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!} 23:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rodriguez (writer and podcaster)[edit]

Robert Rodriguez (writer and podcaster) (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)

Consistent target of the Robertbenjamin UPE sock farm. Of the sources present in the article, 1 and 2 are brief mentions, and 3 is a book from a self-publishing source so is not reliable. While the name is relatively common, I did run searches with several permutations of words related to the Beatles and the name of the podcast to narrow it down, and still cannot find sufficient reference material about this subject to indicate notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Music, Radio, and History. Skynxnex (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's (and his podcast) have been the subject of three Forbes articles.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamjeakle/2019/12/09/podcast/?sh=167e5f076ba1

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamjeakle/2021/12/16/how-a-niche-podcast-landed-the-best-interview-with-beatles-get-back-director-peter-jackson/?sh=6b0e05c67727

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamjeakle/2022/01/28/as-the-beatles-get-back-moves-to-theaters-director-peter-jackson-talks-next-steps/?sh=289eb3695295 2600:1008:A011:426B:2C21:5B4:7F7E:789E (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Those, I'm afraid, are by "Forbes contributors", and as such are generally considered self-published and not reliable. Also, two of them only briefly mention Rodriguez. I did run across those while searching, but they wouldn't help toward notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Needs more to attain notability. Analysing the sources per WP:THREE, the first source [1] gave nothing except talking about the Beatles which the Chicago tribune [2] also analysed. The two sources were centered lessly on "his" podcast which did not pass WP:PODCAST. Most of the books were self published and per WP: AUTHOR, doesn't confer notability. The second source was from Google book link which is neither a reliable source but just a primary reference and the books also doesn't seem to cross WP: NBOOK. The sources were few and the subject isn't notable! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – WP:FORBESCON doesn't work, the Chicago Tribune article is direct quotes, a self-published book won't work, and the "The Beatles in Masculinity Study: Male Fandom Sustaining the Beatles' Success and Longevity" piece only cites work by this article's subject. WP:SIGCOV is the issue here. TLA^tlak 14:24, 20 March 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He Ri Jun Zai Lai[edit]

He Ri Jun Zai Lai (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)

Wikipedia:RLOTE Remsense诉 08:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English states: "This guideline for deleting redirects states that redirects in languages other than English that point to articles not directly related to that language (or a culture associated with that language) should generally not be kept." - I added emphasis with the italics.

• Two of the terms are related to Mandarin: When Would You Come Again (1999 Taiwanese television series) and When Will You Return? (1937 song) are related to the Mandarin "He Ri Jun Zai Lai"
• Two of them are from pre-1997 handover Hong Kong: Au Revoir, Mon Amour (1991) and Till the End of Time (1996). My understanding is that both films are in Cantonese, so this would mean they are related to the Chinese text "何日君再來" but not necessarily to the Mandarin pinyin.

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a borderline case—one thing I might note is that these are spaced syllables, which is definitely a way a Chinese speaker might type this into the search bar, but not the only or most likely way? I'm not sure: I would type Heri jun zai lai first, because 何日; 'when' is one word here. Remsense诉 02:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding another comment... personally I would keep because redirects can also include alternate capitalizations/spellings/etc. It is plausible that a native born Mandarin speaker would use this form, and so this would be a correct redirect/disambig only for topics related to cultures of Mandarin Chinese-speaking communities. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning keep as harmless, and potentially helpful. BD2412 T 00:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 14 March 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. The arguments regarding the notability of the article subject—an author and journalist—were effectively votes, without much in the way of reasoning. While there appears to be some consensus that the events recounted in his book might be notable, that has no bearing on whether the author is himself notable. This close is without prejudice to creating a new article, merging content, or starting another deletion/merge/move discussion for this article. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 01:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Max Marshall (writer)[edit]

Max Marshall (writer) (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 author does not meet WP:GNG. It is all about his one book. Macbeejack ☎ 17:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Journalism, United States of America, and Texas. Macbeejack ☎ 17:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the best option would be to Rename and turn it into an article about the events described in all these articles. There doesn't seem to be a wiki article about it already, and surely it would meet notability standards. The information about Max Marshall's involvement could be a section within such an article. Vontheri (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this idea. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to draw up a quick stub on that topic and redirect this article to it? -- asilvering (talk) 00:54, 29 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!} 23:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article can be improved or moved, but those are not reasons for AfD. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more opinions. Before this article could be renamed (and to what?), it must first have a consensus to Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose keep and rename to "College of Charleston drug trafficking scandal", "College of Charleston drug trafficking ring", "Kappa Alpha fraternity Drug trafficking ring at the college of Charleston", "Kappa Alpha fraternity at the College of Charleston Xanax scandal" or some similar name. I have no strong opinion on the specific name chosen, just as long as it accurately describes what happened.

The relevant portions of the article as it currently exists can be kept, and work can be done to integrate the countless sources for references into the article. I'm sure non-internet sources exist, too, such as newspapers. Deleting the article would be deleting prose and references that would be useful for those working on the renamed article and thus counterproductive. It would be starting from scratch when the start has already been started. Vontheri (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't look like Marshall is notable, though the book may be and the events described in the book are. Tacyarg (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a way to create a new article with a title something like the names I proposed above and then integrate the section among the bros from this article into the new article, along with a brief paragraph or two summarizing anything from the rest of the article that is relevant, then I would be fine with that as well. It seems to me like most people agree that the events described in the book written by Max Marshall are notable, even if the person Max Marshall is not notable enough for an article. So as long as the current article isn't destroyed such that anyone working to contribute to the new article has that information in the current article accessible to them as a starting point, then I would personally also find an approach like that acceptable.

I'm not an expert in all the inner workings of wikipedia and all the different options that are available for a scenario like this, (my primary reason for being on wikipedia is to write content for articles; involving in discussions is secondary for me) but hopefully it is clear what my intent is for what I personally think should be done, and assuming others agree with me, perhaps someone else who is more an expert of inner workings of wikipedia can suggest the most proper solution from a technical standpoint. Vontheri (talk) 13:25, 15 March 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. Final relist. Not eligible for a Soft Deletion. Anyone care to comment here? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kotono Shibuya[edit]

Kotono Shibuya (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 one sentence biography article has zero references, and is not sufficient to establish notability. The Japanese Wikipedia article for the person has just one cite, insufficient to be notable. After searching, found social media, but no comprehensive, in-depth coverage of the person. Article was created on 22 January 2005 JoeNMLC (talk) 15:10, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• She played rather significant roles in an awful lot of dramas and in various films, so that she probably meets WP:NACTOR, but most of the films and series/TV films have no page in English (they DO have a page on Ja.WP, fwiw, if someone has the courage to link, source, translate.) GBooks allows to verify that, though. I have no time to improve it as it should now but I would not be shocked if this was kept, and might do it later if such is the path chosen.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 14 March 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 Lyoness. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MyWorld[edit]

