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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Allen (diplomat)[edit]

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

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Second source is dead, and could not find WP:SIGCOV in google news search. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Israel, Spain, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above arguments. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:27, 16 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 Haeundae District#Education. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haeundae Tourism High School[edit]

Haeundae Tourism High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is unreferenced, the current references are dead, and I could find no significant Coverage myself. I believe it would fail WP:SIGCOV and fails to meet the standards set in WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG 1keyhole (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 1keyhole (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [1][2] (Busan Ilbo) [3] (The Hankyoreh)[4][5] toobigtokale (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a properly sourced summary to Haeundae District#Education, using the above sources. Source do not show SIRS, except for one they are mill news. The target is under developed and this material will benefit the target and improve visibility of the content.  // Timothy :: talk  04:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I switch my vote; merge per this rationale. toobigtokale (talk) 07:23, 21 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 05:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banjax[edit]

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

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

They don't appear to meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. There is some coverage, but I am not sure it is significant enough. It was found non-notable and deleted at AfD in 2006, when our standards for inclusion were considerably lower. Has been in CAT:NN for 14 years, so hopefully we can get a consensus. Last AfD closed due to lack of participation. Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the band does not meet any of the notability guideline and Google Search was unsuccessful at finding any sources establishing notability (also sources I did find which were not reliable referenced a different band that is currently active) LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete while I got results for them on newspapers.com (also available though the Wikipedia library) all of it was WP:ROTM from local papers of band playing in the area soon and a few charity events, there's nothing to establish notability. Shaws username . talk . 01:17, 15 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 Titan Publishing Group. I'd appreciate it if editors wouldn't merge or redirect articles before AFDs are closed. It means that editors who come to the discussion later can not see the article in the shape it was when it was nominated and it can greatly influence the outcome. But, as far as I know, this is a preference, not a policy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Titan Magazines[edit]

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

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

Insufficiently notable imprint of Titan Publishing. Appears largely written by conflict of interest author. IgelRM (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. IgelRM (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think a merge/redirect to the parent company would make more sense than deletion here.★Trekker (talk) 12:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, merge into Titan Publishing Group? IgelRM (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that the article is unlikely to be retained - merge/redirect is the equivalent of delete - I have already merged the information in this article into the main Titus Publishing article to ensure that the salient content from this article is not lost to Wikipedia. Therefore there is now no need to retain this as a separate article. Rillington (talk) 09:08, 11 February 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, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect with Titan Publishing Group in order to retain information and as a better alternative to deletion. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:29, 16 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ezekiel "Easy" Rawlins[edit]

Ezekiel "Easy" Rawlins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article doesn't appear to have a sufficient amount of general real-world information. Most of this article is just 16 sections of fictional in-universe information. Grapesoda22 (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Literature. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Question The nomination only talks about the current status of the article, which is not the decisive critereon for deletion according to WP:ARTN. So was the required WP:BEFORE search done, and if so what was the result seeing that e.g. Google Books and Google Scholar searches provide a lot of hits? Daranios (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I added some information from a 1995 article in The Independent, in addition to the refs already present from CNN, The New York Times and The Hollywood Reporter. Of the Google Scholar listings that Daranios mentions, this one seems especially strong — an 11-page article about the character in The Kenyon Review. I agree that the article definitely needs improvement, but AfD is not cleanup. Enough sources exist (see WP:NEXIST) for this subject to be notable. Toughpigs (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are enough sources discussing the character himself that a reception/analysis/etc section could easily be developed that would allow it to pass the WP:GNG on his own merits. On top of that, this article is essentially also functioning as our article on the book series as a whole, which is an unquestionably notable book series. Rorshacma (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on the sources found which establish notability of this topic. Having not received an answer I have to assume the nomination is flawed because it ignores the WP:ARTN policy and persumably skipped WP:BEFORE. Daranios (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – per Toughpigs's findings. TLA^tlak 02:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The "Easy Rawlins" books are probably better known than Walter Mosley himself. Per Rorshacma above, our article essentially covers the entire series. The character is also widely discussed in coverage of the 1995 film version of Devil in a Blue Dress. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:25, 21 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 New York University Tisch School of the Arts. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasserman Award[edit]

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

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

Cannot find any significant coverage on this topic, and the only source cited in the article is a 404. popodameron ⁠talk 21:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Awards, and New York. popodameron ⁠talk 21:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – the 404 in the article is a primary source, and the only meaningful secondary coverage I could find was one IndieWire article, which isn't enough. Even without a search, removal seems reasonable; I can't imagine many cases where a student film award is notable, even at a top film school. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Since redirecting seems to be preferred per the relisting comment, I would support New York University Tisch School of the Arts for the target as the most specific parent topic that doesn't have its own notability concerns. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to New York University

  🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 09:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect either to First Run Film Festival where it's already discussed, or to New York University Tisch School of the Arts since the festival may also be non-notable. hinnk (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are 3 different suggested redirect target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 14 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. No new participation after two relistings has me closing this as No consensus. Maybe a future AFD (way in the future) will result in a more decisive outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of Nazir[edit]

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

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

Article about a film and YouTube series, not properly referenced as the subject of sufficient reliable source coverage to pass notability standards for films or web content. The only claim of notability being attempted here is that it exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself in the absence of sufficient media coverage about it to pass WP:GNG -- but this is referenced overwhelmingly to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as its own website, IMDb and/or the episodes themselves on YouTube, and what precious little it shows in the way of third-party coverage is very, very short blurbs that aren't substantial enough to pass GNG all by themselves, along with one citation (duplicated as two separate footnotes for no apparent reason) which appears to be here solely to create the false impression that this has coverage in an academic book so long as you don't actually look at the source to discover that it has absolutely nothing to do with this, and just happens to coincidentally mention a completely different Nazir in a completely different work.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have much, much better sourcing than has been offered. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Websites, and Ghana. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources on the page indicated some notability. I've added more. Primary sources can be removed or not, but this is more a matter of cleanup, as secondary sources exist.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sources are indicating notability, when every single footnote in the entire page (even after your additions) is still either primary or unreliable? Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. What sources? Answer: GhanaWeb or Pulse among other things. And I cannot see any reason to consider GhMoviefreak unreliable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 14 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 06:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nerm[edit]

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

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

This article about a DJ is not supported by independent sources. It is currently referenced to radio programmes listing, event listings and an interview, not all of which mention Nerm. I have not been able to find better sources to add - I have added another BBC programme listing and two articles written by Nerm. I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. The article has been heavily tagged for years. Tacyarg (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Radio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 14 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jul (Korean Bow)[edit]

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

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

Probable WP:HOAX, couldn't find any relevant sourcing whatsoever. Prodraxis _(talk) 22:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Prodraxis _(talk) 22:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Possibly a mistranslation / misspelling of 절 on Wiktionary? Shazback (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but not for that reason. This doesn't appear to be a WP:HOAX, as it's just a misspelling of the Korean word for bow. The article for bowing already exists, and this article is just giving advice on how to bow.

Crystalholm (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unreferenced article, probably not notable for a separate article, and not a plausible redirect. Ben Azura (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Bowing. On the Bowing page, there is a sub-section called 'In China', the Jul article could become a sub-section called 'In Korea'. 三葉草 San Ye Cao 05:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge which was an opinion recently suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless someone writes something sourced on Bowing for us to redirect to (in which case, do ping me). This is completely unsourced and so is not suitable for merging. -- asilvering (talk) 00:55, 21 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 radio stations in Wisconsin. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WBQR-LP[edit]

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

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

Doesn't seem to exist outside of FCC databases. Fails WP:SIGCOV ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 22:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Wisconsin. ~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 22:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of radio stations in Wisconsin: this alternative to deletion as an {{R to list entry}} is about the best that can be done with an unsourced, never-sourced article about a relatively-new radio station. How this lasted nearly five years before finally being taken to AfD is beyond me (an identical creation today would, at best, probably be shipped to draftspace/AfC within weeks); even the old NMEDIA's overpresumption of notability still required reliable sources (a 2021 RfC established that there was no wider consensus for NMEDIA being anything more than an essay that provides advice as to how GNG can be met; this station comes nowhere near that). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I went through the list a little more and believe WIWI-LP and WMWG-LP should also share the same fate, whatever the decision is. --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 16:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of radio stations in Wisconsin I've barely heard this station (since its signal range is limited to the Interstate 41 corridor in Milwaukee's western suburbs), and it's owned by Brookside Baptist Church (which I only know since I glanced the station's RDS when I heard it two weeks ago); outside its obvious use to carry the church's services, it seems to broadcast a classical format resembling that of WFMR (Milwaukee), which was a perpetually-moved classical format in the area. It doesn't even have any known website and isn't mentioned on the church's website, so redirection is the best course here. Nate • (chatter) 01:38, 15 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weberton[edit]

