, @Shhhnotsoloud:, @AllTheUsernamesAreInUse: kindly change your votes now that the pages are up (Qianliyan, Qianliyan Waters National Aquatic Germplasm Resources Conservation Area, Qianliyan Island, Mount Qianliyan) since, the way this is going, it seems likely your votes will be used to delete the page even now that articles have been created. The drone bits can be removed once the page is unlocked pending someone interested enough to write about them. — LlywelynII 03:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Mount Qianliyan is clearly a WP:PTM with no sources directly refer it as Qianliyan and should not included in the dab. By far, Qianliyan Waters National Aquatic Germplasm Resources Conservation Area has not been a different topic from Qianliyan Island as a redirect. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take it up with Rushmore, Everest, &c. It's perfectly standard to refer to moutains without "mount", "mountain", or "shan". Of course it belongs on the dab list. There are clearly other topics that need to be dabbed from the Chinese god. I've already jumped through the hoops of creating articles to keep you lot happy despite WP:DABRED being clear that notable topics should be fine as redlinks. What is the point of being so needlessly difficult about acknowledging the dab should exist? — LlywelynII 03:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna have to agree with Llywelyn on the part about mountains, though a DAB shouldn't exist if it solely consists of redlinks outside of the primary topic and one additional link, even if they are potentially notable, and I don't quite see how the drones are notable. We do have at least two valid links now besides the primary topic, though I would still prefer deleting the DAB and creating a hatnote for those two entries in its current state. I'll let other editors weigh in before forming a solid opinion. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said it somewhere above, but—once the page is accessible again—I'll go ahead and add the mountain and remove the drones to the dab's talk page until articles are created. I may personally disagree but y'all were pretty clear about your consensus on that point. — LlywelynII 16:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I agree with the last sentence of NmWT's paragraph. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Mount Qianliyan could reasonably be disambiguated at Qianliyan (but not at Mount), just as North Carolina could be disambiguated at Carolina but not North. The overall idea is to help the reader. Elemimele (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that’s what I meant. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Peachy, but that's the opposite of what NmW... wrote. They were literally (and wrongly imo) stating that Mount Qianliyan shouldn't be mentioned on a dab page for Qianliyan. — LlywelynII 16:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the mountain should be at the disambiguation, and I believe that Qianliyan Waters National blah blah blah is not a different topic from the island as it stands. I don’t know why my original comment was so widely misinterpreted. I may change my vote to keep if it is shown that the drones and other things relating to the island have WP:POTENTIAL, but like I said I would prefer a hatnote if it is just the mountain and island. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm fairly certain that Qianliyan Island and Mount Qianliyan meet GEOLAND and so are valid items to list alongside the primary topic. I'd say they are valid targets when disambiguating "Qianliyan", and I do not agree that either item meet WP:PTM. I would prefer the disambiguation page versus strictly using hatnotes, so that additional topics may be added as time progresses. A consensus of Delete will add bureaucracy to the future and I'm inclined to believe articles using this may exist, given BIAS in this topic area. —Sirdog (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Bangladeshi films of 2023. To prevent repeated reverts, I've also protected the page for six months, after which a review of new sources may be in order. Owen× ☎ 16:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shakib Khan Lover[edit]

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

Article about a 2023 film that does not meet WP:NFILM. Released straight to YouTube, no critical reviews, and all coverage is churnalism and prelaunch PR. Mccapra (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Mccapra (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless sources are judged sufficient Redirect to List of Bangladeshi films of 2023. I had dePdd the page recently and redirected the p. Opposed to deletion, as coverage allows ATD.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect - While I'm typically not opposed to having a redirect as an WP:ATD, I think having the history readily available would encourage a simple revert to an earlier version. That has already happened once in the history. -2pou (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blockade Entertainment[edit]

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

Article about a company that does not pass WP:NCORP. I found no reliable independent sources providing in-depth coverage. There is a similarly named company in Los Angeles that complicates the search. Mccapra (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Entertainment, Companies, and Hong Kong. Mccapra (talk) 06:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Agʿazi as a natural ATD. Owen× ☎ 16:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agʿazi People[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG .There is hardly any sources on who or what the "Ag'azi People" even were, there is not enough source material for a separate article. As a result, most of the article is original research or just completely fabricated, with most of the sections being entirely unsourced (there's a few places where the editor cites a source, but doesn't it corroborate with the text). There is already a separate article called Agʿazi, so this is also arguably a WP:BADFORK. Socialwave597 (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, and Ethiopia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched all the digital sources for the term "Agʿazi", and couldn't find it in any of them. Maybe some of the non-digital sources have more information, but the majority of sources on a topic not mentioning the topic doesn't give me confidence. Cortador (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Agʿazi as a content fork: It really seems to be the same topic, even if the current lede of the target article refers to geography. The content here is mostly WP:OR and should not be merged with the target article. I do find some results with "Agazian" from Google Books, but nothing really useful. The emergence of this article might be indirectly related to a recent Agazian movement, See discussion at https://www.iwgia.org/en/eritrea/4216-iw-2021-eritrea.html Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly Redirect to Agʿazi (I agree there's effectively nothing to merge, in any case). Presumably the inhabitants of Agʿazi were "Agʿazian people" but, as @Socialwave597 pointed out, this is a bad fork. Heretofore, Wikipedia described Agʿazi as an area of the Aksumite Empire, not an ethnicity therein nor as a predecessor to it. In addition to the sourcing problems that Socialwave597 specified, this also had an orphaned (& since fixed) {{sfn}} citation (leading me to think the article was cobbled together via unattributed WP:COPYPASTE), and another citation to a WP:SPS. Those concerns were met with no response when I brought them up; the other concerns were met with WP:IDHT. I might have thought this could be WP:DRAFTified, but there are other issues regarding the article's creator. Those are outside the scope of this AfD, of course, but it makes me skeptical that said draft would reach a suitable state. @Jähmefyysikko: I read about the Agazian movement at the link you provided. I am not at all sure whether that explains the creator's motivations (or whether the creator is even aware of it; I'll WP:AGF for now), but the subject matter suggests some perceived "ultra-Habesha" subset of Habesha peoples, which (FWIW) is another article (now indef. protected per WP:HORN) with a history of WP:NOR, but toward the opposite of that Agazian concept. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they did exist, but i only have ss's proving their existence, and i dont think i can send screen shots on wikipedia. KallebTigray (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 16:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of mountains and hills in Kirkuk[edit]

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

Sourced only to Google searches and unreliable sources (wikis and so on), this list is basically WP:OR. I have repeatedly draftified this to give the creator (and others) the chance to correct this, to no avail. Fram (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and Iraq. Fram (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, if nothing else. Hills are not list material, and of the "158 named mountains in Kirkuk", only two or three named ones are listed here?!? What good does it do to include two "unamed" [sic] peaks without even locations? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all no one has the time to add all the named mountains and also the locations for the unamed peaks will be added soon, I literally have them but dont have the time to add them i have tons of work to do in real life and also about the sources of the mountains and hills only being google search,if you want an actual source from a reliable site most of them are in kurdish or arabic there are pages for them on wikipedia but only on those versions also those hills and mountains are very much real (i also forgot to add that the names of the mountains are mostly in kurdish too so i have to translate them by hand,if you really want all of those named mountains listed then do it by yourself i really dont have time to add and source and translate all of them. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the amount of work it takes to track down references and statistics for all of these peaks, so your effort is certainly noted. But with all respect, if you don't have enough time to put in locations and sources, then maybe the article isn't ready for mainspace yet. I suggest draftify until all the sources and names are in place. Until then, the article is incomplete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Im gonna just draftify it till 1/31 when im free. Kirkukturk3 (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify but needs a major rework with reliable sources. It should also be moved to "List of mountains and hills in the Kirkuk Governorate". Aintabli (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No improvements that I can see in sourcing, no evidence this list meets any notability guidelines. It's been draftified repeatedly, and the author seems to think sourcing this material is someone else's job.