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

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

Only reliable source I could identify is Tiroler Tageszeitung. But the article appears to be about Lyoness, which already had an article at Lyoness although lead states now myWorld. (Speedy deletion was contested) IgelRM (talk) 23:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Austria, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Merge content to Lyoness and move that article to this title. If I'm correctly understanding, Lyoness rebranded in 2017 but its article is horribly outdated now; most of the post-2017 information is in this one. ~ A412 ^talk! 06:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a separate page, as it easily passes general notability but needs to be updated with sources from the other lyoness page (background and history). 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We would virtually have to rewrite the entire article based on information from the Lyoness article. IgelRM (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Lyoness and move that article to this title. Reliable sources do not establish notability for myWorld, the Austrian Ltd independent from that of myWorld, the current iteration of the Lyoness family of scams. There are some hits in the Austrian joint library system, but they all just go to "investment" "newsletters" in the business of laundering press releases. GR Kraml (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've added multiple reliable sources from Der Standard, Kleine Zeitung, L'Hebdo, Handelszeitung, etc which provide sufficient and for sure independent description of the MyWorld/Lyoness and thus establish the subject's notability. --Moem-Meom (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If Lyoness and MyWorld are related by sources, is a merge into Lyoness feasible? IgelRM (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  not sure, the discussion is on deletion and both topics are notable though share shared past Moem-Meom (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  so, I see both pages are eligible for Wikipedia, at least since I've added enough "meat" (reliable sources) to meet the General Notability Guideline. The discussion is on deletion, and the consensus is that the topic is notable. Moem-Meom (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. There was never any doubt that the Lyoness family of scams was notable; what's at issue here is whether we need two separate articles for its two trademarks. The sources you added to the article are not helpful in this respect. About a third of them leads to 404s or 410s or otherwise fails verification. Most of those that superficially work are explicit about the fact that "MyWorld" is just a new CI Lyoness has adopted after its original CI became radioactive. In addition, the Background section is massively padded with inappropriate WP:INTEXT, and language like "garnered significant attention from notable newspapers" straddles the line between original research and desperation. What is going on here? GR Kraml (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep German language sources are top and notable with in-depth topic coverage both on MyWorld now and previous history, especially focusing on various journalistic investigation. --Loewstisch (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with new SIGCOV added recently and a long quite problematic history, the company (which is the biggest cashback service globally as far as I know) easily passes GNG. I also think the distinction and evolution from Lyoness to MyWorld are significant, to justify separate coverage and articles. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Lyoness to here and then redirect to here - according to the suggestion by A412 above. The company meets notability but it doesn't make sense to have two separate articles on the same subject matter. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Lyoness: this is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. I'm not sure if the title should stay at myWorld or Lyoness. There might need to be an RM to determine the common name. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:34, 22 March 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!} 21:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Cowles[edit]

Alfred Cowles (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)

Like his father, Alfred Cowles Jr., good sourcing is lacking. Reads like a genealogical entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Economics, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Influential figure in the field of econometrics who easily meets WP:GNG. Not entirely accurate to say "good sourcing is lacking", as one of the best sources was already listed within the article at the time it was nominated. (That would be Colin Read's The Econometricians: Gauss, Galton, Pearson, Fisher, Hotelling, Cowles, Frisch and Haavelmo (2016), published by Palgrave Macmillan.) Clearly no WP:BEFORE search was done, as Wikipedia Library and JSTOR turn up hundreds of academic articles about his work. Yes, the article requires cleanup but these are all WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems, and there are many other channels on Wikipedia to suggest articles for improvement. Request withdrawal of nomination to avoid wasting other editors' time. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cielquiparle. Clear WP:GNG pass. Sal2100 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Speedy keep: Passes WP: GNG. I can find from the cited sources WP: SIGCOV. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 21:56, 18 March 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!} 21:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Jenkins[edit]

Alejandro Jenkins (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)

Academic with an h-factor of 16, no major awards and a low publication rate. Article survived a PROD in 2017, but was not discussed further. Minor mentions in scientific info journals/blogs, but I do not see this as meeting WP:NPROF now or before. (He seems to be a serious scientist, but not notable.) Ldm1954 (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Costa Rica, California, Florida, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created by User:Joehubris (apparently no longer active) in 2010 because Jenkins was co-author of a cover story in Scientific American. This was covered by MIT News and FSU's news website. The same work was featured in a 2015 episode of the TV show Through the Wormhole, hosted by Morgan Freeman. Jenkins appeared in person in that show. Also, there are number of published books that cite Jenkins for this work (one can try a Google Books search of his name). There's also a news story from 2020 in Physics World, based on different and later work. This seem to me to be a feature story and includes a picture of Jenkins and his collaborator Alicki. It seems to me that this reflects a significant amount of exposure in the media for a theoretical physicist. A number of physics pages, including Triboelectric effect and Self-oscillation, currently link to this bio based on the subject's work in those areas. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- member of the national academy of sciences for a country. Evidence from @Eb.hoop2 (which I think should be counted as a Keep vote) suggests other evidence of notability. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is membership in the Costa Rica NAS enough? It's not clear to me that it operates as an extremely selective org recognizing significant impact in one's field the way the US NAS or UK RS do. I couldn't find anything about its election/nomination/application process on the website or even a description of what membership means. The executive director is someone with a master's in management, for example, and its Board of Directors includes people with only a master's and very recent PhDs.
  Jenkins has very low citation counts for this field, though the PhysicsWorld piece is promising, if rather routine, for C7/GNG. The MIT and FSU pieces are not independent and so do not count toward notability. JoelleJay (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The ratio of National Science Academy membership to national population is about 1.6 times as high for Costa Rica (60/5,000,000) as for the US (2400/335,000,000), so the Costa Rican Academy is still rather selective. Jenkins's papers, though few, are well cited and unusually wide-ranging, including high energy physics, cosmology, quantum thermodynamics, and science pedagogy and history. Jenkins pointed out, in a paper on quark masses, that what is now called the anthropic principle was enunciated in 1844 by Arthur Schopenhauer, long before it was rediscovered and named in the 20th century.CharlesHBennett (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I revised the above numbers for Costa Rica to 60/5,000,000 because I had erroneously included 20 deceased members yesterday. The US National Academy of Sciences has two Costa Rican members. Both are members of the Costa Rican National Academy of Sciences. I too could not find how the Costa Rican National Academy selects its members. The Royal Society, arguably the most prestigious learned society, is less selective relative to the population of its host country (1600/67,000,000) than either the NAS or the Costa Rican Academy, perhaps because it includes a significant number of members from other Commonwealth countries.CharlesHBennett (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The appearance on a television program to discuss his work (as well as cover story on same material in Scientific American) establish notability. Membership in Costa Rican National Academy of Sciences also independently establishes notability. A scientist’s h-index need not be high for them to be notable (Eg, Peter Higgs has an h-index of 7 or 8). Gsbsmith (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the first two items you mention contributes at all to notability... Thousands of non-notable researchers appear on TV or publish articles in pop science magazines. And without knowing what the qualifications are for membership in the Costa Rican NAS we don't know whether it actually is selective (it looks more likely to be a governmental advisory body than an org whose membership is restricted to the top scientists in their field). I also didn't mention h-index in my evaluation, I mentioned citations; Higgs has three solo-authored research papers totaling 6800+ citations, that's clearly a C1 pass by itself. Jenkins has one review article with 245 citations and a co-authored paper with 97 citations. Is that really a high enough standard for theoretical physics? JoelleJay (talk) 11:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm happy with the principle that membership in a nation's official national academy passes WP:PROF#C3. It helps counter our anglocentric bias. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 16 March 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!} 20:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Luke: End of Legend[edit]

Lucky Luke: End of Legend (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 short film, fails WP:NFILM. Cabrils (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I've been unable to find reliable sources supportin notability for the article, and there are certainly none in the article. The alternative of a merge to Lucky Luke#Tributes to Lucky Luke is a possibility, but there's not enough in the article to warrant that. Klbrain (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, and Iran. Skynxnex (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – fails notability guidelines with no reliable sources to establish it. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 21:00, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:21, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KnowTheZodiac[edit]