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

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

Played in 1 cup game in 2009 then disappeared from professional football. I can't find any evidence that Weberton (not to be confused with the hundreds of players called 'Weverton') passes WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Japanese Wikipedia lists the clubs that he played for but I can't find any decent non-database coverage, even when searching in conjunction with his former clubs. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – According to ogol.com.br [6] he had no notable spells at any club. It includes a spell at Corinthians, but I didn't find anything about it. Svartner (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Online, WP:CIRCULAR and no WP:SIGCOV for WP:ATHLETE at the moment. TLA^tlak 02:34, 21 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. The consideration regarding whether the subject has enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG was responded to with the source assessment, and arguments for deletion or merging did not properly respond to or refute the source assessment, so there is consensus for keeping here. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twomad[edit]

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

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

• Delete (edit: or Merge with Zoombombing) WP:NN He wasn't notable enough to have a WP article when he was alive 2 days ago - that doesn't change today now that he's dead. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 21:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Every third-party celebrity wiki I've found with a page on him ends up only citing his youtube and twitter accounts. There's a few articles on his SA accusations, but I wouldn't touch them as they haven't met WP:BLPCRIME. There's really not much to write with here. mooshberry->talk; 22:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean its a little bit of wishful thinking assuming that they're going to site high quality sources. There have been several mainstream and quality sources referencing him in the past, those could be used here. MarkJames1989 (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia, and it seems like I see a lot of articles with information I find of use for me getting nominated for deletion. I don't even care if there is one paragraph in an article because in my opinion, information is information, and Twomad is no exception. Carnival200 (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being new, you should probably give a read to WP:NOT andWP:BLP1E. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 14:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. There are plenty of times in which I've tried to find information on an individual with a deleted WP page -- only to look up the archived version and find exactly what I'm looking for. Perhaps WP should consider amending its deletion policy. Webmaster098 (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly WP isn't a fandom, so we can't just have barely notable information on here. I'm sure you both are aware that there is a couple youtube/social media specific fandom sites out there?

You both should spend some time looking at our notability guidelines, WP:WEB and WP:BIO both apply in this is situation. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 11:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Pointing out that he did have a few news coverages even before his death- mainly surrounding his Zoom bombing series and live streams^[1]. He was notable enough to appear on TV few times.^[2] At the very least he has his own KYM page^[3]. I think it's relatively safe to say he broke the public sphere of relevance and is probably notable enough 7dn (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed MarkJames1989 (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A blog, a YouTube video describing trivial coverage in BBC (he isn't mentioned by name) and Know Your Meme do not count as reliable sources or an indicator of notability. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The only coverage Twomad received were minor mentions in the BBC and a few other news sites, a cameo does not make someone notable for a Wikipedia page if that was the case my father would have one for starring as the background actor in some no name movie that one time. InternetEnigma (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only real significant coverage in WP:RS has come about today because of his apparent death. Not much more than the odd passing mention otherwise. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:51, 14 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 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There were many articles and notable sources covering him long before his death. Including mainstream sources, like BBC. I vaguely remember his article being much more detailed with sources in the past, however I must be misremembering. Regardless I think the article should be kept, extended, and updated. Does a persons death negate their notability even if it is only being revived because of their death? Notability has nothing to do with being alive. MarkJames1989 (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither does death. The fact that someone died does not suddenly make them noteworthy. Noteworthiness is achieved by what one does when they are alive. Granted - how someone died could be noteworthy in and of itself - but that too does not stand the test here. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 22:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refuting that argument, isn't it logical to argue that an individual with no degree of notability wouldn't be covered by publications and so using his alias. Assuming twomad had absolutely no degree of notability, why would publications use the title "YouTuber twomad dead at 23" and not "23-year-old found dead by overdose" Célestin Denis (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a subject is noteworthy by publications for one event doesn't immediately mean it's notable enough for Wikipedia. TappyTurtle (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just checked the article and it's low-quality. There are not many reliable sources. I think it is something that shouldn't have its own article. Plus, twomad isn't notable for anything he was just a shitposting troller. Autograph84 (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would say that the low-quality article should be an indicator that it needs to be updated. And including all the stories, allegations and rumors can make people decide what they think is the case. It can’t just be one sided because that will lead to conflict online where people who have already heard the allegations and people who already supported Twomad argue about how the article is incorrect because it doesn’t align with their opinion which is a result of reading many other opinions. 92.39.195.160 (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Still, twomad isn't worthy of anything for him to have an article and again there's little reliable info about bro. I just say add him in Deaths in 2024 and call it a day. Autograph84 (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I've moved the article to draft space. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You should've waited for consensus before moving to draft . Regardless, I will be updating the draft with more information and sources. I understand that the current article was not up to Wikipedia standards but I was actively working on the content before you draftified it. I am confident this subject can pass WP:N and will continue my search for sources. Célestin Denis (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  the question of "no reliable sources" existing before death could currently be disputed by this South Korean article by JoongAng Ilbo:[7] Célestin Denis (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  His sexual abuse allegations were also covered by the Daily Dot which used to be considered reliable until 2022 switching over to a no-consensus as of now: [8] Célestin Denis (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:BLP/WP:BDP isn't a wait and see thing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I’ve said this before but he lacks notability to have his own Article he only ever made small cameos on the mainstream news back during the Zoom trolling days which isn’t notable enough to be considered for an Article, a worthwhile comparison is the Vtubers Froot And Veibae who had an entire dedicated section on the BBC yet are still not notable enough to have dedicated Articles. The Article itself is an incoherent mess and fails to mention pretty much anything he was known for on the Internet (Ex: Goodnight Girl, Zoom Trolling, Hasan Beef, Abuse Allegations, Etc.) which notably most of these don’t have reliable sources discussing them which furthers my view that he isn’t notable enough for an Article. InternetEnigma (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "The Article itself is an incoherent mess and fails to mention pretty much anything he was known for on the Internet" Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia in which ANYONE can edit, right? Can't somebody just mention those and save the edits? "Notably most of these don’t have reliable sources" Knowyourmeme exists. NoahMusic2009 (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @NoahMusic2009: Somebody can edit the article and click Save, but they'd probably be reverted quickly. Information included on Wikipedia has to meet some policies and guidelines, such as being verifiable based on reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Knowyourmeme is a fun site, but it is user-generated (i.e. anyone can edit) so it is inherently unreliable for our purposes. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 03:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Based on a lack of notability, the article should be deleted. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources aside from a single event and the article is based almost entirely on unreliable sources. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article is of bad quality, and was only made because he died. Simply not notable enough to warrant its own article - just go to Wikitubia or something. qw3rty 06:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay i get the idea, but i feel he can be the objection to this ruling. Mainly because of the huge response this has been getting, especially all the dog-piling (rightfully so, guy was a huge pedo). I suggest not for a deletion, but instead, a definite retooling. I do agree with the fact the article in question is poorly done and definitely needs a lot of fixing to do. He has a decent enough following and impact, that a page could be in place, however it is built upon haste Bruh32123 (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Bruh32123 Sorry, but no. There isn't a single person or topic in a million universes that's exempt from the notability requirements. Even pulling the "ignore all rules" card, you'd have to provide a genuinely compelling, flawless argument on why he should be the exception. So far, your argument looks like a "right great wrongs" type. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Honestly that's fair, I just wanted to put my two cents into it.