JoelleJay (talk) 03:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The "delete" opinions are more persuasive, as they address the quality and depth of coverage of the available sources in detail. The "keep" opinions are mostly about how important the person or his company is, or they mention a variety of sources, without demonstrating that they satisfy WP:N's requirements of substantial coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 07:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander D. Henderson (businessman)[edit]

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

Tagged for 3 years for notability, this reads like a family history project, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 08:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, Henderson was the founding investor of the California Perfume Company (CPC), which later became Avon Products. He won a case Henderson v. Bartlett, with the Supreme Court. Some of the many secondary sources include: Publication of the Oswego County Historical Society, Suffern, The New York Supplement, and The Story of Perfumery and the CPC. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Theroadislong, it is a family history project; several editors are aware of the Henderson family walled garden (one of several walled gardens created by the editor above.) I'm not commenting on the AfD at this time, however it should be disclosed that the above editor, the article creator, has a strong COI. @Greghenderson2006 isn't this your grandfather, or uncle or another one of your relatives? How many family-related articles on people, their businesses, associates, houses, etc. have you created thus far on your family and/or your wife's family? Netherzone (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncomfortable with this continuous outting of Greg ("isn't this your <family member>") plus it has the appearance of punishment. See User:GreenC/The Instinct to Punish which explains this powerful instinct we have to punish people, and how it can become obsessive. Your better off sticking to the merits of the content and not who wrote it, back off from Greg. Finally, it's not clear this is a family WP:Walled garden as there are links to a notable reality outside the family, like an early partner in Avon. -- GreenC 06:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC, with all due respect for your good work here, it is considered best practices for COI editors disclose their COI, per WP guidelines: you should always let other editors know about it, whenever and wherever you discuss the topic.. Re: “outing”, Greg chose to out himself years ago when he used his own family genealogy website extensively as a source on numerous articles, and also published his family tree on scores of categories on Commons. I’d also like to clarify that I am neither a punishment-oriented person nor do I have some sort of “obsessive” disorder, which, quite frankly, sounds like an attack on my character and/or mental health. Please don't do that again. Re: the walled garden, over the years numerous other editors have noticed this. I’ll strike my question as to the number of family articles, as that information can be found in contributions and talk pages. I would appreciate it if you strike your veiled PA. Netherzone (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you for your appreciation of my work on Wikipedia, you do good work as well. I hope you understand the difficult spot it places Gregg to be interrogated during a consensus discussion over the specific details of his COI which could reveal his precise identity. Maybe he already did reveal his precise identity elsewhere, voluntarily, I don't know, but he is not required to do so here or anywhere, we should not put him in that position, and, it can be intimidating during a consensus discussion he may feel pressured. You are correct, he should have said he had a COI, but that's all that needed to be said by anyone.

In terms of the essay User:GreenC/The Instinct to Punish this is not a personal attack like any other essay it is only something to consider. The essay doesn't concern "disorders", just the opposite, it's a normal trait in all humans. I can't really say your motivations are based in the desire for punishing the transgressions of a COI editor, I honestly don't know, and anyway, as the essay says, punishment is actually a requirement for group cooperation, it's a healthy normal thing in moderation. Another term for it might be group moderation, but then, we have also seen group moderation turn into hellish disruptions (see ANI at times) there are pitfalls we need to remain cognitive of. That is all.

The WP:walled garden essay. You know that old saying, if everyone jumped off a bridge would you also? If multiple people are making that accusation that doesn't mean it's right. I'm challenging the walled garden assertion. I would encourage reading the essay if not already. The argument for a walled garden doesn't hold up not even close, by the definition of that essay. Possibly there are other definitions, including unstated ones. -- GreenC 02:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:GreenC - I like your essay on the urge to punish, and I think it is a real issue at WP as in every human community, and something to guard against, especially when dealing with someone who seems like they're serially violating WP policy.

However, I don't think "outing" is the right frame for this situation, in a case where a user's handle and user page are clear about their identity, and most of their editing is on the pages of their ancestors, as documented in the Henderson family tree they themselves have linked to. This is self-acknowledged family history - it should not be taboo to point that out. Llajwa (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference here is they are being pressured during a consensus discussion to reveal information that is not known and maybe Gregg doesn't want to reveal that information but if he doesn't answer he looks uncooperative. It's not appropriate to interrogate people or speculate about personal information, particularly during a consensus discussion. -- GreenC 14:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been around since March 5, 2007‎. Why all the fuss now? Why would anyone want to remove an important biographical history? Greg Henderson (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject of this article fails WP notability criteria per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The article is ref-bombed with small fragmentary bits of trivial coverage. See Source Assessment Table - click on "show" on the right for more information and detail on the sourcing.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://digital.hagley.org/islandora/object/islandora:2225626#page/1/mode/2up	Written and self-published by his own company	Non neutral POV, written by the subject	Lengthy statement about the company signed Cordially yours, Alexander D. Henderson (written by the subject)	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-brooklyn-daily-eagle-angelina-obit/70749696/	Obituary of his mother	In a newspaper with a byline	Name check mention of him	✘ No
https://bklyn.newspapers.com/image/50461130/?terms=Henderson-Brown	Marriage announcement, usually submitted by the family	published newspaper	One sentence - name check mention	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-brooklyn-daily-eagle-in-paris/70739916/	published newspaper	newspaper	name-check mention only	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Suffern/eCBKlORV4sgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22Alexander+Dawson+Henderson%22&pg=PA80&printsec=frontcover	published book on Suffern, NY	A photo caption and photo of his house in Suffern	Three sentences about his house and his job title	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20080907062509/http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/	? 404 - unverifiable, page does not load	? unknown, unverifiable	Probably not, as it seems to be the same as the next citation, which verdict of a lawsuit this mother was involved in	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20080907062509/http://eagle.brooklynpubliclibrary.org/	newspaper	Think this is a duplicate of the above citation (same date, same newspaper)	Lawsuit by his mother; he acted on her behalf re: a stock deal	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Reports_of_Cases_Heard_and_Determined_in/G3ALAAAAYAAJ?hl=en	Court case report	court report	This is about the court case of his mother's involving his stock deal, does not contribute to notability	✘ No
https://www.hagley.org/research/digital-exhibits/avon-historical-archive-hagley-library	His company's logo and a couple press photos pubished in the company's "Avon Outlook Digest"	? self-published	company press photos	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Trow_formerly_Wilson_s_Copartnership/7cYpAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Alexander+D.+Henderson&pg=PA26&printsec=frontcover	directory listing		A directory listing; name-check mention only	✘ No
https://digital.hagley.org/islandora/object/islandora:2226135#page/1/mode/2up	Bill of Sale for his company	?	Bill of Sale legal agreement	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Drug_and_Chemical_Markets/qoohAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0	? Business listing for Drug & Chemical Markets	directory	directory listing	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_American_Perfumer_and_Essential_Oil/fvY1AQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0	? Trade Journal published by the Robbins Perfume Company	? trade journal listing	Name check mention only	✘ No
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Operation_Maintenance/Y1IgAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Henderson	Trade Journal	trade journal listing	name check mention only	✘ No
https://digital.hagley.org/islandora/object/islandora:2244354	image of an award certificate	Expo Award Certificate for his company	Does not seem to mention his name, only his company	✘ No
https://search.worldcat.org/title/55166512	? Seems to be a self-published document of "Mary's Family Connections"	self-published, no publisher listed on WorldCat	unreliable source	✘ No
Suffern Independent Sold to Corporation	? probably, since it seems to be a newspaper	? unverifiable	? no url link available, unverifiable source	? Unknown
https://www.newspapers.com/image/59866540/?article=3814624c-684f-4645-8aa2-2b5bb083ff36	Funeral announcement, probably placed by a family member	newspaper	One sentence funeral announcement of date and place of memorial service	✘ No
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-brooklyn-daily-eagle-obituary-for-al/70743913/	duplicate of funeral announcement	newspaper	His name, his wife's name and date and time of funeral service	✘ 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}}.