KnowTheZodiac (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)

Promotional page for non-notable astrology app. Could not find a single source, let alone WP:RS, via NewsBank or WikiLibrary databases searches. Cabrils (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astrology and Software. Owen× ☎ 22:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Advert from an apparent paid editor, who has also created a promotional biography on the App's author at Dosse-Via Trenou. Sources are mostly listicles. Also noting that the article creator attempted to remove the AFD tag from the article. - MrOllie (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Promo page for an app. No reliable sources found and sources listed are just listicles that do not provide significant coverage or primary. StreetcarEnjoyer

(talk) 23:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: basically advertising Hi! (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't see any indication of Notability, and a Web search does not find any significant coverage - just advertising and listicles.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:36, 15 March 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!} 20:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Jerónimo[edit]

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

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Joeykai (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete– Per nom. Svartner (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No WP:SIGCOV and very bad article to boot. Anwegmann (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The subject fails WP: SPORTSBASIC. Unreferenced have prompt to Google news search and nothing was found including the low football stats to confer a bit qualification per WP: NFOOTBALL wasn't found. Fails WP:SIGCOV and were found in databases! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Devokewater 11:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing online other than basic sports database logs, not Significant Coverage 🍪 CookieMonster 15:46, 21 March 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!} 20:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iñaki Quintana[edit]

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

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Joeykai (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete simply being a footballer is not enough to be notable. OsmiumGuard (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No WP:SIGCOV and a very bad article to boot. Anwegmann (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – The Spanish Wikipedia article of this person has been deleted in 2015 due to lack of encyclopedic relevance. However, I'm not sure what kind of person was he. Under the name "Iñaki Quintana", search engines mostly find other men with this name instead of the Mexican soccer player, failing WP:V. CuteDolphin712 (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater 12:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources I could locate on the internet refer to a different person of the same name 🍪 CookieMonster 15:45, 21 March 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 List of aviation accidents and incidents in Indonesia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Smart Aviation crash[edit]

2024 Smart Aviation crash (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)

super non-notable, a small plane and only a few on board TyHaliburtn (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Transportation. TyHaliburtn (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Indonesia. Skynxnex (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment notability is not about the size of the airplane and number of people onboard; but it’s about coverage and lasting effects for events. 82.174.61.58 (talk) 06:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not meet WP:EVENTCRIT, minimal coverage other than local news sources. No reason to expect WP:LASTING effects or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosbif73 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with Rosbif73, also doesn't meet Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Aircraft_accidents_and_incidents, I know it's an essay, but is the only guidance that exists. The subject wouldn't meet GNG which in the absence of meeting any other guidance it would need to.James.folsom (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  IMO, WP:AIRCRASH is only applicable to Aircraft, Airlines and Airport article, not for accident article itself. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Propose to merge into List of aviation accidents and incidents in Indonesia, we already have List of x type article in place, which includes small accidents/incidents like this one. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect Agree with Ckfasdf to merge with List of aviation accidents and incidents in Indonesia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:02, 20 March 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 Mixed outcome‎. Keep and move Battle of the Lacus Curtius to Battle of Lacus Curtius and redirect the remainder to Romulus, both of which I will do. Star Mississippi 00:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Alba Longa[edit]

Battle of Alba Longa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am also nominating the following pages:

Battle of Rome (753 BC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Battle of Caenina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Second Battle of Rome (753 BC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Battle of Antemnae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Battle of Nomentum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is nothing verifiable or notable to discuss about these mythological battles, contra the town or the characters in the myths.

This is related to the template for deletion discussion here. I also note that large portions of these articles are basically just content forks. WP:CFORK. They are also in many cases largely unattributed copyright violations, WP:COPYWITHIN, from me at Founding of Rome and Alba Longa. Ifly6 (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been related discussions on this series of articles: WT:CGR#Questionable Article: Battle of Alba Longa, Talk:Battle of Antemnae#There is almost nothing here about the battle itself,^[a] Talk:Battle of Alba Longa#WP:LAYOUT, WP:CFORK, WP:COPYVIO.

I also want to emphasise that there is also nothing to discuss about these "battles". The information we have about these episodes from the (only) sources on them are basically single sentences. Livy 1.5 says: So the king Amulius was being enmeshed on all sides by hostile purposes. Romulus shrunk from a direct attack with his body of shepherds, for he was no match for the king in open fight. They were instructed to approach the palace by different routes and meet there at a given time, whilst from Numitor's house Remus lent his assistance with a second band he had collected. The attack succeeded and the king was killed. Dion Hal 1.83.1 gives: These were joined by the countrymen... from the market-place with swords concealed under their clothes... And having by a concerted attack forced the entrance... they easily slew Amulius Another tradition is also given at 1.84.8 Then, when great numbers came to town together with the accused... the grandfather of the youths acquainted them with all the circumstances of their fortune, and telling them that now... was the time to avenge themselves, he straightway made his attack upon Amulius The total sum of description in the ancient sources can be put into two long sentences. As further evidence for the lack of possible sourcing for these articles:

Pings for discussants in previous discussions. Викидим, P Aculeius, Caeciliusinhorto-public, Caeciliusinhorto. I think that a reasonable solution would be turn all of these articles into redirects to Roman Kingdom or, since they all involve "Mr Rome",^[b] Romulus. Ifly6 (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I now believe that Battle of the Lacus Curtius should be kept and renamed to Battle of Lacus Curtius. Alternatively, there is also the title Battle in the Forum which is more common than Battle of Lacus Curtius. Regardless, I don't think BLC needs to be deleted. Amendments have been made to reflect that. Ifly6 (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and edit to make it clear that the battle is mythological. Many countries or former countries have legends about their beginnings that are not literally true but are nonetheless notable. See Yellow Emperor, for example. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that any of these "battles" are sufficiently detailed in the sum total of the ancient sources to justify their own articles. They would be most suitably covered in Romulus, Romulus and Remus, Founding of Rome, or if we really want to focus entirely on myth, something like Founding myth of Rome (which would be most clear as to this not having happened). Plainly, there are no sources; there is no significant coverage. WP:GNG. Ifly6 (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if they were "originally" detailed—most of the interest is in the historiography and commentary in the intervening two millennia. Remsense诉 22:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does not exist. There is no historiography of these "battles". Please do not confuse the existence of sources on Alba Longa, a mythological city, or Romulus, a mythological person, as also being about these battles. I am not listing Alba Longa or Romulus for deletion. Ifly6 (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – these events border on things known about Rome by the general public. Of course they're mythology, but a single TWL search for "Alba Longa" immediately returned a full monograph on the historiography surrounding it.^[1] A quick perusal of the source list affirms that there's plenty of broader secondary and tertiary coverage. Remsense诉 22:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC) Now delete, per below. Remsense诉 00:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those source lists are largely stolen without attribution from me! I read them. They do not discuss these "battles". They discuss the founding of Rome, which is a far broader topic. These articles are about "battles" and not the founding of Rome. Ifly6 (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concede these points, then. Now leaning delete. Remsense诉 00:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or, failing that, redirect to Romulus. Ifly6 presents a convincing case that these articles' very titles are OR, so I'm not sure we even want to have them around as redirects, but the most important thing is that they not stay around as full-fledged articles. Ifly6's argument about how little material there is on each battle is supported by the articles themselves; the events in question are briefly described, and much of the text of each article describes related events in the other battles. The result is a lot of repetition between distinct articles, and it makes more sense to have this sequence of mythical events discussed in a single place.