  There's definitely plenty of issues with it Bruh32123 (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Seeing as how a new article was created to replace the drafted version, I feel compelled to repost these two sources that might get us somewhere. In addition to the ones pointed out above, this scholarly article writes about his content in several hundred words, and this NY Daily News (reliable per WP:RSPSS) piece reported on his death alongside aspects of his career. Not officially voting yet, however. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Again - just because someone is mentioned in a publication does not mean they are noteworthy enough to garner a WP article. I've been mentioned in RS more than a dozen times - yet the only appropriate WP pages I should ever have is my talk & personal pages. This guy simply fails to meet the test for notability, and wasn't notable enough to have a WP Article when he was alive. That does not change now that he is dead. WP is not a collection of obituaries. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 14:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picard's Facepalm 1: If you actually read the first source, it's quite disingenuous to say he's only just mentioned. It's a clear example of WP:SIGCOV from before his death. And 2: that "wasn't notable when alive" argument isn't as convincing as you think it is. When it comes to people in creative fields especially, a person may get little if any coverage about their life and career until the moment after their death. In that coverage, reliable outlets may write about their life in such detail that it contributes to their notability beyond just a WP:BLP1E context. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As per above, fails general notability aside from subjects expiry. 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 12:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was known for popularizing "zoom bombing" and his collaboration with online creator Belle Delphine. He had a decently large social media following particularly on Twitter and Youtube. NoahMusic2009 (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for the "zoom bombing" claim? sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beemer69 See source table below. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep: Per the findings of Célestin Denis. But it's a weak keep because there aren't a lot of sources on Google News before 2024. Not even his "Good Night Girl" meme was mentioned outside of Know Your Meme before his death. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 14:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Article (and most news coverage) appears to mainly focus on twomad's death, which does not make him notable enough for Wikipedia. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per comments by Green Star Collector. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 15:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The sources provided are mostly unreliable or WP:UGC, and what little coverage I've seen in reliable sources seems trivial and lacks the WP:SIGCOV we'd need to demonstrate notability. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Noting here that I would also be fine with a selective merge to Zoombombing as an ATD if there's any content worth saving. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:36, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom: article fails WP:RS, WP:GNG, subject was only notable for his passing. I have seen very little coverage before his death and most coverage for his death is not mainstream. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 16:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A pothole can have a Wikipedia article but a guy that had over 2 million YT subs cannot? I'm sorry, I didn't watch his stuff nor was I aware of each and every move of his but I was aware he existed. So was the internet and there were articles and notable sources on him before his death. It's not that hard to look over page 10 on Google's "News" section. Anuchikibrikiivdamke (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While I agree with you that a specific pothole is a pretty ridiculous item to have an article about - unlike the topic at hand, it did pass WP:N - albeit for all the wrong reasons, lol. Storied by the NYT, CNN, NBC, TWP, CST, the AP, Business Insider (really? c'mon man), CBS, Axios, and WFLD... all listed in WP:RSP. Yes it is a sad state of our society when a pothole (or a pope chip hat, for that matter) is more notable than a human being. But that should also be a pretty clear qualifying indicator too.... "is [X] more notable than pothole or potato chip?. In this instance - that does not at all seem to be the case. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 17:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Since people have said that Twomad's death is notable,People above have said that there are more sources for twomad's death than that of twomad himself, we could move this article to Death of Twomad or Death of twomad, instead of deleting. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that? How was his death notable, exactly? He apparently overdosed. ODing is not a notable method of death. Having a YT channel does not make one notable, either. Is WP to start creating articles for every Joe that has a YT channel and ODs? C'mon... --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 17:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia; a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge."

this should be WHY we keep it. wiki is meant to help people find info on topics, including youtubers who arent as socially relevant as they once were. there are pages on here that havent been touched in years and are more obscure than twomad, but they should stay because wiki is an encyclopedia that helps the people who want to learn about a certain topic. twomads death isnt the only notable thing about him, he was pretty important in the youtube sphere for a bit. he has been trending on twitter with 300k tweets and his channel was sizable enough to be known. THATS why his death is notable. not because he was some random bad dude who just happened to have a youtube channel and overdosed on drugs, but because he has over a quarter of a million tweets on him, was a popular meme figure for at least a year or two, and a youtube channel with more subscribers than the population of north macedonia. BobLavaBot (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I will say yet again - he apparently wasn't notable enough to have a WP article when he was alive. That does not change now that he is dead. ```` --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 17:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't perfect. I'd be absurd to assume that it had an article for everything considered "notable." The fact that the article didn't exist previously shouldn't stop it from exisisting now. Chelk (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the only thing that has changed is the fact that they died - it absolutely should stop it. Dying other than by notable means doesn't change the fact that it wasn't notable before. It is pretty obvious that "being a YouTuber" and "being a streamer" didn't make him notable up to 4 days ago. Being a dead one still doesn't. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 15:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Articles are kept because their topic meets the notability guidelines, not because it exists. TappyTurtle (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I'll rephrase the !vote in a little bit. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EVENTCRIT, deaths are usually not notable, particularly when the cause of death itself is not unusual. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom: twomad has evidently not been mentioned in enough actual sources to warrant an article. Overdosing while playing Overwatch does not make someone notable, and I don't see that his death in itself is notable either. Put his death in the Deaths in 2024 article, sure, but I don't see it as being any more noteworthy than that. DarkRevival (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As a general reminder, having a large following on any social media platform, on its own, is not proof of notability nor justification for a Wikipedia article. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct, especially taken into consideration that followers can be bought.

  I have taken a look at his Twitter/X for example he has barely 200 interactions on most of his posts while having 566K followers and a few hundred K views (which may also have started mostly because of his unfortunate passing).

  On his YouTube a lot of comments and such only seem to be from after his passing went viral (again, a case of "high views and subscribers but little interaction").

  I don't want to accuse him of buying his views and subscribers but I'm giving extra arguments as to why followers != notability. FinlayDaG33k (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This! --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 17:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject fails GNG and ANYBIO. Maybe check back in five years to see if there was real coverage on subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same happened with Etika 2601:405:4881:B730:6DE2:3859:8CB1:41CE (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Twomad was met with various controversies and news articles about his online meet trolling videos and his harassment towards the K-Pop fandom. CityLord92 (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep / merge to draft - Seems to have lasting enough coverage, but not demonstrated on the article. NAADAAN (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep / draftify - It is poorly written and sourced rather ineffectively, however, that can be fixed. The bigger issue is the lack of sufficient sources. I would say it is probably too early to delete this article. His death gave more coverage to him, however, I am skeptical that it is enough right now. I think WP:DRAFTIFY may be in due here, at least for the time being considering he did not die that long ago and more sources could cover him in the (unforeseeable) future. Not0nshoree (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Death doesn't establish notability, and the article follows suit with mundane content like "Sedik achieved growth and popularity online, accumulating millions of subscribers and views on multiple accounts on YouTube, as well as other social media platforms such as Twitter". Yeah, no. Only three sources: two of his death and the other his own YouTube channel. Being a shitposting idiot dying of an overdose doesn't automatically make him worthy of an article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 19:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Draftify, and a fairly passionate one at that. This article is not mainpage ready, not by a mile. But Sedik was a fairly big name on YouTube round about 2020-2021, which isn't terribly long, but the idea that he is only noteworthy because of his death is incorrect. IIRC we had the same discussion with Technoblade in 2022, a major Youtube name who didn't have an article in any form until his death. TwoMad certainly wasn't at the level of popularity that Technoblade was, but I think he still meets the bar of being notable independent of his death. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This discussion is getting out of hand from both sides of the spectrum. To get us back on track, I compiled a list of potentially usable sources posted here and on the article itself. You may disagree with my assessment of the sources, but let's at least talk more about the sources.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:PantheonRadiance
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Technology and Social Change - August 2020	Created by researchers at Harvard University that have no affiliation with Twomad.	Looks peer reviewed to me	Discussed in several paragraphs about his ZOOM meeting content - at least one hundred words. Plus if a scholarly source analyzes your content in this manner, it is definitely a sign of notability, if only partial.	✔ Yes
The JoongAng - December 6, 2021	Not affiliated with Twomad.	Appears as a reputable South Korean newspaper.	Main topic of article, discusses aspects of his content - in particular his relationship with the KPOP community	✔ Yes
HotNewHipHop - February 14, 2024		Per WP:A/S	Main topic of article, notes him as a controversial content creator and discusses aspects of his career prior to death rather than just the death itself. EDIT 2/21/24: Another source has been written about his career.	✔ Yes
NY Daily News - February 14, 2024		Per WP:RSPSS - arguably one of the few sources I'd trust reporting on him right now.	Not only does the source report on his death, but also touches a bit upon the allegations and his behavior prior.	✔ Yes
The Daily Dot/Passionfruit - July 26, 2023	Reporter researched and analyzed claims independently of the creator.	~ Although considered fully reliable prior to late 2022, no consensus now emerges. At the very least, it should be considered reliable for internet culture.	Ignoring the BLP allegations, there's a lengthy section describing his career in multiple paragraphs. You can easily cite this as SIGCOV of his content without including those allegations.	~ Partial
The Indian Express - February 15, 2024	Unaffiliated with Twomad; facts also look written/verified by editorial team	Per WP:INDIANEXP	Also writes about his content and life before passing.	✔ Yes
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}}.