A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Avon Products; a merge is not necessary as there is already info about him in that article.Netherzone (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Netherzone's reference analysis. That an article has been around for a long time is not a valid rationale to keep. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the article has a notable person in the founding of Avon and it has been created and reviewed since March 5, 2007‎, is a strong indicator that the article should (a) be kept as a historical reference to a founding member and to the history of Avon; (b) sources show his prominence in the business community and with the development of an international company, something akin to a startup today. (c) deleting this article just makes no sense. At the very least move it into draft space to allow time to enhance it. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think notability standards will be met, so I don't think that draftifying makes sense. Also how long an article has been around is a terrible indicator, particularly because of loose the notability standards used to be and because there also used to be far less oversight when it came to new articles. Having joined a company a couple of years after it was founded does not meet any notability criteria, most people who part of a notable corporation in its early stages are not notable and the lack of significant, reliable coverage for the subject reflects that. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. As background, Avon Products is one of the more important companies in American corporate history. It was one if not the first company to nationally sell cosmetics, at a time when cosmetics were considered somewhat scandalous to middle-class women. It pioneered direct sales markets ("Ding Dong! Avon Calling!" - this phrase might predate some readers, but would have been well know to everyone 50 years ago). Being such a notable company, it's early history is important. Multiple reliable sources confirm Henderson played a key role in its foundation. Those sources follow - not all currently in the article:

Bender, Marylin (1975). At The Top. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. p. 34. ISBN 9780385010047.. This is an expanded version of an article journalist Marylin Bender originally published in the Times: Bender, Marylin (November 28, 1971). "Avon: Chiming True?". The New York Times.
Manko, Katina (2021). Ding Dong! Avon Calling! The Women and Men of Avon Products. Oxford University Press. p. 258. ISBN 9780190499822.

GNG's "significant coverage" does not require a volume of words. It can also mean the quality of the words ie. coverage which demonstrates notability. It can be a single sentence in length: "First man on the moon" is five words of significance towards notability. For the record, this issue has been debated forever at the notability guideline page. A number of the sources discounted by Netherzonev for length overlook what the words are saying. Sources are a combination of style (length) and substance (information) eg. it could be low information and long length, or short length and high information. Thus it's impossible to place length requirements on sources, which is why GNG has no length requirement such as 1 paragraph. -- GreenC 21:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GreenC, respectfully, no one here is disputing that Avon Products is a notable company. (BTW, I too remember Ding Dong Avon Calling) Regarding the three sources you list, the Marylin Bender book has one sentence about him: Alexander Henderson, the chemist who produced the perfume vials for David McConnell, invested a modest sum to get the venture going. That sentence is later paraphrased/duplicated by the same author (in the NYT) stating Except at the outset when Alexander Henderson invested a modest sum to get Founder McConnell started. Are either the book or the NYT article about Henderson?....no they are not. Does this sentence compare to the sentence "First man on the moon"? No. And to propose they do is like comparing apples to the Apollo 11, or like comparing Alexander D. Henderson to Buzz Aldrin. I'm not seeing a link to the third source you brought, but would like to read what it says if you have a moment to post that here. Netherzone (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Apollo example is to make the point about "significant coverage" more clear, not to directly compare the notability of Henderson with that of Buzz Aldrin! (FWIW, Buzz was the second person on the Moon.) I did say the two Bender sources are similar, why they are under the same bullet point. The article first appeared in the NYT, and later in revised form in the book, with expanded information. There is no requirement that a source be "about" the topic, that is a common misnomer not supported by any policy or guideline. -- GreenC 01:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(FWIW, Buzz was the second person on the Moon.) Egzaktly! And Henderson was not the founder of Avon. He's been described as a chemist and a modest donor in these sources. Forgive my obtuse metaphor. Netherzone (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidently more than 1 person notable in the early history of Avon, according to the sources. The modest sum is all it took. Many big companies start that way. It takes someone willing to take the risk when no one else will. -- GreenC 02:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if so (which I'd say would be debatable given he was not part of the company until 8 years after the founding date), being notable in a company's early years doesn't equate to being notable in terms of Wikipedia's notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a deeper look at the article talk page. Questions about his notability actually go back 12 years, to 2012. Netherzone (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, a source doesn't have to be specifically about a subject but the coverage on a subject still needs to be in-depth. Mentions of Henderson appear to be rather short and passing. Possibly a more apt example than Apollo 11 in Wiki-terms is how due to the popularity of the Band of Brothers (miniseries) and the book many members of E Company, 506th Infantry Regimen based on similar(and likely more commonly spread) book mentions (both BoB and following related books afterwards) and primary/secondary (see the old navbox) and were later deleted because the subjects weren't actually notable. This included many initial members of the organization and even included some of its leaders. Unless an inclusionary criteria is met, you still need to be covered in-depth. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG doesn't say that. Indeed it says "sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". As I said before, sources are combination of quantity and quality. There is no requirement for quantity. -- GreenC 19:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except there needs to be at least some in-depth sourcing that "addresses the topic directly and in detail", which a sentence here or two in a source does not. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the sources address the topic directly by name, and provide detail about the person's important role in the early history of the company. -- GreenC 19:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are quick mentions, which is not notability lending. There is no expounding on how instrumental or important his contributions were, how the "revolutionized" the industry, etc. It is a sentence or two that he was an executive within 10 years of the company's founding and made a modest investment and there isn't anything more. Again playing a role in the early stages of an organization doesn't grant notability. Being part of the early team does not merit an article alone. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Mentions" that confirm he played an important part in the early history of a major company. You don't have to agree but I don't want to keep repeating myself why I think he is notable. -- GreenC 21:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think notability has been proven that he was in fact a major founder of a major company. There are plenty of citations. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional comments on the quality and comprehensiveness of the available source material would be very helpful. "Is a..." are, well, not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Based on the source analysis table, there just isn't enough to keep it. I can't find anything in Gbooks, Scholar or Jstor. Could merge a line or two into the Avon article, but I'm not seeing enough sourcing to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried these from Google Books?
Greg Henderson (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As above, these are trivial mentions cobbled together.