Moreover, writing about mythical events while making it clear that they didn't happen is not impossible, but it is difficult. It's more difficult if they have their own articles. An article with a battle is liable to accumulate an infobox with troops strengths and other details—these ones already have—which gives the impression that the events happened even if the text of the article says otherwise. A. Parrot (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Lacus Curtius, delete/merge the rest. As far as I know, that's the only battle described in article-level detail in Livy; I would need to review Dionysius and Plutarch on the others, but as presently written they're no more than stubs with no obvious potential for expansion, surrounded by vast clouds of information that are largely duplicative, and which belong under Romulus, Romulus and Remus, or whichever other articles concern the founding of Rome.

This came up because someone linked an article on my watch list to "Battle of Alba Longa", which in Livy is only a few sentences about Romulus and Remus ambushing and slaying their wicked uncle with the help of their friends, the shepherds. And that description is pretty much all there is to say about the event, so finding an extensive article covering everything about Romulus and Remus and barely mentioning a "battle" (which isn't even described as one in Livy) astonished me. I thank Ifly6 for initiating this discussion, since I hesitated to do so due to all of the technical considerations.

Mythological occurrences can certainly be the subjects of articles, irrespective of their historicity. But with most of these, there's just not much to say; the chief exception is that there's quite a lot about Titus Tatius making war on Rome, including details of the battle and things said to have occurred during it. That's why I think that one can stay, although it probably needs to be pared down to focus on the battle, and its immediate antecedents and consequences. I'll mention one qualification: often Dionysius or Plutarch offer a lot more detail than Livy, so it's possible there's more to say than the articles currently do. P Aculeius (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history and also at Google Scholar, I now agree with this position. I think the name Battle of the Lacus Curtius should be changed to Battle of Lacus Curtius given that the former has zero results on Google Scholar whereas the latter actually appears in the literature (albeit with only two results). Ifly6 (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An alternate redirect target could be The Rape of the Sabine Women § Story. Ifly6 (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a possible target, but I think this one battle is a bit much to fit under that heading, and it certainly has a lot of detail in Livy: the fight of the champions, Hostus Hostilius and Mettius Curtius, one of whom had to be pulled out of the swampy ground in what would later be the Roman Forum (after it was drained by the Cloaca Maxima); Romulus vowing a temple to Jupiter Stator in order to hold the Roman line; Hersilia and the Sabine women interceding to prevent further bloodshed and reconcile the two armies, etc. And as I said, I haven't checked to see how much additional detail is in Dionysius and Plutarch. Between these three sources, there's often quite a lot of narrative! P Aculeius (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant for the other articles ("Battles of Lacus Curtius" and "Alba Longa" excepted) which largely discuss Romulus' mythical adventures against the Sabines. Ifly6 (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect all, except Battle of the Lacus Curtius, remove "the" from the title of the latter. There is next to zero information on these topics and thus no scholarship. So the articles can contain only either (1) a two-sentence description from a primary source (e.g., Plutarch), (2) a purely fictional (modern, not based on any historical records) description of the battle, (3) a retelling of the material distantly related to the topic (say, story of Romulus), or (4) a WP:OR combination of the previous 3 variants (this is currently the case). Either configuration obviously violates one or more of our rules. The classical history is a well-established field, there is absolutely no reason to use the modern fiction literature (see the brief discussion of source used without citing it) or primary sources. In the case of these articles, there are essentially zero reliable sources that cover the subject in any detail (because there is no material for historians to work with), even the names of some of these "battles" are impossible to find in the serious history works. --Викидим (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect all to Romulus, per Ifly6, A. Parrot, et al. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect Paul August ☎ 11:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect as above. As separate events, these lack notability. This is reflected in the repetitive article structure, in which the "subject" event is dealt with in a few lines, surrounded by massive preamble/background and aftermath sections. Thus they are all slightly refocused content forks of the same foundation myth; the reader is best served by a single account of that. NebY (talk) 17:46, 17 March 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. Closing as keep, per the consensus. Most of the delete !votes (including the nom who are blocked currently as SOCK) are taken with a pinch of salt. But consensus is clear about the existence of notability, but further expansion of the article is required. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zari_Kovo[edit]

Zari_Kovo (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 notability, Real estate dealer. I don't think he has a place on Wikipedia. Otherwise any property owner could get an article. Tapal2024 (talk) 20:19, 14 March 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 March 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Fashion, Hong Kong, and Bulgaria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The only RS, Haretz, is an article about Oded Kobo who isn't this individual. The rest aren't RS and I don't see anything about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oaktree b, could you take a look at the new sourcing presented below? TLA^tlak 14:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no significant action. This is not suitable for Wikipedia. Unreliable reference ^{[unreliable source?]} — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Success302 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.
• Keep sufficient reliable coverage in Hebrew RS: Calcalist [3] , Globes [4], TheMarker [5] Marokwitz (talk) 16:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – per the WP:THREE by Marokwitz. TLA^tlak 04:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per WP:RSP, only Haaretz is considered reliable. Juice00001 (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Juice00001 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
• Keep. This is a disruptive nomination, with a nonsensical intro, from an account that has since been blocked. Easy pass of the GNG. No case for deletion whatsoever. One of the three "sources" above is a list of articles about Kovo. Plus there are more RS in the Hewiki article. Furthermore, with the rape conviction and jail time included, this is a balanced article. The delete !votes look like WP:NEXIST failures. For Juice00001 and Success302, with very few edits, this is the first AfD. gidonb (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. Also known as "Bebo Kobo" etc, plus many sources are in Hebrew. Edwardx (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This entry was tainted with a lot of bad blood and a desire for revenge. The relevant corrections have been introduced. In my opinion, this page may be appropriate for the Hebrew Wikipedia but not for the English Wikipedia. The criminal charge refers to 1979 long before he became a real estate broker and made the deal of his life, so none of this is relevant to the English entry. Developer19801 (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Developer19801 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. Marokwitz (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No one asked me to come here, I've been following this article for a while now and have made a few edits to it. I think this article is not worthy of Wikipedia. What you are doing is unacceptable. In a conversation it is customary to respect the opinions of other contributors, especially when it is not to your liking.. Developer19801 (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Poor content. Should not be included in Wikipedia.Mhagay (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no Wikipedia importance. No significant contribution according to Wikipedia values. The only thing that stands out in this person's actions is his criminal record. A criminal record is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia.Joshua Royal (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While I have no opinion on what should happen with this article, I thought I'd point out to the ineventual closer that except for User:Oaktree b, all of those editors advocating Delete are low edit accounts who have been active for several months. What drew them to this AFD discussion, out of the hundreds that are currently open, I do not know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: First article is about Kovo, going into some description of his life. The second one is a series of articles, the last one is about him disputing a rape conviction in 1979. First perhaps helps notability, I'm not sure the rest do. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Marokwitz and others, there seems to be enough coverage at the very least in Hebrew, which would meet the requirement for notability. That being said, I agree with @Liz that some of these edits appear suspicious. FortunateSons (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chamod Dilshan[edit]

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

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

I believe the subject fails to meet GNG. This footballer played some international games but I cannot find any significant coverage of his life or career. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 19:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Football, Asia, and Sri Lanka. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 19:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. A Google search only has WP:ROUTINE player profiles and unrelated info about other men with the same name. Willing to reconsider if significant coverage is found, so please ping me. Frank Anchor 19:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV, but I sincerely believe that senior national team caps should count toward notability. Anwegmann (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russell K. Standish[edit]

Russell K. Standish (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 seeing indicia of encyclopedic notability. Subject seems to be a fairly run-of-the-mill computer scientist who had a leading position in some non-notable conferences. Since its creation in 2007, the article has never had any independent citations. BD2412 T 17:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 17:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If by "independent citations", you mean wikipedia articles linking to this page independently of the original author, then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel would constitute as such.