Still not officially voting, but I will say one last thing. We can argue all we want about whether we feel this info about him is significant. But at the end of the day, it doesn't change the fact that these outlets clearly found him significant enough to write about him. EDIT 2/16: Found extra The Indian Express source, adding to table. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per PantheonRadiance's table. There are at least over 3 reliable sources here that are not (completely) related to his death, and thus makes him notable. Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 20:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources that PantheonRadiance has dug up could be used to write a yes, relatively short, but perfectly fine and verifiable article which meets WP:GNG. — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 20:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, several RS are all that are needed for something like this to be notable, and there appear to be more than a few. Also, just from a purely 'duh' standpoint, this person was clearly more notable to the general public than +90% of sports figures who have their own pages; if random cricketeers from the 1910's can have Wikipedia pages, obviously social media influencers with multiple millions of followers can, too. Joe (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "several RS are all that are needed for something like this to be notable" - that's really s t r e t c h i n g the requirements & spirit of WP:N quite a bit. Just because someone has RS content about them doesn't necessarily qualify them as being notable. Neither does "being a YouTuber". I am mentioned in over a dozen RS, and I have 2 YT channels - and I sure as hell am not notable, nor do I warrant a page on WP outside of my talk & personal pages. If this is the criteria of notability that you have - then I presume you are also in midst of creating individual articles for each of the McDonald's and Little Caesar's franchisees out there? They have had more impact and influence than cricketeers and twomad put together. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 21:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable secondary sources about some of McDonald's or Little Caesar's franchisees, I'd be all in favor of making an article about them. I'm not sure I'd agree that "They have had more impact" than twomad or any given random cricket player, or how one would measure that, or why one would think that a certain amount of 'impact' was a requirement for notability (in the Wikipedia sense of the word), but I'd still support it if shown the right RS. Heck, if there are RS about you in particular, you may be more notable than you think, my good editor! Perhaps we should have a page about you. I'd have to see the sources first, of course, before commenting one way or the other. Joe (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBIO. The RS report his death due to the circumstances of the event, without being able to previously demonstrate the notoriety and interest of his career as an internet content creator. _-_Alsor (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We can't have a serious discussion about lack of sources or detail in this article when it's unnecessarily extended-protected (looks like it wasn't even autoconfirm beforehand?) Doublah (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So you are saying that only new editors to the project are going to be able to contribute anything worthwhile to the article in question? That's a pretty bold statement. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 15:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are many non-new editors on Wikipedia who do not have over 500 edits, myself included. Page protection policy is such that protection is only to be used where proved neccesary, which is not the case here. Doublah (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can empathise that the discussion seems to trail into the territory of subjective assessment of the worth of this person rather than whether the sources substantiate notability. I think the problem is that in line with things like WP:NARTIST there is insufficient WP:SIGCOV about his actual contribution as a streamer to his medium to warrant an article. Assembling significant coverage about his death, views on certain topics and allegations about him puts the cart before the horse in assuming a personality is notable because people talk about them. In terms of what this person is apparently notable for, streaming, is there signficant coverage that evaluates and discusses that? There doesnt seem to be. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I feel as though his notability exists only in the current short term, perhaps either himself or his death may warrant a page in the future, but as of now he is only notable in the short term because of his sudden death, the majority of his appearances in news articles etc are only in relation to either his death, or his "zoombombing" in 2020. AlfonsoBourbonCream (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Based on the findings of other editors, there are some good sources that document his career as a streamer, even if said sources are primarily over his passing, mainly through PantheonRadiance. That's not to say that I'm personally happy with the current sourcing but there is a degree of significant coverage and Twomad is far from being not notable to warrant his own article. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Being a streamer or tuber does not make one notable. WP:BLP1E --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 15:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Picard's Facepalm: If he were a streamer with say, 0 significant mentions on any major secondary sources then I would agree considering that just about any other streamer could have an article with that logic. However, my main point is that some existing sources document his career well enough that go beyond just his death. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete He wasn’t notable enough to have had an article before his death and dying is not itself noteworthy enough to warrant an article. The article itself is also low quality and poorly sourced. Archimedes157 (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Célestin Denis. Also, my two cents: we have articles about ministers and heads of political parties of pacific micronations whose total populations rarely exceed 50k people, which is equiualent of the population of the average village in my country, yet for some reason an influencer with millions of subscribers is not relevant enough for this encyclopedia? come on, boomers, give me a malarckey or however u say that Kasperquickly (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. The guy was also on mainstream news, so I'd say we should keep the article. Chelk (talk) 13:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To extrapolate that a streamer/tuber is as/more noteworthy than a governing entity (regardless the size) gives a pretty frightening reflection of the state of society, the direction it is heading & what is deemed as "important". You do know that there is an entire world outside of the 5 inch screen you hold in your hand, right? Oy. I will say that I am glad that your comment is documented here. Hopefully WP is still around in another 20 or 40 years - cause I want you to set a reminder in your google calendar to come back and re-read what you wrote there... and see what you think & say about it then. ThisAintABoomerThing --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 15:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure that the same principle applies. A minister of a small country is still an important leader in that country, and what they say or do in that context is largely newsworthy no matter that the country is small. Having millions of subscribers doesn't carry any comparable weight or responsibility. FPTI (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What about article X is not a valid argument in deletion discussions. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep PantheonRadiance's table shows clear notability here, I would be inclined to say delete but I think this table of references is enough to show at least minor notability. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To be honest, there are even bigger YouTubers based on subscription/views that don't have pages, and to me this feels like there are arguments for both keeping and deleting it. I especially agree that, as an article, it's not really useful in its current stub state. A person's death (especially if it's not extraordinary in and of itself) should not make someone more notable. If it was legitimately rejected before, maybe it should be rejected again. For a case where a person's death made them more notable, I would point you to Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, which otherwise probably didn't meet the threshold for notability prior to her death (and was still being debated even immediately after her death). Ultimately, I'm not entrenched enough with this corner of YouTube to make an informed vote. I can see the case for both sides.Electricmaster (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would like to point out that there is a LOT more to the situation than just the fact he turned up dead one day. I think, once there's enough information on the ongoing criminal case against him and Twomad's criminal record, the article should be updated (with veritable sources) to reflect that. Twomad isn't notable just because of his death, I'd argue he's notable because of the huge amount of controversy he was mired in during his life. (See Jameskii's Twitter posts for a rough rundown of what I'm talking about here - Twomad was a prolific sexual predator and, in addition to falling into drug addiction, reportedly tried to have people killed for investigating his ongoing criminal activity.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AGooseWithAPhone (talk • contribs)
• Keep per PantheonRadiance's source table; I think that establishes a fairly clear notability. Generalissima (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Zoombombing: He appears to be notable only for (1) Zoombombing; (2) pulling controversial stunts; (3) being accused of sexual assault; and (4) dying of a drug overdose. Number 2 is mostly WP:MILL coverage, 3 does not meet the notability guideline for perpetrators, and 4 is an all-too-common tragedy that does not confer notability. Thus, the most appropriate alternative to deletion is to merge information about his Zoombombing to that article, giving it appropriate weight. I also agree with Beemer69 and Chris troutman. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm on-board with this. Updating my position on this to delete/merge. Thanks for bringing this point & option up. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 16:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Per source analysis by PantheonRadiance. He has been mentioned in multiple sources independent of his death. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Zoombombing: As voorts noted above, a mention on the Zoombombing article is certainly in order. Beyond this, while I see some coverage from reliable sources, I do not feel that the coverage is sustained or significant enough to warrant a standalone article, as this individual only appears to have recieved sporadic coverage regarding involvement in Zoombombing, his death, and allegations of ilegal activity. The latter two are not enough to establish notability for a standalone article, and I believe the connection to Zoombombing is better explored in that article than in a biographical article. As Picard's Facepalm has mentioned above, the existence of coverage in reliable sources does not necessarily make an person notable enough to have their own article. In this case I think that this individual is not remarkable enough, nor has he received enough sustained and significant coverage for a standalone article. Ethmostigmus (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Expand Twomad is already notable enough outside of Zoombombing, and as PantheonRadiance has demonstrated, there is multiple quality sources that mention Twomad. As for the and Expand part, this is because the only section in this article outside of the introduction happens to be his death even though he was for sure notable during his lifetime, regardless of if it was good or bad notability. Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 16:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edited to fix red link. Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 15:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Zoombombing. I don't see evidence of notability in the brief death notices or other ephemeral media documenting Twomad the human, as opposed to the brief social media phenomenon. Nangaf (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Moderate keep - per GNG, given the amount of coverage, definitely meets notability now more than before (in which he arguably, already did, but now certainly does), and source coverage is about him. I don't see a reason to delete, and see reasons to keep. DarmaniLink (talk) 06:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per the general consensus given to youtubers and streamers. Weak notability isn't enough, and I don't think the article will be expandable like some above are suggesting with current verifiable and reliable information. We are not a fandom. I'd personally say leave it 3-6 months and reconsider making this article, when the whole situation dies down. Also, not many of the sources add new information to this, so really theres like, one 'source' about his death, per WP:BASIC "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other". --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 11:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• (Weak) Merge with Zoombombing. I'm fail to see what else there is to expand, beyond the four points that voorts mentioned. If something big (besides those four things) is posthumously discovered then we can always create a new article. But, today, I'm not seeing it. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per source table. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - per the listed source table. I feel he has enough notoriety to have an article, even if short. zodiahk (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per PantheonRadiance's table. IncompA 04:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Zoombombing per Voorts. Rusted AutoParts 04:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Expand, as per PantheonRadiance. Roasted 5:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
• Keep per PantheonRadiance --Chicken4War (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to coverage in reliable sources that meets the notability guidelines. Sahaib (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – there is WP:SIGCOV here. Pantheon's source table shows this. There's a lot of tabloids/blogs covering the late twomad, sure, but there isn't is sufficient WP:RELIABLE sources simultaneously. Merging to Zoombombing is just out of context, this subject is, clearly, known for a lot more than zoombombing. TLA^tlak 02:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now The article was just created so let’s see if there is more reliable sources.TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough reliable accredited sources to draw from. UlyssesYYZ (talk) 10:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is the last comment I'll post about this discussion and probably Twomad in general. First off, I found another source from HotNewHipHop that retrospectively covers his life in significant detail. Not only does it discuss his career separately from the Zoombombing meme (in fact it isn't even mentioned in the source), but it demonstrates, even if only partially, that his career was defined by more than just one trend. I updated the table once more; unless there's any doubt about its validity, I believe it's safe to assume it contributes to GNG. In light of that, I secondly think that a merge to Zoombombing is no longer necessary nor appropriate. Ignoring the arguments that his life is inherently too run-of-the-mill or trivial to deserve an article (which in my opinion read more like subjective "I don't like it" rhetoric that speaks more towards Wikipedia's bias against internet culture than anything else), this source among others proves that he has had some demonstrable influence that goes beyond just one event he pioneered. He may not have been as popular as other similar creators, but that's beside the point. From his meme-based content to his controversies, there's enough info one can reasonably extract from these sources which prove, if nothing else, that his life is worth remembering. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the table provided by PantheonRadiance above checks out. Password ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am seeing coverage from multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events:
  • Twomad's death:
    1. The New York Daily News
    2. The Indian Express
    3. New Delhi Television
    4. Times Nation
    5. Indy 100
    6. Manilla Bulletin
  • Allegations of sexual assault:
    1. PassionFruit
    2. PopTopic (Australia) 1 2
  • Assorted coverage of his career:
    1. HITC 1 2 (Belle Delphine partnership)
    2. Space Invaders: the Networked Terrain of Zoom Bombing (talks about his relationship with zoombombing)