1. is a photo and a photo-caption of his house. Not SIGCOV.

2. is a paid advertisement in the back of "The Order of Railroad Station Agents" newsletter. Not SIGCOV

3. shows the company had a certificate issued to it. Not SIGCOV

4. is a trade journal with a photo of him as secretary. Not SIGCOV

5. is about his Mother's lawsuit. Not SIGCOV

6. is a directory listing. Not SIGCOV

7. is a court document about his Mother's lawsuit. Not SIGCOV

8. shows he participated in his church. Not SIGCOV Netherzone (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage does not require a volume of words. "In 1906, Henderson built a home in Suffern, New York, after having visited there as summer visitors several times. That house burnt down in 1941." It goes on to say "Henderson started as a bookeeper in New York City with the California Perfume Company (now Avon Products, Inc.), working his way up to vice president and treasurer." This is coming from a secondary source that is reliable and independent of the subject WP:BASIC. Certainly, this meets the basic coverage guideline. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update - Please review edit requests on Henderson's talk page. There are a lot of updates that show WP:N via primary and secondary sources, e.g. a New York Times article, and two books Ding Dong! Avon Calling! and At The Top. Greg Henderson (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As previously discussed, the New York Times includes one-half a sentence about him, Except at the outset when Alexander Henderson invested a modest sum to get Founder McConnell started.... The "At the Top" source contains one sentence (by the same author) which states Alexander Henderson, the chemist who produced the perfume vials for David McConnel, invested a modest sum to get the venture going. It duplicates the same content, with slightly different wording. And "Ding! Dong!" page 258 mentions that his son took over from this Henderson (I'm seeing a snippet-view.) None of this is significant coverage; the latter two are books but each only seems to contain one sentence on Henderson. Netherzone (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article seems to be almost entirely WP:OR - I'm confused why there is controversy? The references are primarily to newspapers, periodicals and official documents contemporary to the subject's life. For a self-published family history, that is in fact best practice. But an encyclopedia is based on secondary sources which have summarized and digested such primary-source documents; it is attention from these secondary sources that establishes a historical subject's notability. Such secondary sources don't seem to exist for this person. Llajwa (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what? PRIMARY source does not mean "newspapers, periodicals and official documents contemporary to the subject's life". Please read WP:PRIMARY and also see primary source. -- GreenC 01:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, for historical subjects, those kinds of documents are primary sources, both according to WP policy and ordinary usage. Relying on them constitutes original research. Llajwa (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. No. There is no rule policy or guideline that says that. Sources do not magically change from secondary to primary after 80 years, or whatever arbitrary line "historical" means. You should read WP:PRIMARY again. Look at the examples of primary documents: diaries etc... If you are still not sure, open a case at RSN, but believe me, historical newspaper articles are not primary sources. It would be like saying every New York Times article prior to (whatever date) is a primary source. -- GreenC 03:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources include:
- Long, Craig H. (2011). Suffern. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 9780738573519
- Twenty-Third Publication of the Oswego County Historical Societyn. Oswego, New York: Oswego County Historical Society. 1960. p. 20.
- Bender, Marlin (1975). At The Top. Doubleday. p. 34. ISBN 9780385010047
- Manko, Katina (2021). Ding Dong! Avon Calling! The Women and Men of Avon Products. Oxford University Press. p. 258. ISBN 9780190499822
Greg Henderson (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. GreenC 14:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The recent edits to the article and sources added to this discussion look like a WP:REFBOMB campaign that is difficult for some to wade through. Is anyone willing to make a WP:THREE offer to demonstrate WP:SIGCOV? From what I've inspected in the sources so far, I'm leaning to vote delete, but willing to reconsider. Left guide (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone added a new paragraph, with a single citation at the end of each sentence, for verification purposes. Had they not done so, the content would have been immediately deleted as unsourced, because the article is currently embattled by some COIN readers deleting things from this articles and others written by Gregg with unusually strict interpretations, or indeed no rationale at all in some cases. The number of sources in this article is not that high out of the ordinary. The WP:THREE essay is commonly used to create a strawman that can then be torn down, rather than addressing the overall reason why the topic is notable, a forest for the trees fallacy. The reason the topic is notable is given in the lead section, and that is supported by the text and sources in the article. It's not that difficult to understand the article speaks for itself. -- GreenC 18:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Green, Please knock it off with the bad-faith generalizations and stereotypes. Alexander D. Henderson is not independently notable, his notability is entirely hinged on his association with Avon; the article is pieced together from bits of trivial mentions or by primary sources. Also see WP:CANVAS. Netherzone (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has secondary reliable sources specifically about the reason he is notable, helping in the creation of one of the most important cosmetic companies. Your arguments look like this:
"He is only notable due to his association with Avon". Well, yeah. That's how notability works. He actually did something though, he helped create the company, that's why he is notable.

"The sources are passing mentions" - not really, they speak directly to the reason he is notable: helping to create the company. Word count is not relevant. If he was on a list of international terrorists, name only, that too would be notable. It's the quality of the information, not the quantity.

"It's all primary sources" - no, it's not. There are multiple books which are not primary, and are independent of the subject. Some primary is acceptable.

"It's all trivia" - I can't reply to that because if you don't think he is notable, yeah it might look like trivia. But it's subjective.