Originally this page was created as part of an attempt to document the field of Artificial Life and its history, as a resource for students interested in exploring the topic. Those pages have changed substantially since that time. Hpcoder (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean WP:Reliable sources documenting the subject. BD2412 T 22:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete he seems to be a serious scientist. However, there is nothing in this article or a quick web search that demonstrates that he meets the relatively high bar set for notability. He may eventually, but not yet (WP:TOOSOON). Ldm1954 (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 22:51, 20 March 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!} 20:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Kovic[edit]

Sophie Kovic (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 Seed & Sprout fails WP:NCORP. Non-notable awards and local interviews are the only coverage. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Companies, and Australia. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Environment, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The awards won are minor and fails WP:BIO for lack of in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 16 March 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. Owen× ☎ 19:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ian MacDonald (architect)[edit]

Ian MacDonald (architect) (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:SIGCOV. Only sources in the entire article are awards he has received for his projects, and none of the info in the lead is verified in the body (if there even is a body). 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 12:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Canada. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 12:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per previous AfD. I'm not sure the nominator has done WP:BEFORE. Articles such as [6] and [7] should be sufficient (as well as the long list of articles going back to 1997 on MacDonald's company website). However, the awards were won by his company, Ian MacDonald Architect Inc., so I don't think they can be ascribed to him personally. Sionk (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but only after reviewing Sionk's sources. The previous AfD bases his notability off of the Canadian encyclopedia, but I cannot track down their editorial policy as to whether it's a reliable source. The article itself is a mess and the sources there don't demonstrate notability per the GNG. I haven't performed an additional BEFORE to see what else can be added to the article since Sionk's sources are good in my book, but it really needs to be cleaned up - I would not have accepted it if it were at AfC. SportingFlyer T·C 00:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further sources evaluation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The two sources presented by Sionk are enough to satisfy me. While there is interview content, there is also secondary content in the sourcing. TLA^tlak 23:56, 19 March 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 Dark New Day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hail Mary (Dark New Day album)[edit]

Hail Mary (Dark New Day 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)

This album was claimed to be borderline notable by Amakuru at WP:RM/TR#Contested technical requests. Despite that, I am now sure whether this album actually meets WP:NALBUM, so I am sending it to AfD to determine notability. GTrang (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GTrang (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dark New Day: This article is not remotely borderline. There is one reliable source (Blabbermouth.net) and two blatantly not (one from their own record label, the other from Amazon). I found no other coverage of the album, and no evidence of notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar Nemo[edit]

Ammar Nemo (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 yet notable WP:NACTOR, with only minor roles so far. In a WP:BEFORE search, the only significant coverage I could find was the WDIV-TV source cited, from local television news. Wikishovel (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Michigan. Wikishovel (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Martial arts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar Nemo has some pretty significant roles such as Tommy Tom-Tom in Dashing Through the Snow, Sam from BMF, and Tick Tock in Revenge Of The Mask. LionelTechTips (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: LionelTechTips (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Comment Article creator has been indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. Their current user page, and subsequent talk page posts, declare a conflict of interest. Wikishovel (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: If not for G5, person is not notable enough with only minor coverage. HarukaAmaranth ^春_香 14:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My search found no evidence that he meets the notability criteria for martial artists (WP:MANOTE, WP:NMMA, or WP:NKICK) or actors (WP:NACTOR). Several small roles fail to show WP notability. I also didn't see significant independent coverage in multiple reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. An interview with a local TV station certainly isn't enough. Papaursa (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Relies on a single source was a prompt to find source and all I could find were Databases like IMDb, Movie Databases, etc. No WP: SIGCOV. Fails WP: GNG. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Haven appeared in few films while not are not LEAD roles. Per WP: NACTOR, needs more to attain notability. Can be notable in the future! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing reliable I could find online, per above 🍪 CookieMonster 15:37, 21 March 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 consensus here is that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE does not apply, as the request did not come from the article's subject, and there is a consensus to keep. Owen× ☎ 19:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katrin Kneipp[edit]

Katrin Kneipp (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)

Given concern raised at Talk:Katrin_Kneipp#require_privacy, taking note of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I originally created this article as I believed them to be notable due to Fellowship of the APS and high citation count. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC) P.S. My own view is this shouldn't be deleted. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Kj cheetham (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Germany, and Massachusetts. Skynxnex (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Too notable to delete. She appears to have retired. In terms of privacy concerns, neither the article nor Wikidata show a date place of birth, name of spouse or where she now lives. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Hold. It needs to be confirmed that E. Rumpelstilzchen is Katrin Kneipp. If it is then we must delete the page. I know several people in SERS so I will ask what her status is (offline from Wikipedia). Ldm1954 (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC) Ldm1954 (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I, Harald Kneipp, use 'Rumpelstilzchen'. I am Katrin Kneipp's husband. We dont want appear in Wikipedia. E. Rumpelstilzchen (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Then that's a done deal, if not the way you might want. Presuming that you are who you say you are -- and any rando on the Internet can make any such claim -- you are not Katrin Kneipp herself. Even in legitimate BLPREQUESTDELETE cases, such requests from third parties are not considered. Ravenswing 20:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep regardless of subject preferences. No, there is no necessity of deleting pages based only on subject demands. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is only for borderline cases. APS Fellow is not borderline; it is a clear pass of WP:PROF#C3. Her citation record also gives a strong pass of WP:PROF#C1, far from borderline for that criterion. I think we should have articles on all female APS Fellows. Allowing subject preferences to stand (regardless of their legitimacy) would put an unfixable gap in our coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein (talk • contribs)
• Keep: Leaving aside that there are many people who'd love to wipe clean biographies they themselves can't curate, I agree that this isn't a borderline case, and there's no evidence to suggest that this is really the subject. In any event, people who are resolute in keeping out of the public eye probably ought not publish research papers bearing their names, or give interviews. Ravenswing 13:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep under the assumption that the requester is not Katrin Kneipp herself, or someone with a full power of attorney (due to illness or similar). The evidence above indicates that this is not the case. (I have changed my vote after evidence for who posted the request has been provided. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• My opinion for the record. If this was by the subject or an authorized representative (which a husband alone is not) then provided there was nothing contraversial in the page, the deletion request should be honored. The topic of Right to privacy is not simple, neither is Right to be forgotten. Independent of these a person should have the right to correct erroneous information about themselves and have it removed. I recognize that not everyone will agree with this position, but to me it does not matter how notable they are, this right exists during their lifetime. To me this is a question of morality beyond Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although clearly notable there is sufficient evidence for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to apply. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Wait until situation is clearer. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• I admit confusion. To what evidence to you allude? The subject of the article has not been heard from, the subject's husband would have no unilateral right to request deletion, we have no evidence that User:E. Rumpelstilzchen IS the subject's husband, and in any event we've not heard from him in a week. Surely we're not deleting articles on the unsupported say-sos of SPAs. Ravenswing 06:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yechiel (Eli) Shainblum[edit]