If this individual were alive today, I would think that they'd probably be below WP:GNG. But he's not, and the significant coverage of him and his death pushed him over the line from being on the margins to being a notable person. There is enough in the sourcing to write a brief and neutral encyclopedia biographical entry about him, and much of the coverage doesn't seem related to zoombombing, so I think that this article's subject is best covered in a standalone page rather than being merged to a topic on a particular social phenomenon that doesn't quite cover him fully (and seems to frankly be a minority of the coverage about him). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:05, 22 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bizkaia Boggarts[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. Non-notable sports team for non-notable assocation/league. Unsourced except for a Facebook post since 2016. Neither have articles on the Spanish Wiki. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Europe, and Spain. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• What it does have is a Basque Wikipedia article: https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bizkaia_Boggarts_Quidditch_Kluba
• However, this quidditch team does not compete in a setting that yields independent coverage about the subject. The only things supporting this page are social media and primary sources. So even the 27th place in the https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europako_Quidditch_Kopa doesn't help. Delete. Geschichte (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unable to find any coverage in reliable, independent sources. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:50, 21 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. Coverage present with GNG met. The article can be improved from the references provided. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faroe Islands Handball League[edit]

Faroe Islands Handball League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced article tagged since December 2023, multiply draftified. Nothing particular to this league returns on my BEFORE but I'm okay if someone with better google abilities in different languages is able to find coverage. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 19:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Handball, and Denmark. microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish·growths)} 19:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, one of the main sports leagues of a small nation. Try searching Burn-deildin as a league name together with the national internet extension site:.fo. Geschichte (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Handball is at the Faroe Island the most popular sport. Many articles about the league exists. [9] 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 18:44, 15 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 Public image of Joe Biden#Age and health concerns. I'll leave the status of a redirect to the regulars at WP:RFD who are well-versed in policy surrounding redirects, neutral as well as non-neutral. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ageism against Joe Biden[edit]

Ageism against Joe Biden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article looks to heavily fail to meet policy on neutrality (WP:NPOV), instead it reads almost like an opinion piece. Numerous claims look to be backed up by singular sources and/or "making sources fit the narrative". Can't move to draft due to existing rejected draft. Suggest this be deleted (relatively quickly given it relates to a living person). Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Politics. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete/merge this clearly falls within Public image of Joe Biden and having its own article is WP:UNDUE - there isn't a separate article regarding racism towards Obama which was much more egregious. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep WP: NPOV does not mean false balance. Medical experts have widely described the claims as baseless. WP: BLP also requires this. Article meets WP: GNG. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 19:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only medical experts who can actually make an assessment in a clinical setting literally work for the White House and their statements are super polished. LegalSmeagolian (talk) LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medical experts have widely described the claims as baseless

Exactly two medical professionals are cited for this claim. That is nothing close to widely.

Russian propaganda and members of the far-right have made multiple ageist attacks and age-related conspiracy theories against Joe Biden. is nowhere near sourced enough (the only source having been for believed Russian interference in 2020) to make the claim.

Psychologists, political scientists, economists, historians, and other medical experts have described these ageist claims as forms of disinformation and misinformation was sourced by a single article with an interview with older voters, so is completely WP:OR.

That is woefully failing policies on NPOV, for this very slanted article that read like "these are conspiracies that have been dismissed by professional associations", and is doubly concerning given the article is about the abilities of a living person. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Public image of Joe Biden#Age and health concerns: There's already some coverage of the topic there, could just add the decent bits of this article to this existing coverage (and redirect there) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 20:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested above is fine, this is an extension of that idea, not otherwise widely discussed. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. The article fails WP:NPOV and the content spread is one-sided, but in the main article, it can work. Conyo14 (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — I rarely support deletion, but the current title is not acceptable. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree about the title being unacceptable, but WP:NOTCLEANUP. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 21:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Might not be cleanup, but think it'd have to be a merge without leaving a redirect because of how openly non-neutral the title is. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  good point. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 22:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirects are allowed to be non-neutral; see WP:RNEUTRAL. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They are allowed in extremely limited circumstances, namely according to the reasons listed which revolve around verifiability of a common non-neutral name. "Ageism against Joe Biden" is a made-up descriptor by an editorialising user. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is not what RNEUTRAL says (and whether this should exist as a redirect is really better to discuss at WP:RfD, assuming this gets closed in favor of deletion or redirection). Elli (talk | contribs) 04:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  uh, it quite literally does:

  "The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms."