-- GreenC 05:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can anyone see the New York Times report about him? https://www.nytimes.com/1964/07/10/archives/alexander-d-henderson-avon-products-director.html Also how much coverage did newspapers give to his death? He died back in 1925 so not as easy to search for as it normally would be. A successful businessman, do they have him in textbooks for business schools? Dream Focus 22:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is about his son:
Alexander D. Henderson [Jr.,] Avon Products Director

Alexander D. Henderson of Hillsboro Beach, Fla., a director and former vice president of Avon Products, Inc., cosmetics company, died Wednesday in New England Deaconess Hospital in Boston. He was 69 years old.
Mr. Henderson, a native of Brooklyn, spent most of his early life in Suffern, N. Y. He had lived in Hillsboro Beach since 1951 and had been Mayor there for the last six years.
- The other NY Times article says:
Avon's notably stable though aggressive manage ment style has been abetted by extraordinarily sound fi nances. Except at the outset when Alexander Henderson [Sr.] invested a modest sum to get Founder McConnell started (his son, Girard Henderson, an Avon multimillionaire, is still on the board) Avon ap pears never to have been starved for capital. Its last loan, $6‐million at 3⅜per cent interest was paid off in 1966. Next year's more than $30‐million in capital expend itures—some for moving headquarters to a new sky scraper on 57th Street—will be internally financed. Greg Henderson (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that looks like a textbook example of a passing mention for Alexander D. Henderson (businessman) with in-depth coverage about Avon. Left guide (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG doesn't say that. Indeed it says "sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". Sources are combination of quantity and quality. There is no requirement for quantity. It's not a passing mention when it confirms he played a significant role in the establishment of such a notable corporation. You don't need to agree he is notable, but don't misrepresent what the rules say, either, the cited source is fine and acceptable for concluding he is notable. -- GreenC 04:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Dream Focus:, it's a short form obit. You should be able to see it through Archive.today here Graywalls (talk) 10:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's for his son. This Wikipedia article is about the man who died January 5, 1925 (aged 59), and that news coverage was from 1964 when someone with the same name died at age 69. Dream Focus 13:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was just the link you provided. I didn't really analyze it. Graywalls (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage is hard to find from that far back, and also did the newspapers write up stories about CEOs back then? Founding or co-founding a business that made billions of dollars and has survived for over a hundred years, is a notable achievement. Far more impressive than any CEO today who just does things to get attention so the media writes about them. Dream Focus 19:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additional sourcing was added today concerning his role as a co-incorporator of the early car company Hatfield Motor Vehicle Company. He was a serial entrepreneur in a number of notable companies.[53] -- GreenC 23:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Quintero[edit]

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

Unnotable politician holding an unnotable office. I can't any find any significant sources outside of a cannabis scheme which he was implicated in, which I don't believe suffices in terms of notability. This page was originally part of the 48-article bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel Vargas, which was closed as a procedural keep due to the bundle's size. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. El Monte CA is nowhere close to large enough that its mayors would receive an automatic presumption of notability just for existing as mayors — the notability test at the local level of office hinges not on minimally verifying that the person exists, but on maximally sourcing substantial content about their political impact: specific things they did as mayor, specific projects they spearheaded as mayor, significant effects their mayoralty had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But there's nothing like that here, and the article is based entirely on primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, with absolutely no evidence shown at all that he has enough media coverage to pass NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not bias in respect to his worthiness then here is a link to support his notability.

https://www.whittierdailynews.com/2013/09/27/community-welcomes-new-rio-hondo-college-president/

https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-adv-elmontepensions-20170119-story.html

https://apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/219606

https://www.seiu721.org/2010/02/andre-quintero-seiu-721-member-and-mayor.php Ndmartz (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few mentions in local papers and one article in the LA Times does not prove notability. I'm not sure what you thought you were proving here; of the four links you posted, one is a .gov link and another is SEIU which is not a news outlet. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BottleofChocolateMilk. Notability not asserted; in source 1 he is only mentioned, source 3 is a standard government profile that means nothing in terms of notability, source 4 is a promotional essay written by Quintero himself, and source 2, the only one worth anything, still is not sufficient for notability and is just a report on average city going-ons. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the community is moving away from size of population as being a determinant of whether a stand-alone page is warranted. Bearcat is right about what we are looking for in a local elected official - secondary source material that describes an official's impact in the community, or national or international coverage where the subject is featured. I do not see anything in this case that suggests the subject meets the threshold for a stand-alone article. --Enos733 (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk)

Francesca da Rimini (artist)[edit]

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

A google news search mainly comes up with an American play of the same name. 2 of the 4 sources are from monoskop.org which appears to be a wiki. LibStar (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She coined the term cyberfeminism in 1991 as one of four artists in an art collective and was highly influential in 1990s net art. Search for her name AND VNS Matrix and you'll find results, although digital newspaper records are scarce from that period. I added a few references to the article, which certainly is rather brief - but notability is pretty evident here. Lijil (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While the article is in need of an overhaul, I believe the sources given (especially the more recent ones added by Lijil) are enough to establish notability. --GnocchiFan (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adele Holness[edit]

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

All this article has going for it is that she was featured on a song that doesn't even have an article. I am having difficulty finding any in-depth sources or sources outside of her association with that song. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 04:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Streaming sites, tik tok, links to listen to the song mentioned here. Nothing for this person, zero hits in Gnews. Oaktree b (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I only found what Oaktree b found, a/k/a nothing that establishes notability. JSFarman (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Dance, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Floribella (video game)[edit]

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

Video game based on a Portuguese television show. Doesn't appear to have any sources about it. Not seeing any notability about it. GamerPro64 04:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 04:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One line here, the Pt article is sourced to blogs or other non-RS. I find no sourcing for this game. Oaktree b (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There does not appear to be sourcing, fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No signs of notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any sources that could prove this game's notability. Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 14:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing anything.Timur9008 (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raft River, Idaho[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Possibly I should have speedied this as recreation of deleted material, but there is some new material here in this version so here we go again. The issue remains that this doesn't look like a community: it looks like an isolated store as far back as I can see, including when the map labelled it "Yale". GNIS fails to explain why the name changed on the map, but it's not implausible to suspect that the former Yale Store turned into the Raftriver Store (sic). Whether or not this is the place where the post office was is anyone's guess. The redirect created the last time was moved to Raft River (Idaho) per naming standards, taking the old article history with it. Anyway, we can back this up the the last version of the redirect, or we could just delete it outright. Mangoe (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Idaho. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Raft River. There is verifiable history that can be covered there, including a connection to Edgar Rice Burroughs -- see [54], [55], [56], [57] -- but I don't think it's enough to justify a standalone article. Jfire (talk) 06:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the name mashing makes it more likely that this was a post office. The USPS had a rule for a while that post office names could only be a single word, and "Raft River" being "Raftriver" is one of thousands of examples of this. For what it's worth, Spence 2016, p. 58 also tells us that Lewis Sweetser, George Burroughs, and Harry Burroughs all went to Yale University together, and back in Idaho they ran a "Bar Y" cattle ranch and the "Yale" post office, both named for it.
This is another fictional present tense "unincorporated community" invented by Wikipedia editors spinning out GNIS records, of course. The Bureau of Land Management's 1981 management plan for the then new Oregon National Historic Trail mentions that the Raft River crossing area where the California and Oregon Trails used to meet was private farmland.
Uncle G (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

references

Spence, Clark C. (2016). "The Burroughs Brothers". A History of Gold Dredging in Idaho. Mining the American West. University Press of Colorado. doi:10.5876/9781607324751.c003. ISBN 9781607324751. JSTOR j.ctt1cx3trx.8. OCLC 952337050.