Yechiel (Eli) Shainblum (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)

As far as I can tell, this is just some guy that somebody knew in their community. Absolutely does not pass WP:CREATIVE. A lot of the language is biased and speaks on a personal level about Shainblum rather than an overview of any specific accomplishments. A lot of this article talks about art, and yet he's never sold a painting, been in a gallery, nothing. The teaching piece isn't notable either.OsmiumGuard (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Language, Visual arts, Judaism, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article itself basically says he wasn't notable. It is likely that Shainblum would be better known nationally and internationally if his work had been more widely seen during his lifetime. It seems he wasn't even locally well-known, I can't find any references to him outside of some suspect blogs. grungaloo (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Comment It's worth noting that there's a similar page for one Mark Shainblum that was initially created and maintained by the same exact account. OsmiumGuard (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding any RS for the biographical information presented in this article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sentences like "His family reports that Shainblum derived great joy from teaching, and he put much more emphasis on pedagogy and his students than he did on promoting his artistic career" make this read like a tribute written by a family member or a former student. It sounds like they were well-loved by students and family, but there are not sources to show they meet the WP:CREATIVE guidelines for encyclopedia articles, like having "been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" or "won significant critical attention." Elspea756 (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources could be secondary but not exactly reliable. Per Elspea756, content of them is not persuasive either. 🍪 CookieMonster 15:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) 🍪 CookieMonster 15:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Polar Society[edit]

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

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The article is titled as if it is about a topic. It's just a list of members without any real context as to why the members are notable or what the purpose of the society is. Shadow311 (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Organizations. Shadow311 (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Environment, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep? I'm not really sure what the procedure is for when the topic has a lot of available material but the article is only minimally present. I'm pretty sure this article in Polar Record gives the most detail on what the organization actually was for, but of course, that's the one I don't have immediate access to. Still, the journal published obituaries of people in the field (pdf here) and the one for APS founder August Howard gives some context. This biography of Louise Arner Boyd also appears to dedicate a couple of pages to the society and Boyd's interactions with it on page 289+. Also, I'm not sure if it matters for inclusion standards, but Ohio State University's library maintains a special collection of the society's historical records. Lubal (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A ton of coverage in Gnewspapers [8] talks about it. It's described here [9]. Obituary here about the founder [10]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Looked at the sources, there are some indepth content that can be used to expand the article beyond NOTDIRECTORY. Passes notability guidelines. Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 23:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SOFIXIT. Geschichte (talk) 08:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs cleanup, not deletion. There's enough reliably-sourced coverage here to easily pass WP:SIGCOV. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 12:35, 20 March 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 Bhutan national football team#Coaching history. (non-admin closure) 🍪 CookieMonster 15:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henk Walk[edit]

Henk Walk (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)

Playing football for a national team doesn't give automatic notability, so neither does coaching. This manager is covered in passing mentions only, failing the WP:SIGCOV guideline. No lasting impact on Bhutan whatsoever, so fails WP:SUSTAINED (as well as informal essays such as WP:IMPACT/WP:10YT). I can't find anything else about him; not his age, where he is from, if he was a player himself, other managerial jobs etc. Simply put, Henk Walk is not biography material and being a name in a list at Bhutan national football team#Coaching history should suffice. Geschichte (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Asia, and Netherlands. Skynxnex (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree coverage is extremely scarce. Also being manager of a very small football country (Bhutans highest ever Fifa ranking was 159/211 not even during Walk's tenure which lasted for a single year, without any spectacular scores. I agree what is shown now does not suffice for notability. Arnoutf (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 15:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bhutan national football team#Coaching history. Dutch amateur coach (I did find passing mentions), who was the manager of the Bhutan national team. This appointment was definately the high point of Walk's career. Sufficient for a redirect. To keep we would need more than passing mentions. gidonb (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Success of the team should not have bearing here. Anwegmann (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Success does of course have bearing on match attendance, fan following and by extension media following, i.e. significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 22:52, 20 March 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 Gillingham F.C. players (1–24 appearances). (non-admin closure) 🍪 CookieMonster 15:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Wilson (footballer, born 1977)[edit]

Paul Wilson (footballer, born 1977) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I can't see this biography meeting the WP:SIGCOV guideline. Obscure fourth-tier English footballer, so I wanted to redirect to List of Gillingham F.C. players (1–24 appearances), which was disputed. Found one sentence in a "where are they now" article. Geschichte (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 15:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I agree. Anwegmann (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect seems best option -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:34, 18 March 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. Owen× ☎ 19:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Mulan Chu Chao[edit]

Ruth Mulan Chu Chao (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 about the mother of Elaine and Angela Chao. Though the article itself appears fleshed out and well-sourced at first glance, taking some time to read through it, I call into question whether Ruth is notable per GNG. More than half of the article pertains to her personal life, the events of which are not themselves notable. The only other section, "Philanthropy", includes only buildings named after her posthumously, due to donations from her husband and daughters, including a building at the Harvard Business School.

There are 18 cited sources. Of those, nine are from the HBS website. Two are from the Foremost Group, an organization headed by her daughter Angela. One is a news story covering Angela's death. One is an obituary of her other daughter, Jeannette. Two are Ruth's obituaries - one is clearly just a death announcement. The other is called "Chao's mother mourned", explicitly defining her notability solely in relation to her daughter Elaine. One source is just about Elaine's comments on the Green Line expansion, ten years after Ruth's death. There is one source (#14) honoring Ruth (again, posthumously) and her husband as philanthropists, however this link is defunct. In addition, the source appears to be a press release from the organization that gave them the award. This is a nothing article. Thesixthstaff (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Some hits in Gbooks [11], is the best. The NBC News article is fine. This [12] is in Chinese, but seems to be about her. Should have GNG with these. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Books source you provided is not about Ruth. It is about Elaine and Ruth is mentioned exactly once. Being related to someone notable is not notable. The NBC News article also 1. is about an event that happened multiple years after she died and 2. does not describe anything Ruth did that would be notable. Having something named after you because your family member who loves you is rich is not notable. If someone can translate the Chinese and use any of that information in the article I can be swayed, but the first two sources you gave aren't doing it for me. Thesixthstaff (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up, I went to the Amazon page for the book and translated the description from the original Chinese [13]. It appears that this book was written because Elaine has said publicly "I really hope you have the opportunity to know my mother". Other quotes from the description include "She may seem like an ordinary housewife, but she has extraordinary circumstances" and "An ordinary life can also have extraordinary power", which doesn't really bring me much hope that the book would have her meet GNG. Also, a majority of the testimonials are immediate family members. Thesixthstaff (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Business, China, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It looks like the ILF source got rescued. I took a look at it, and it still doesn't help the case IMO. It claims that until Ruth's death, most of hers and her husband's philanthropic gifts were made anonymously. Her husband only began giving in her name once she had died in 2007. I guess my question here is: can you be made notable solely for someone else signing your name to monetary gifts after you die? Thesixthstaff (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Other sources do also exist, including this site of 17 slides and explanatory text, posted by the Baker Library of the Harvard Business School. The first slide, now listed as an external link at the bottom of the article, includes pertinent quotations from Laura Bush, Sandra Day O'Connor and Hillary Clinton. Another source: a book by Cui Jiarong, with the Amazon translation. Meets GNG. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we consider the Harvard Business School page to be an independent source, considering that this coverage is there only because the Chao family donated money for the building named for her? Also, the book you linked is the same book I addressed in a previous reply. Thesixthstaff (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Although it's not yet referenced in the article, the Chinese book found by User:Oaktree b appears to be a full biography of the late Madam Chao. Although I don't have access to it, the author is a lecturer at a Taiwanese university and it was published by the books division of Commonwealth magazine, which we oddly don't have an article on, but is roughly Taiwan's equivalent to The Atlantic or The Economist. That's exactly what we need for GNG, even though it's not ideal to only have a single source. Matt's talk 17:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bought the book, currently reading it by google translating each page and I will report back. So far, the thesis appears to be "she raised strong daughters and after she died a building was named after her". Which is admirable! But I still don't get the impression that she is independently notable. Thesixthstaff (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have read 10% of the book so far. A few quotes that stuck out to me:

• "[Chao] is a typical housewife who has always made the happiness of her husband and children her life's work. In her memory, she just did things silently to make her husband's life with her children a little more comfortable and easier."
• "On the surface all the deeds related to big people in the world cannot be found on her resume. However, this good wife and mother with high output value wholeheartedly assisted her soulmate Zhao Xicheng who became an internationally renowned Chinese ship king, and at the same time, cultivated six daughters with excellent character and professional excellence with gentle maternal love".

This just really comes off to me as a very touching memorial project for a deeply beloved, but low-profile, family member. I don't think it confers notability, given the source itself basically says so. Thesixthstaff (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: WP:BLUDGEONING is a form of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. That said, "Sometimes, a long comment or replying multiple times is perfectly acceptable or needed." Each of my responses has come after additional research into the topic, as I think folks here have raised valid points. I apologize for a potentially brusque or overconfident tone. Thesixthstaff (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone is fine. But volume is an issue: See top editors. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This has a brief description of her life [14]. Oaktree b (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's really silly to delete a wikipedia article. Sure, this isn't that necessary of an article but deleting this does not have any benefits what so ever. Learning about this person is important and the goal of wikipedia is to spread information. I really don't agree with deleting an article about a person who is still a bit important. There are plenty of articles that should be deleted because they are about people who aren't notable, and deleting this is silly. RevolutionaryWar (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gamal Abdul Nasir Zakaria[edit]

Gamal Abdul Nasir Zakaria (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 previously underwent AfD discussions in July-August 2023, resulting in a "soft delete" and subsequent deletion. However, it was recreated in November 2023 by the same article creator, who was confirmed as a sockpuppet. Despite its recreation, the current version of the article remains similar to its previous iteration from July 2023. Consequently, the arguments presented during the previous AfD remain applicable, highlighting the article's failure to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I don't see anything about this person online. Sources 10-15 are orange per Cite Highllighter, so iffy notability. I looked over the last AfD, it doesn't help move this discussion either way. I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Language, Islam, Brunei, and Indonesia. Skynxnex (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find notability here. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Not meet WP:GNG criteria. Deleted at idwiki. Ariandi Lie ^{Let's talk} 11:00, 16 March 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.

Blue Rose (band)[edit]

The result was withdrawn by nominator Mach61 03:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

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

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

Not notable- if you search Google very little, if anything comes up. If you go on JSTOR, it is only mentioned in passing. This article should be deleted due to the lack of notability. WizardGamer775 (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WizardGamer775 (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Basic facts verified by Allmusic entry. Full news page in Oakland Tribune Nov 06, 1988. [15]. Review in Richmond Times-Dispatch Dec 25, 1988 [16]. Short reviews in Walnut Valley Occasional Dec 01, 1988 [17] Oakland Tribune Dec 25, 1988 [18] Daily News Jan 15, 1989 [19]. Remembered many years later in lists such as this. Geschichte (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Geschichte's found features and reviews. There's also [20] which is a review of a performance. Also used as a touch point for comparing other groups against in books about bluegrass: [21] "this followup just doesn’t have the legs that made Blue Rose (Sugar Hill SH-3768), a Fink-Marxer collaboration with other sisters of the folk-grass sorority (Laurie Lewis, Sally Van Meter, and Molly Mason), such a strong pacer from the gate."; [22] "the way contemporary performers like Cathy Fink, Mike Cross, Blue Rose, and John McCutcheon bring an intimate knowledge of tradition into contemporary professional usage.". Skynxnex (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion 6, "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians." Also the new citations provided by above editors helps. Maxcreator (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw- Thank you for providing the citations. I ask that anyone with the authority to do so to please cancel or assist me in withdrawing this AfD. WizardGamer775 (talk) 00:07, 15 March 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!} 20:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PianobyG[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NBIO, no reliable sources that focus primarily on the subject outside of irrelevant football baseball signings. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Oklahoma. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So if an artist is associated with Columbia, AWAL/Orchard, has a significant presence online in terms of LA Weekly, Lyrical Lemonade, and Genius (which I checked and multiple contributors added to those pages on genius), there is no clear way to tell if LA Weekly was paid for, that is just “hearsay” at this point. I believe if an artist is associated with those labels(Columbia, AWAL) they are a notable musician. A publishing deal with a major label is a big deal. I also believe that him being verified on YouTube and having millions of streams and charting in 40 plus countries on 4 platforms is a big deal. I believe PianobyG is noteworthy and deserves to have a page Davidnorco86 (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  PianobyG has much more of a presence from notable sources and the labels versus someone like DaisyxDaisy Davidnorco86 (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep Davidnorco86 (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We'll review them for possible deletion as well, thank you for pointing them out. Feel free to nominate any articles you feel aren't up to notability standards as well. Oaktree b (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete declined at WP:AFC repeatedly moved to main space without improvement, fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO and WP:NMUSICIAN. Theroadislong (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no football article mentioned. Lyrical Lemonade and La Weekly are not irrelevant seeing as how they have pages here on this domain. Davidnorco86 (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Eejit43 probably meant baseball signings. Theroadislong (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did mean baseball, yes. Thanks! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for clarification. They are independent news sites that add to the story of PianobyG. He was an athlete before music. Strong sources, Lyrical Lemonade, strong source. LA Weekly, strong source. Releasing through Columbia, AWAL, and Orchard? Strong argument for notable musician. Also, Orchard distributes for AWAL so by releasing through AWAL, he is releasing through Orchard. Just to clear any confusion Davidnorco86 (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PianobyG (Jase Mann) also headlined The Oklahoman https://www.oklahoman.com/story/sports/nba/thunder/2019/05/11/atoka-marlow-to-meet-in-state-championship/60456439007/

as an athlete. He shows musical and athletic notoriety and while I agree neither of which could stand on their own, combined together, he for sure deserves to have his place on Wikipedia . Davidnorco86 (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So AWAL isn’t notable? As well as Columbia Records? I don’t see how those are not notable. As well as him being in multiple high public blogs. Blogs that have wiki pages.

• Delete. Having a Wikipedia page doesn't make something a reliable source, e.g. Wikipedia has a Wikipedia page. Things like the Genius pages or the paid-for LA Weekly page (basically a press release) are not reliable sources. Fram (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrical Lemonade is still a reliable source. How can anyone tell if La Weekly was paid for? As well as him releasing through The Orchard, I can post the YouTube autogenerated video that states “Distributed by The Orchard Enterprises”

As well as him getting media coverage from sports, independent news sites. I believe if an artist releases with Columbia Records and AWAL, they are notable. Davidnorco86 (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No sign of him here https://www.sonymusic.co.uk/roster/ ? Theroadislong (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is Sony music. Columbia is a subsidiary of Sony. The song is being distributed by Orchard, which is Sony.