  So the article of this title very much doesn't fall into the acceptable realms of "non-neutral redirect" given "Ageism against Joe Biden" isn't a common term or substantiated in reliable sources. Rambling Rambler (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Point 2 clearly allows situations similar to this. Again, though, this isn't really a debate for AfD. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It allows it but it's still within the confines of the non-neutral term being a common subject or term used in reliable sources. That doesn't apply here for "ageism against Joe Biden". Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as noted above. This is a weird niche of anti-Biden disinformation, and it does not seem to warrant standalone coverage. Zaathras (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Public image of Joe Biden#Age and health concerns per HotMess and others above. Fails WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per above SKAG123 (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to suggested page, or Delete. As it stands, the page appears to fail NPoV. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nothing useful here.Riposte97 (talk) 23:18, 21 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. GNG and SIGCOV met with the recent additons. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voorweg RandstadRail station[edit]

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

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

Quite a large page written entirely without refs. According to WP:V all unrefed claims can be deleted, which would mean deletion. Seems like there has been plenty of time to verify, now is time to WP:TNT until the page can be rewritten according to the policies of en.wiki JMWt (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Netherlands. JMWt (talk) 16:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The deletion rationale here is completely incorrect - an unsourced article can still be notable, and there's nothing in the article that is contentious per WP:V. Notability runs with the topic, not with the content on the page. I haven't been able to find anything which shows this is clearly notable yet, though, because of all the station spam you now get when you search - showing notability will likely involve the Dutch papers. SportingFlyer T·C 16:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I refer you to WP:V

  Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it.

and

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

and

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. JMWt (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having an unsourced article has never been a deletion rationale. You still have to make sure the topic is not notable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: nevermind the V criteria, this isn't a notable place. Not an historic structure, no coverage that I can find (only five hits in all of Gnews, only mentioning the place). Not even meeting GNG at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I added references that show notability of the station and provide sources for the information provided.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ruud and the GNG. While this is currently a light rail station, it has mostly served as a railroad (i.e. heavy rail) station. In NL, these will be notable, unless only a stop. gidonb (talk) 05:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Which of the newly added sources show that the topic meets the WP:GNG, please? JMWt (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Trouw is a reliable, independent source. I added an article in Zoetermeer Nieuws, a local paper. The other references are information sources. A challenge is to filter the large number of hits. The Google search "Voorweg" AND "Randstadrail" gives almost 5k hits, most of which are not very useful to show notability. The reason why I put up a fight for this one is that the article RandstadRail is considered of mid-importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains and the almost 100 related articles, mostly about its stations, are part of it. Delete one and you might as well delete 100. A lot of hard work has been put in these very informative articles. I´ll do my best to keep them. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In my opinion neither of those are in enough depth to meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, your opinion is clear and respectable. However, the relevant notability guideline is this one. The question is if enough attributable information exists to write a full and comprehensive article about the station. i believe so. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually the relevant standard for inclusion of all articles on en.wiki is the WP:GNG in particular WP:SIGCOV. The expectation generally is of WP:3REFS, which you clearly have not yet offered in this discussion. JMWt (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The topic clearly meets the standard for inclusion you mention. I added another reference, this one from Omroep West. The guideline about stations is very useful. As @Gidonb pointed out, Voorweg is a historic railway station and thus presumably notable. Lightrail stations, as Voorweg is at present, may merit a standalone article if enough attributable information exists. Even interesting quirk or odd bit of trivia may help to establish notability, according to the guideline. Deletion of an article about a station is not an option. I rest my case. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sourcing in the article is just there to get this across the line. SportingFlyer T·C 15:21, 16 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stanikzai[edit]

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

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

No refs on the page for many years. It's entirely possible that sources exist in Pashto, however it's long now beyond the point where the contents of the page either need verifying or the page needs deleting until someone can rewrite it with references JMWt (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify for the possibility of an Afghan adding sources for the page Delete. Okay, 7,5 years is a lot. Just delete at this point. Youprayteas (talk to me? | contribs) 16:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Believing this article will get sources after 7.5 years is nothing short of wishful thinking. Beside that, this article is a vandalism magnet. As far as I can see, their are no sources available over this group. The Banner talk 16:29, 14 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. ^Complex/_Rational 16:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ross McNicol[edit]

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

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

Not much on the page to show how the subject meets the notability criteria, nothing much else found JMWt (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-notable artist; hits are social media, sites to buy artworks, then peter off... Nothing in Gbooks GScholar; name is too common, you get hits on all kids of people. Lack of sourcing and not meeting notability criterial for artists or authors. Oaktree b (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability per nomination. I am not finding anything useful in WP:BEFORE. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The subject received mentions in coverage of the opening and closure of The Wallis Gallery, including a 2007 mention that "McNicol was recently taken up by Hugh Allen, who works with Damien Hirst" [10], but I am not seeing sufficient to demonstrate that any of the notability criteria are met. AllyD (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – In sources that meet WP:RELIABLE and WP:INDEPENDENT, there exists only passing mentions. TLA^tlak 02:42, 21 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 withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts (chat • stalk • they/she) 15:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of multinational companies with research and development centres in Israel[edit]

List of multinational companies with research and development centres in Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

List is hyper-specific. There isn't any RS coverage of "multinational companies with research and development centres in Israel", or any other country for that matter. This kind of list would serve better as a category. – Howard🌽33 15:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Howard🌽33 15:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, I have now found out that there is indeed mainstream coverage of R&D centres in Israel.^[1][2] – Howard🌽33 15:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination, if that wasn't clear. – Howard🌽33 15:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have now also found out that Forbes contributors are not RS. So I withdraw that one as a source for my claim.

However, I have found a passing mention by an additional RS here.^[3] – Howard🌽33 15:21, 14 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 Man Alive (band). Consensus that this is a valid WP:ATD; notability for the target article can be discussed at a separate AfD if need be. ^Complex/_Rational 16:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Work in Progress (album)[edit]

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

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

Lacking significant coverage. I think this would be fine as a redirect to Man Alive (band). Annwfwn (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Man Alive (band) I couldn't find anything to suggest the album is notable, but when the search terms are both both common phrases it's plausible for something to have been buried. Shaws username . talk . 13:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A redirect would have made sense, however, the band isn't notable either. It has already twice been deleted on Hewiki. It's little more than a random church band. That said, not vehemently against a redirect either, as currently it exists. I am sure that the band will receive a seperate debate. gidonb (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Man Alive (band). Notability of the band should be assessed in a separate AfC. Broc (talk) 15:03, 21 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 05:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omni Group of Companies Pakistan[edit]

Omni Group of Companies Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is no independent coverage about this group/company. Coverage is related Fake accounts case and we have an article already. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG. Most of the sources are related to Fake accounts case. LibStar (talk) 04:58, 21 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 14:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Habib[edit]

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

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

Claims to notability:

1. Won a forecasting award several times - Looking into this, I'm struggling to find any secondary coverage that indicates this is something that people in the finance industry actually care about. It's produced by a specialised consultancy Gartner-style, but barring some extra indicator of relevance, I don't see that it has attracted significant media attention. The business/finance industry is full of promotional awards and pay to play nonsense, so my default take on this kind of thing is to discredit them unless there's specific evidence of secondary coverage.

2. Wrote a book - there is just no coverage of the book, and it is self published.

3. Had a reasonably successful career in entertainment, including some production credits and 2 minor named roles. I'm not sure that's enough though for WP:NACTOR. His production credits on Rock of Ages is looking very dubious - for example, here's an independent RS source that mentions most of the important people on the show and doesn't mention Habib - https://www.playbill.com/article/russell-brand-confirmed-for-rock-of-ages-movie-filming-begins-in-may-com-178224. I'm struggling to actually verify him as a "lead producer" on the show.

This is, of course, not withstanding the very very obvious WP:UPE issue which drips from the whole article in spades. BrigadierG (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails AUTHOR with no book reviews I can find and only where to buy the book... I don't see news about the Broadway involvement and he seems to be a "subject matter expert" in the business world [11], [12] but all I can find are just him talking about various things to other people. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing these concerns, we’ve made wholesale changes to Mr. Habib’s page to make it more compliant with Wikipedia standards, including more citations and less promotional tone. We’re happy to make further edits to any sections as required to ensure this page is not deleted.