Delete per information provided by Uncle G; the new information is sourced to maps. This article is factually incorrect as there is no such community (see satellite view of coordinates), and if there once were, we need sources that specifically call it Raft River and a community (as opposed to a post office). Normally I think redirects are a confusing waste of time, but in this case, since there is actually a Raft River, I could live with a redirect to that article as a second option. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This appears to be another "post village" with a general store and a post office acting as a focal point for the surrounding countryside. You can find references to the "Raft River community," e.g. on page 103 here [58], but I think the community in question is the surrounding farming / ranching community in the Raft River Valley, not an urbanized community existing at the location of the post office. I'm inclined to give it a sentence or two in the history section in the Upper Raft River Valley or City of Rocks National Reserve articles and delete this article. Jbt89 (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would avoid Upper Raft River Valley. The same editor who created the article at hand created that one as well, based upon the fact that the GNIS database has a "valley" database record for the valley that the Raft River is in. (The record has feature class "valley".) Basically, one editor has given us three separate articles on the Raft River confabulated from GNIS database records. Uncle G (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you search for Yale, Idaho, there's quite a bit, including a reference that someone lived there for eight years in the 1880s and that there was a school there (History of Idaho, A Narrative Account... by Hiram Taylor French, p. 976, 1914), and a source from Wyoming in 1992 which says "but today there is no Yale, Idaho" (cannot access any more) and another couple records of people being born there. So maybe move this to Yale, Idaho instead? SportingFlyer T·C 13:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Doing so would be putting the usual post office plus school equals town fallacy into action. That fallacy is simply untrue for the 19th century rural United States (and Territories). Lewis Sweetser and the Burroughs brothers named their ranch, post office, and second dredging boat after Yale University. Ironically, the notable thing in the history books, that Clark C. Spence devotes a lot of words to, is the Sweetser Burroughs Mining Company. Uncle G (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - But isn't the entire point of GEOLAND to provide information if someone finds that XYZ was born in Yale, Idaho and then decides to look up Yale, Idaho? Plus there's lots of mentions if you look far enough, including a notice they were planning on constructing a sewerage system there, and a note from a recent election. SportingFlyer T·C 10:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is where the every map dot is sacred dogma comes up against the hard reality that that's simply not true, either. This is two fallacies, now. It is simply untrue that a post office plus a school equates to a town in rural 19th century North America. And it's simply not true that every gazetteer entry is a meaningful subject.
      Here, the subjects one can find are (a) the ranching and mining, and the rural post office, done by Edgar's brothers with Lewis Sweetser and found in umpteen biographies of Edgar Rice Burroughs as well as the book by history professor Clark C. Spence, mining historian; (b) the Oregon Trail's final junction for the California Trail as found in umpteen sources on those, and as noted in the 1970s as almost completely obliterated by farming when the U.S. Congress decided to make it historic and put the BLM in charge of it, and decades earlier than but in the same place as the ranching at the crossing up from the mouth of the Raft River; and (c) the places in Cassia County: Almo, Elba, and Malta.
      We have Raft River, Oregon Trail, Route of the Oregon Trail, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Malta, Idaho, and Lewis H. Sweetser articles covering all this, although we might be able to wring the mining company out as an addition as there's actually a lot to say about it, and although Cassia County, Idaho#Communities has more unwarranted inflation of things into "communities".
      But what we are dealing with instead is two articles by An Errant Knight (talk · contribs), both based upon nothing but GNIS database records, literal gazetteer entries: the Upper Raft River Valley (a valley that is fundamentally interconnected with the river) and a confabulation of a couple of post offices into an "unincorporated community" of Raft River, Idaho.
      Uncle G (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, but we also have multiple sources describing people and events from Yale, Idaho, which is generally enough to keep an article. I don't doubt for a second there should not be an article at Raft River, Idaho. I agree with the GNIS issue. I don't even mind if there is a redirect from Yale, Idaho to Sweetser as there's the most discussion of Yale there - not at the other places you mentioned. I just think there's the possibility for a valid article topic there, if someone were to do the research. SportingFlyer T·C 16:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Uncle G, the creator's talk page and contributions suggest they take their hobby very seriously, but the collaborative nature of the project less so. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Actually, we do not. You have not cited a single one. And before you start citing the observation well and gauging station reports, note that they are about the Raft River. The power line that you might want to cite was for the Raft River Electric Coöperative, which is, as can be seen by the name, a utility company for the entire Raft River Valley based in Malta, Idaho and whose full official name is the Raft River Rural Electric Coöperative. There's that word rural again, telling us that this is a rural area without population centres, where Yale is no more than a post office that people might give as a mail route.
        Confabulating yet another "unincorporated community" from a post office named Yale is just as egregious an error as confabulating this article from a post office named Yale. This is a rural area full of ranches, which everyone agrees on from the Rural Electric Coöperative which describes how it serves a rural area and was founded by famers, through the Burea of Land Management when it surveyed what remained of the Oregon Trail in the 1970s and found it obliterated by farming, through to the autobiography where the person talks about his future wife having lived on a ranch with "nothing there". The detailed South Idaho Press piece pointed to below has this place's history as the site of cattle ranching with "no other inhabitants".
        All these are as well as the Burroughs biographies and the professor of mining history telling us that Yale was a post office, who ran it, who named it, and why. We really don't need further "unincorporated community" fakery in Wikipedia at this point.
        Uncle G (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I thought I cited at least two in my original keep. SportingFlyer T·C 20:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~I nominate this find the GOAT-->~~ https://www.newspapers.com/article/south-idaho-press-raft-river-valley-in-1/140175446/, Uncle G you can view that as well. It is cool. It describes the entire raft river valley in detail as it was in 1929. It says that Yale was a post office, and goes on to list the towns in the valley, neither Yale nor Raft river are listed. It confirms two things Raft river and Yale were just post offices, and that post office names had nothing to do with location. They are more often named by influential people, and not for the communities. We probably should delete Yale too since it's just a post office with a vanity name.James.folsom (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the new GOAT This place actually appreciated it's history enough to write about it. If your still on the fence about deleting this, look here at this greater than 1 page article on the history of Raft river valley. https://www.newspapers.com/article/south-idaho-press-raft-river-page-1/140180273/ https://www.newspapers.com/article/south-idaho-press-raft-river-page-2/140179858/ These have additionally insight about how post offices related to the community.
- Well, it's a nice small-town paper sort of an article, but it's about Malta, not this spot! Mangoe (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or, indeed Raft River#History or the Oregon Trail further to what Jbt89 mentioned. These are good finds, but we still haven't made any more than what all of the Edgar Rice Burroughs biographies and Clark C. Spence the mining historian tell us, which is that Yale was a post office; and what the histories of the place in earlier times tell us, which is that two settler trails diverged just after the river crossing, which Raft River already mentions. it would be nice to see some of that history from those articles in Wikipedia. But we really do not need three separate "Raft River" articles, two of which are GNIS database records confabulations created by a single editor, to cover the Raft River, the Oregon Trail, and Sweetser Burroughs. Uncle G (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - The second is also really interesting because of what it says about post offices. James.folsom (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's certainly a real example of post offices just being people's houses; but I found it interesting because it described this very place as the Pierce Ranch with "no other inhabitants" in the area, with Jim Pierce selling to the Sweetsers, which connects the Pierce Ranch to Lewis H. Sweetser as Jim Pierce is mentioned in the Burroughs biographies, piling on yet more evidence from sources that this is ranchland/farmland. We're not short of stuff that Wikipedia doesn't have here, from far more detail on Sweetser through the Sweetser Burroughs Mining Company to a lot more detail of this junction on the Oregon Trail which our Route of the Oregon Trail article barely mentions; but the desire to write fake "communities" instead of the real history just because post offices get dots on maps, even to be seen in this very discussion, means that we get crap like this article at hand instead. Uncle G (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that's my point ;o), these articles are a fairly comprehensive view of the history and situation of the raft river valley and they don't mention a town called raft river anywhere in it. And, and least one of them lists all the towns and neither Yale or raft river are on that list. James.folsom (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the extensive analyses done above that demonstrate this place was nothing more than a rural post office for a bit and then for the rest of its history existed as unpopulated ranchland. Nothing compels us to make a standalone article for even every real city, let alone debunked GNIS artifacts.