In terms of these three specific comments, we have included multiple reference links to support Mr. Habib’s achievements and past experience in the mortgage and finance industries.

Regarding Mr. Habib’s book, Money in the Streets, it is not self-published. It was published by Savio Republic (an imprint of Post Hill Press) in 2020 as noted on their site (https://posthillpress.com/book/money-in-the-streets-a-playbook-for-finding-and-seizing-the-opportunity-all-around-you) as well as Amazon and other bookseller sites.

Regarding Rock of Ages, we’ve included the link to the Playbill where Mr. Habib is featured as a Producer (https://www.playbill.com/playbillpagegallery/inside-playbill?asset=00000150-ac7c-d16d-a550-ec7ec6af0004#carousel-cell198619) and also a link to this Wall Street Journal video where Dow Jones Newswires reporter interviews Barry Habib regarding his role as a Producer of the show (https://www.wsj.com/video/investing-in-broadway-rock-of-ages/D86CF4A5-7099-4A44-897B-5518DC6F3E3D). Shellymbs (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews can't be used to prove notability. Book sellers don't prove notability. Who is this "we" commenting above, as it now appears to have unpaid promotional editing involved, which is a further concern... You must declare any conflicts of interest please. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Are you being paid to edit this Wikipedia article? WP:UPE BrigadierG (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I reported User:Shellymbs along with the large number of other socks/UPE SPIs over at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Amalloyz and they have all been blocked. BrigadierG (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Oaktree b's reasoning. Pretty clear AUTHOR fail. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:15, 21 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Onuorah[edit]

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

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

Not meeting ANYBIO, GNG or SIGCOV. BoraVoro (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Dance, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Known for her influence to another person? I can only find stories about her (?) husband that passed, nothing about a musical career. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I wrote this article in a novice way since I am having mental health challenges. Obviously passes WP: GNG. Has featured with notable Nigerian musicians and even WP: CREATIVE, Since she is widely known for promoting the Igbo dance, Egedege. Otuọcha (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is significant coverage in Opara, Ruth (2018). "We Can Sing It Without Doing It: Gender Contestation Among Nigerian and South African Women in Music" (PDF). American Music Research Center Journal. 27: 77–120. Queen Theresa Onuorah was born in the 1940s, and is a traditional female musician from Umuorji village in Anambra state, South-Eastern Nigerian, West Africa, where she is well known for her self-created Egedege dance. ... As one of the oldest of her siblings, and recognized for her creativity, she became the leader of the group and taught her younger siblings. In 1974, she led her family members who later joined the group to the recording studio where they recorded most of their songs including Ijele Elubego. After the recording, the accompanying video became popular and was much appreciated in Igbo land, being one of the few indigenous music videos in the 1970s. ... Onuorah used her music to revitalize the traditional folk and dance music of the Umuorji and Anambra. She gained a reasonable number of fans due to her performances of Igbo folk and traditional dance in South-Eastern Nigeria.

Other sources include:

• "Ndi Otiegwu Igbo kpọtụrụ akpọtụ na 90s rue afọ 2000". BBC News Ìgbò (in Igbo). 2020-09-11. Retrieved 2024-02-14.
• "Igbo Traditional Music: Ikperikpe ọgụ, Atịlọgwụ, Egedege na egwu ọdịnala ndị ọzọ e ji mara ndị Igbo". BBC News Ìgbò (in Igbo). 2022-08-27. Retrieved 2024-02-14.
• Alake, Motolani (2021-10-29). "Here is why Larry Gaaga's 'Egedege' is trending [Pulse Editor's Explainer]". Pulse Nigeria. Retrieved 2024-02-14.

For an African musician most active in the 1970s, there is a strong WP:SYSTEMICBIAS against the availability of online sources, so the fact that we have these is a strong indication of notability. Jfire (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: BEFORE suggests WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't commend the lack of BEFORE done by the nominator. There are books and analysis concerning Theresa Onuorah and her works. Best, Reading Beans 09:37, 21 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 23:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yakov Kazyansky[edit]

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

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

Last AfD was a weak keep with low participation in 2008, when standards were lower. I couldn't establish that he meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, or a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. A google search for his name in Russian gives several hits. At least 3 of these are about his role in organising the first ever performance in the USSR of Jesus Christ Superstar, which would probably be worth adding to the article, if only as a curiosity:

Local/regional coverage: Yarkipedia: КАЗЬЯНСКИЙ Яков Лазаревич (NB: article is signed by author, it's not a wiki); Severni Krai (regional newspaper): Антиреалист Казьянский и его религия, same article scanned from the paper version of the newspaper [13] (NB: author of this piece is presumably the author of the article for the local encyclopedia); Yaroslavl region section of the Union of Artists of Russia (short bio on account of one of his performances): Концерт №2 цикла "Музыкальные среды" (NB: possibly falls under promotional, but I think it sort of helps with notability); Rybinski dnevnik (local news portal): В Ярославле отметили 30-летие российской премьеры рок-оперы «Иисус Христос — суперзвезда»; Yaroslavl edition of Komsomolskaia Pravda: В России рок-оперу «Иисус Христос Суперзвезда» впервые увидели в Рыбинске

National coverage: Article/interview published by LIFE (NB: unrelated to Life (magazine)) (Russian Как "Иисуса Христа — суперзвезду" ставили в Рыбинске в 1989 году

Participation in international-ish events: Prostokvashino festival (North Carolina) [14] (NB: event seems to cater to Russian-speaking diaspora groups in the US)

This list is non-exhaustive but I think it might be enough to establish notability and probably allows for the writing of a decent enough article (it probably needs updating, too - he seems to have recently moved to the US). Ostalgia (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 14 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KCBT-LD[edit]

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

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

This television station does not contain the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. This subject did survive a 2019 AfD, but that was under a much different (and looser) standard of notability for television stations than what we have today. Let'srun (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Let'srun (talk) 04:49, 31 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 11:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 14 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 diplomatic missions of Tanzania. ✗plicit 14:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Tanzania, Beijing[edit]

Embassy of Tanzania, Beijing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Previous AfD result was redirect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Tanzania, Moroni. This article is based on 1 primary source so does not meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Tanzania, and China. LibStar (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of diplomatic missions of Tanzania per previous AfD discussion. No sources found. Brachy08 _(Talk) 05:28, 31 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 11:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 14 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KVHF-LD[edit]

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

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

Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. This subject survived a 2019 AfD, but that was under a much different (and looser) standard of notability for television stations than what we have today. Let'srun (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 31 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 11:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 14 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 14:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Les Cyclopes[edit]

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

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

No refs on the page for many years. Agree with the hatnote that the notability standards are not met JMWt (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and France. JMWt (talk) 11:14, 14 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 23:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt College Quirino[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and does not indicate claim of notability. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find good sources. GBooks and GNews Archives just produced one passing mention --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Bear in mind the change of name from "Roosevelt Memorial High School". There appear to be more mentions under that name, although I haven't yet found more than passing mentions. Still plenty to look through though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unreferenced and fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One of its faculty was co-author on a text book, mentioned on the back cover, but I couldn't find anything more than directories other than that, under either name. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:54, 21 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 14:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Manchar[edit]

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

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

Very poor sourcing, almost all of the sources listed are unreliable. Firstly, the creator of this article, Ronnie Macroni, has a history of creating poorly sourced and written articles, inundated with religious aggrandization, copyvio, and Google Book snippets to erroneously bolster the Sikhs' military achievements. He has been warned of such behaviour before. Two of the only reliable sources, Hari Ram Gupta p.9, as well as the Encyclopedia of Sikhism, only marginally discuss this siege with no mention of the result or casualties, rather it focuses on a likely embellished anecdote of Ranjit Singh-[15]. The article almost certainly is using Google snippets of Gulshan Lal Chopra and Gokul Chand Narang's works rather than a thorough perusal of them, the former is certainly a Raj era source as is Narang's given that all his publicly available books were written between 1910-1947. [16]. Duggal isn't a historian, Lepel Henry Griffin is a Raj era source, Manish Kumar's work is self published and Patwant Singh is not a historian. Fails WP:RS and Wikipedia's notability standards. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 14 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. Aoidh (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debjani Modak[edit]