JoelleJay (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is about a rural post office which briefly served the Raft River Valley, and this content belongs in that article. It is not notable on its own. I have added a sentence to that article about the Raft River Bridge post office, so we won't lose much information by deleting this one. Jbt89 (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 06:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Inserra[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – As WP:AtD. Svartner (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 12:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Arduino (author)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASIC. Article lacks any citations and only contains one external link to the author's website. Google yields results about the geologist of the same name, but no news coverage or evidence of notability for the author. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 03:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 03:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete One point not to overlook is that he translated in Italian Stephen King books, and has been interviewed often because of this (example). However, it is still not sufficient to show notability. Broc (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuger family[edit]

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

Unreferenced genealogy - Altenmann >talk 03:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. TH1980 (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Though mainly unreferenced at the moment most of the contents can most most proabably be confirmed by this entry in Svenskt biografiskt lexikon (the Swedish national biography, published by the Swedish National Archives) and/or the 1913 edition of Svenska släktkalendern. /FredrikT (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant. All persons must be notable. We do not list arbitrary persons. - Altenmann >talk 22:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely agree. Has no place on here. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Meets SIGCOV and GNG after expansion. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swindled[edit]

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

The show does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NPODCAST. While doing a BEFORE, I'm mostly seeing listicles with short descriptions of the show. I'm fine with using listicles for establishing notability if they actually contain significant coverage, whereas most of these don't even contain 100 words about the show and basically just copied from the show's description on a podcasting platform. The Discover Pods awards aren't bad, but it's not a notable award. Being in the top ten of a category on Apple podcast charts also isn't bad, but the show barely made the list. TipsyElephant (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Crime, Entertainment, Politics, Germany, and United States of America. TipsyElephant (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PR items used for sourcing, and appearing in a "10 best" list are about all we have. I can only find mentions of this in lists of true crime podcasts, which don't help notability. The wiki article now is more of an episode list than much of anything about the podcast itself. Oaktree b (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is much press because of the nature of the show but I was able to find short interviews with the anonymous host on websites such as Big Pod, DiscoverPods, and SheReads. I'm not sure that does much for the notability of the show, but the sources are not too different from what is used for the Casefile article (a similar anonymously-hosted podcast) or Sword and Scale. For instance, the iTunesCharts website that is sourced on the Casefile article could also be used to demonstrate Swindled's international notoriety. I agree that the article needs expanding, but disagree with the proposed deletion, as it is a popular and notable podcast. Andy1973b (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article to include information about the podcast's TV adaptation and connection to the popular podcast Crime Junkie, which was mentioned in Rolling Stone. I also expanded the reception section to include charting information similar to other podcast articles. Andy1973b (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into the sourcing for Sword and Scale and Casefile. Perhaps they should be deleted as well. Regardless they are examples of WP:OTHERSTUFF. The Big Pod and DiscoverPods sources are essentially WP:BLOGS. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to do a deep dive and improve the article up to an acceptable standard by adding history and production details found in the Tampa Bay Times, BBC News, MEL Magazine, and other direct sources. I'm confident the article can be improved even further with time if it remains. Andy1973b (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy1973b, if you intend to !vote keep, you should do so. -- asilvering (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough has been added for the subject to meet GNG. Thriley (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to HomePod as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 16:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AudioOS[edit]

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

Questionable notability. Sources don't appear to commonly use the audioOS name. Looks too much like Apple wiki for me. Merging with HomePod? IgelRM (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Page creator) No objection. This was intended as a "version history" article but it's now clear how the community (and I) feel about those. The "Development" and "History" sections can be combined, then merged into HomePod, and maybe transcluded into HomePod Mini. DFlhb (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for replying creator. Somewhat off-topic, but what do you think about watchOS and tvOS? There are more established and recognized by Apple but should they have their own pages? iPadOS's interface is significantly different from iOS but I wonder if it can be combined as well. IgelRM (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to HomePod. This looks like something that is fit for Apple's fandom page, not here. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with HomePod. Some good content and sources in here but doesn't seem to need to be its own article. PopoDameron ⁠talk 19:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foundrion Group[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP, I couldn't really find anything by searching and the page is mostly sourced to the company's website or non-RSes that don't mention Foundrion Group. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, Canada, Michigan, Missouri, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim is made to notability. Llajwa (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent sources. - Altenmann >talk 03:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of museums in Equatorial Guinea. ✗plicit 06:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Modern Art Equatorial Guinea[edit]

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

A search in gnews and gbooks by its English and Spanish names yields very little. The foreign language versions of this article are also only sourced with 1 reference. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Museums and libraries, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list cited in article - non notable and the article consists in entirety of exactly the information given in the name! Llajwa (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to list. - Altenmann >talk 03:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Greaney[edit]

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

Unable to find any citations, or even mentions of this 18th century Gaelic Irish poet/musician. The article has been tagged since March 2022 for notability and unreferenced. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Arts, Poetry, Music, and Ireland. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
del neglected, unreferenced. - Altenmann >talk 03:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Scolaire (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Party (United Kingdom)[edit]

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

Minor political party in the UK, no evidenced political notability (e.g. unexpected election wins, control of local authorities) to meet guidelines. Article overwhelmingly afoul of rules on Original Research, with only two primary sources and a very brief mention in an election article covering the wider seat they were contesting. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I favor the lowest of low bars for inclusion of political parties, their youth sections, and their leaders, regardless of size or ideology. This is the sort of material that our readers have a right to expect in a comprehensive encyclopedia. I realize IAR is not looked upon fondly in deletion discussions, but I opine in this direction nonetheless. Carrite (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Mentioned in Roanna Carleton-Taylor, "History of the Far Right in Britain. Carrite (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite, the organisation mentioned in that website (2010 British Freedom Party) is a completely different organisation to the one that is subject to this AfD, leaving the original problem that there is no non-primary, reliable sources to back the existence of the article. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While some editors might favor inclusion, that is not the usual outcome and precedent. Many minor parties, their leaders, and candidates have been deleted over the past 17years. While consensus can change, this is a pretty solid wall past experience. Bearian (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with what's beeen said. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. G4 and SALTing can be applied by any admin if disruptive recreation is a problem. Owen× ☎ 16:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Lengyel[edit]

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

Lengyel does not meet the specific criteria for notability of musicians: he was a member of Mr. Bungle, but criterion 6 requires having been a "reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". I have been unable to find much coverage of his time with the band, and it's not fully independent (such as the semi-official history of the band); such sources as there are disagree on what year he left. The article was started in 2005, and in December 2023 I found it containing uncited specifics and the only reference on his career being a dead reference for a disparaging quote. I searched for sources and rewrote it like this. (Morbidthoughts has since removed the sources on his career as insufficiently reliable for a BLP, after I noted the article at the BLP noticeboard.) The impetus for my edit was that he was in the news as a suspect in the disappearance of his girlfriend. Since then her body has been found, and he has been arrested and is being held on murder charges. I had meanwhile redirected the article to Mr. Bungle, but the news coverage led .usarnamechoice to revert that redirection on January 4. There have been several news articles. In addition to the SFGate article we are currently citing for his being a person of interest, there are The Santa Cruz Sentinel and NBC News. In addition to SFGate and Pitchfork that we currently cite for his arrest and the murder charge, there are The San Francisco Chronicle, the Associated Press, the Los Angeles Times, and The New York Times. The latest news I can find is on a second deferment of his arraignment, Santa CruzSentinel, January 16. The vast majority of this coverage is based on police announcements; for example, the statement that he has also gone by Mylo Stone, which I have been unable to corroborate—there is a younger musician called Mylo Stone who is a UK rapper, so I have recently reverted addition of that reported alias to the article. The LA Times article describes Lengyel's vehicle and gives its license plate. But that and the Mr. Bungle sources are pretty much it for biographical details; we know more about his girlfriend, thanks to coverage like that Santa Cruz Sentinel article. So the article is in effect a WP:BLP1E and bad from a WP:BLPCRIME point of view. The two claims of notability are both inadequate and don't add up to enough for an article. It would be pure WP:CRYSTAL to hold that the legal case will eventually provide sufficient coverage to overcome the "one event" problem, or lead a music journalist to write about his music career. So although this discussion will take up the time of members of the community, I believe that this biography of a living person needs to be deleted. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 February 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Yngvadottir's excellent analysis above. As I commented when this was raised at WP:BLPN [59], being a member of a notable band doesn't inherently create independent notability, and nor does being arrested as a murder suspect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient notability. - Altenmann >talk 03:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:07, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the Redirect the nom recently created in keeping with ATD and protect that redirect to stop repeated recreation of a page. Nom rational is sound and well articulated. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khachatur-Bek of Mush[edit]

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

Delete Cannot find any mention of a person with this name in any books, articles, or websites. Khachatur itself seems to be a popular name associated with Armenia, but there is no information available for the individual here. Tooncool64 (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Armenia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tagged unreferenced for 15 years. - Altenmann >talk 03:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEXIST. Curbon7 (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even apart from the lack of sources, the article does not indicate notability. Zero^talk 07:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Turkey. Curbon7 (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No mention in books or any web searches. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there's an ur-citation, I can't find it. All else is regurgitation. Too, no translation into or from Armenian, and no Armenian article, either. kencf0618 (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 06:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maithili Karna Kayasthak Panjik Sarvekshan[edit]

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

I'm here following the deletion of Binod Bihari Verma, the author of this book. I initially proposed it for Wp:PROD; however, user:Kvng contested, highlighting issues with sourcing. I found no substantial indication to support its inclusion. –Owais Al Qarni (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and India. –Owais Al Qarni (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - poor sourcing, but as a book in one of the little-known and endangered languages of India, this has a prima facie case for notability. Llajwa (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to delete - Original WP:PROD rationale was This article has left the notability tag unaddressed since 2015 and has not attended to the "More citations needed" tag since 2010. Furthermore, it lacks any citations from reliable secondary sources. which does not present a vaild WP:DEL-REASON or indication of WP:BEFORE. The nom's argument here is not improved. This is far from my area of expertise but I do get some GBooks hits so there is a potential case for notability. ~Kvng (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 07:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TeX Gyre Heros[edit]

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

No indication that this font is notable, the sourcing consists of a blog (FontShop) and the website for the font itself. A BEFORE search only reveals sites where the font can be downloaded/purchased. Netherzone (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The TeX Gyre project has been covered in depth in the TeX User Group journal TUGboat a few times; e.g. A first look at the TeX Gyre fonts. But I think that'd at best support an article on the project as a whole rather than each individual font. Adam Sampson (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think a merge or redirect into TeX would make sense? Netherzone (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you were looking to merge into an existing article, I think a better target would be Nimbus Sans, since it's a version of that font. TeX wouldn't make sense as a target - the TeX Gyre project is not part of TeX itself, and the other fonts that are commonly used with TeX aren't covered in that article. Adam Sampson (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither TeX nor Nimbus Sans makes sense. TeX would be a bit like putting an article about the Linux Libertine fonts into an article about the Linux kernel. Yes, they share a part of their name and both are free (as in speech) software, but rather unrelated. In order to use the TeX Gyre fonts you don't need TeX because they are actually just regular OTF CFF fonts and are more related to PostScript and GhostScript, because they fill the gap of Adobe's 35 standard fonts in open source in general. To merge it with Nimbus Sans would be wrong too because the TeX Gyre project changed the outlines of the letters and added hundreds of glyphs. This is clearly not the same design anymore — and the project put also a ot of money into the Gyre fonts to pay font designer to achieve that. I would even say that TeX Gyre Heros is of way higher quality than Nimbus Sans. The reason why you don't find much about this font is that it lives in the open source realm and there is no marketing / thera are no advertisements, but it's available in many Linux distributions. One could say "we use it, but just don't talk much about it". Liebeskind (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:13, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The assessment from the nominator accurately describes the current sourcing situation of the font. Reviewing the above discussion, it appears to have died without a consensus to merge to either TeX or Nimbus Sans, and I agree with the evaluation of Liebeskind in relation to that. Based on Liebeskind's evaluation, I don't think either of the previous articles are good redirect targets. Thus, I think deletion is appropriate. —Sirdog (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want to keep it, I'd rather propose to merge it with Helvetica. TeX Gyre Heros is the closest^[1] and truest free (as in free software) implementation of Helvetica. If merged with Helvetica, this quality should be emphasized. --Liebeskind (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TeX Gyre Heros was particularly made as a high quality compatible free software replacement for Adobe Helvetica, which was ubiquitary in the 1980ies, 1990ies and later because of PostScript and Adobes DTP solutions. --Liebeskind (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://norkowalczyk.medium.com/lookin-for-helvetica-alternative-eh-7c7a2aa3a534

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 07:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanity Fair[edit]

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

This event isn't notable. It was PRODded by another editor, which was removed with a suggestion it could possibly be merged to Stoke-on-Trent. I don't think it is significant enough for a mention there, and I don't know that the name is unambiguous enough for a redirect there either. Boleyn (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no evidence of notability. The only reference is to a picture, which fails to support anything other than the existence of something called "Sanity Fair 2007". Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't agree more with the nomination. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://norkowalczyk.medium.com/lookin-for-helvetica-alternative-eh-7c7a2aa3a534

[1]