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

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

Non-notable TV actress. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:NBIO. Could not find any sources apart from the promo interviews and film-gossip websites. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 21:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Television, India, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, and West Bengal. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 21:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am sorry but she had various lead/significant roles in notable television works and therefore appears to meet WP:NACTOR. Some of the coverage on the page and available online is in TOI and MSN, for example, which, without being top rate journalism, is a bit above promo and gossip in my view. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding the TOI and MSN sources - see WP:TOI and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. None of the sources on the page are definitely 'reliable' (and I'm struggling to find any potential sources for her which aren't puff pieces), which is still problematic. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 13:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note about the Times of India: The Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". Consensus is that concern about retributed coverage exists, but not to the point of making it unreliable.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The creator just added many references, from YouTube and other Un-RS sources. Agreeing with the nominator, the subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:NACTOR -- QuadriSyedSahab(T · C 09:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How does she fail WP:NACTOR when she had significant roles in notable television productions? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, We might not know the standards and we would request you to keep the page altering any information which you think is not relevant to Wiki norms. We would also like to cooperate with you if you have any questions related to the Content. Kindly, Please refrain from deleting the Page as you all know we have did our ROI and spent lot of time in maintaining the Page. Hope you understand on humanitarian ground. Thanks for understanding. Renu214 (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Renu214 Do your colleagues also maintain other pages? If so, could you please tell us which ones? Also, you must declare the connection as per WP:PAID policy. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 11:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have not got an opportunity to interact with other wiki authors/users. I am not a pro in this. Learning step by step everyday on editing. Your valuable suggestions are always helpful in learning. Renu214 (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a perfect opportunity for you to interact with other wiki authors/users (in fact, you did it just then!). You also said that you would like to cooperate with us, so please kindly do so - by doing these tasks which you have a duty to complete:

Firstly - Have you read WP:PAID, WP:COI, and WP:PEW? Your talk of 'colleagues' implies that you are editing wikipedia on behalf of someone - and you are required to disclose who you are editing Wikipedia for. Please follow the instructions in WP:DCOI and WP:PAID.

Secondly - Please ensure that your colleagues have read WP:PAID, WP:COI, and WP:PEW (and follow the instructions in WP:DCOI and WP:PAID) as well.

Finally - Please confirm when you have completed these tasks.

It is vital that you complete these tasks, regardless of what your employer may say on the matter - as the policies of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation have priority over your employer's instructions here on Wikipedia (and failing to follow them could lead to quite a bit of negative press for yourself and your employer). Thanks for understanding. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 12:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! To share light, I am not doing this for any one's sake. writing is my passion and i have not created this page to be honest. I am just updating the content based on my research. Since, you said this is the perfect time to get valuable information from you all expertise writes and wiki editors, how can i add my newpaper cuttings beacuse they are from 2013 and at that time online archiving was not found. Please help. Renu214 (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, apologies for completely misinterpreting your word choice. Anywho, to answer your question - use Template:Cite news (newspapers) or Template:Cite magazine (magazines/newsletters) for those non-online sources.

I would also suggest quoting the important bits of info from these offline sources in the quote parameter of the citations (like |quote=important words from the article go here), think of it as archiving the important details where everyone can see them.

For example, {{cite news |last=Doe |first=John |title=Thing happens at place! |work=The Placeholder Times |date=1970-12-31 |page=39 |quote=The thing happened at place yesterday}}. Hopefully that helps :) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 17:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:09, 7 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 addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
One paragaraph promo database bio	1. "Debjani Modak Biography by nettv4u". nettv4u.com.
Promo about series, annouces subject has joined, nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	2. ^ "Actress Debjani Modak has replaced Pavani Reddy in 'Rasaathi' Jan 27 2020". The Times of India. 27 January 2020.
"Exclusive Interview" fails WP:IS	3. ^ Jump up to:a b "Actress Debjani Modak Schooling details in news channel interview". NTV News Interview.
Duplicate of #3 above	4. ^ Jump up to:a b "Actress Debjani Modak Schooling details in news channel interview". SumanTV Entertainment news.
Does not mention subject, article is titled differently from ref, may be incorrect link	5. ^ "Debjani's Bengali Movie 'Knock Out' debut 2013". Times of India.
Interview Fails WP:IS	6. ^ "Debjani's ANDHRA JYOTHI TS 21 OCTOBER 2021 newspaper interview". NTNB NEWSPAPERS.
Nothing meeting SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	7. ^ "Colors Bangla launches 'Aponjon'- a Tale of love and revenge, 26th June 2015". The Times of India. 26 June 2015.
Mill enterntainment news about quiting a project.	8. ^ "Actress Debjani Modak quits Tamil daily soap 'Vaanathai Pola' 26th April 2023". The Times of India. 26 April 2023.
Duplicate of #8 above	9. ^ "Actress Debjani Modak quits Tamil daily soap 'Vaanathai Pola' 26th April 2023". The Times of India. 23 November 2023.
Film trailer, nothing SIGCOV about the subject.	10. ^ "Knock Out official theatrical Trailer HD 2013". YouTube.

• Sources #10-54 in the article are promo refs about media they have been in. Nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Notability is NOTINHERITED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs) 03:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

clarification - it appears that sources 8 and 9 were different sources (different URLs, editor probably forgot to edit the `title=`), but source 9 is just a gossip listicle anyway (published by WP:TOI). 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 13:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: All the sources on the page are either outright promotional or are covered in WP:NEWSORGINDIA promotionalness, and I'm struggling to find a properly reliable source about her myself. Granted, she has had top billing roles in a couple of serials, but I'm not sure how notable those serials are, and, ofc, WP:NOTINHERITED, so probably doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 13:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as explained in the chart above, nothing is usable as a source. I don't find anything we'd use either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I might be a beginner but there are so many pages out there who does not have proper reference added but still no complaints from wiki so called editors and users. I don't understand this partiality sorry to say but I am little bit biased with the kind of proceedings happening here. As experts, someone will expect the required changes to be made to the page encouraging the fellow authors/writers but its completely out of my knowledge, why would somebody is so particular to delete the page. respectfully, please do what is according to the norms and what you think best and kindly, keep the norms and do it for all the pages and Thank you for your time. 146.146.7.1 (talk) 20:34, 15 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 Syntagmatarchis. BusterD (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Antisyntagmatarchis[edit]

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

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

Seems to be just a translation Chidgk1 (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Greece. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In Greek letters, the name is Αντισυνταγματάρχης. The Greek article el:Αντισυνταγματάρχης doesn't have any references either, but if you google Αντισυνταγματάρχης through Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, you might be able to find some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - poorly sourced but we normally have article about military ranks. Llajwa (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. My preference would be to merge, but there are enough articles on military ranks around the world to justify this one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to lieutenant colonel or Hellenic Army. This article has zero sources, and we don't have evidence that the topic is materially distinct from the English translation (so Greek sources discussing it won't be helpful unless they actually address the difference from a lieutenant colonel in English).

JoelleJay (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To Lieutenant colonel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Lieutenant colonel (see below): The namesake on Greek Wikipedia is linked with lieutenant colonel, so the real question is if this "term" merits a standalone article. The article is and has been unsourced for more than 14 years, so there is nothing to merge. I've looked for some sources, but most are glossaries or other kinds of sources with very superficial coverage (WP:NOTDICTIONARY). A merger should be relevant, when some editor finds WP:RS "now". If so, please ping me. Aintabli (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Syntagmatarchis. Sorry to muddy the waters here with a new merge target, but I noticed that other Hellenic Army ranks redirect to a Modern Use section like Strategos#Modern use. Obviously there's no ancient version of lieutenant colonel, but there is Syntagmatarchis (colonel). -- asilvering (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More input is clearly necessary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Syntagmatarchis or, if that isn't appropriate, Hellenic Army. Ben Azura (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Syntagmatarchis: I believe any unsourced content should not be merged, but in order to help form consensus, I don't mind changing the redirect target. Aintabli (talk) 21:37, 18 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 14:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Pettey[edit]

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

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

Autobiography moved twice from draft with out being reviewed, fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Promotional and vanity article created by a SPA against advice to do so. Subject meets none of the criteria of NMUSICIAN, sources are a mix of primary, press releases and casual mentions. Ravenswing 12:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a promotional article as per WP:PROMO that is relying on mainly promotional sources. Not passing WP:GNG at this stage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above remarks about SPAs BrigadierG (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]