Just because an artist releases with a label does not entail they are signed on a roster. Hence, publishing deals!

Another Love (Piano) - Single by PianobyG

https://music.apple.com/us/album/another-love-piano-single/1732680838 Davidnorco86 (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Label rosters are only for signed artists, a publishing deal does not include this, hence why he is not mentioned there. If you would like, you can wait until his song comes out at 11PM/EST and see that it is distributed by The Orchard which is Sony Musics main distributor as well as being put out under publishing rights with Columbia. Davidnorco86 (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://jaxsta.com/release/547f9441-c283-5504-8ddd-803a763bf503/f710e9f1-ca5e-591a-9e87-8a19fece6265/overview

Proof of The Orchard distribution:

make a free account and view the distributor for his song “golden hour” Davidnorco86 (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing here https://www.columbiarecords.com either?

• Delete: Nothing in RS found, the La Weekly and Genius sources are marked orange/yellow per Cite Highlighter, so of dubious notability. If we had at least one RS about this person, it might be a weak keep. Not notable otherwise and PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Check Lyrical Lemonade Davidnorco86 (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's also an iffy source for reliability. We still need more Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As well as the artist being associated with Columbia, AWAL, and The Orchard Davidnorco86 (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Probably the best source is lyricallemonade.com. Others look like press releases and LA Weekly is advertorial.Maxcreator (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You have no way of knowing if it’s press release. Also, as I have stated the individual is associated with Sony musics AWAL, Orchard and Columbia Records. I believe this entails as notable. As well as the 4 news articles he has as an athlete before he started making music Davidnorco86 (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear being "associated with Sony musics AWAL, Orchard and Columbia Records." confers zero notability. Theroadislong (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Individual passes WP:BAND. As he shows multiple reliable sources, that are not advertisement, are not reprinted, and speak about the individual in more than a blurb. This goes for his baseball, military, and musical career. As well as releasing through very notable music labels and distributors. Very confused on how you or anyone can even deem most of those sources as paid advertisement when all you’re doing is guessing. I feel as if nobody wants to see these points I am bringing up. Davidnorco86 (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the army and playing college baseball aren't notable. The rest is as explained above. Oaktree b (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, but when you say there are no RS about him, when there are multiple news articles, one is from The Oklahoman, and then the musical articles and his song just came out and was published by Columbia. I think you need to do more research or at least learn about the music industry :/ Davidnorco86 (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should do more research into them; "Amir Bakian: Social Media Marketing agent with 6 years of sales experience. I work really hard to get my clients the best representation to further their businesses." The articles are all written "in association with Amir Bakian" who's pushed these articles out to various media outlets on the web and who clearly states he's a social media marketing person, this is what PR looks like. Hence PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrical lemonade is for sure reliable and even if the La Weekly article isn’t, the other sources are. The girl who wrote the article about him has interviewed A-list celebrities. Davidnorco86 (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And not all the articles are written in association with him! That’s a lie. Only one author from the 15 sources are written by him. Davidnorco86 (talk) 15:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what you said, “Criteria for musicians and ensembles”, individual passes sections 1,5, and 7. Davidnorco86 (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment User:Davidnorco86 has commented on my talk page that "Again, I’m not trying to be rude or be mean. I just don’t think you possess the skills or knowledge to contribute anything to musical artist discussions" So I will recuse myself from further comment here. Theroadislong (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There was no personal attack lol. I stated I was not trying to be rude or anything at all. I apologize if you took it that way but again, the way you speak about music just seems from an uninformed perspective. Davidnorco86 (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment Hello, Theroadislong, just FYI, Davidnorco86 has been indefinitely blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Socks always come out to play. Oaktree b (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  just as a note @Oaktree b it does not appear they were socking. still either a highly disruptive editor at best and/or COI. She was ^afairy 14:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops, my bad. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no actual reliable sources with actual significant coverage. lyrical lemonade seems to be a blog, its reliability is probably marginal. She was ^afairy 14:27, 18 March 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 14:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Circle Club[edit]

The Circle Club (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 nightclub. Article has been an orphan since creation in 2007 and its references are thin. WP:BEFORE reveals only basic local press coverage of this venue, mostly related to its closure. Flip Format (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United Kingdom, and England. Flip Format (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Apparently it was so secretive, no one bothered to join. Note: It wasn't a "night club" but rather a "private members' club", like the clubs on this list List of members' clubs in London, except in Manchester. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's closed now. It seems like it was important locally, but I will treat it as though it was a restaurant. I saw no evidence that it had made any impact outside of Manchester. Though, it did apparently attract some famous people when it was open. I'm open to any arguments somebody wants to make around that.James.folsom (talk) 23:44, 20 March 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 Georgia (U.S. state). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WNGA-LP[edit]

WNGA-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)

Does not meet WP:ORGCRIT as lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Lacking any secondary sources at all. AusLondonder (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Organizations, and Georgia (U.S. state). AusLondonder (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of radio stations in Georgia (U.S. state): It's considerably harder, or at least rarer, for a newer LPFM (or really most newer radio stations) to attain the requisite significant coverage to meet the GNG (much less ORGCRIT, which mainly differs in a stronger enforcement of source quality). An {{R to list entry}} as an alternative to deletion is probably the best we can do. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:58, 17 March 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 and no indication a relist will bring about more input. Feel free to re-nom at a time when you think there will be more engagement Star Mississippi 13:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningful Broadband[edit]

Meaningful Broadband (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)

Searching google only pulls up articles that are just duplicates •Cyberwolf•talk? 14:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. •Cyberwolf•talk? 14:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I think we've got a twofold issue using search results as a basis for deletion. First, a lot of the sources in the article are older sources that have been archived. Second, the sources we're looking for may be in languages other than English, which will make them hard to search for—and since they'd likely be Asian languages that don't use the Roman alphabet, it could be tricky to even look for an author's name, like Craig Warren Smith, to find them. IMO, this article should be given a reprieve while the search for sources continues, but we also need sources to come from independent publications. —C.Fred (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia, Indonesia, and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 14 March 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 Orrin Hatch#Lobbying ties as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 13:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Hatch[edit]

Scott Hatch (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:BIO, I think. WP:NOTINHERITED. Literally. jps (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I was surprised to find not much about him online, except for routine business stuff. I don't think the not-inherited argument holds water in his case. It's not that we're claiming notability based on having a notable father, we're claiming notability based on the fact that he's a lobbyist with a massive conflict of interest (because his father is a politician). Most of the articles I found that address this are actually more about his father than about him, so my inclination would be to redirect to Orrin Hatch#Lobbying ties, which is all about exactly this subject, and better referenced. Elemimele (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: LA Times is fine, but that seems to be all there is. There's an NPR article about a biologist with the same name, I assume it's a different person. I don't see notability with the sources we have. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Washington, D.C.. Skynxnex (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redirect to Orrin Hatch#Lobbying ties per Elemimele, as he already referenced there. Per nom. and Oaktree b, it fails WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, not notable based on the available sources. SportingFlyer T·C 17:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination or redirect per Sal2100 good suggestion. 2A01:799:2E3:C500:556:815E:86C2:7DB1 (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Orrin Hatch#Lobbying ties: notability is not WP:INHERITed though sourcing is not bad. She was ^afairy 03:07, 21 March 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. Star Mississippi 13:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WLEP-LD[edit]

WLEP-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 does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pennsylvania. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ...I have no idea about this, I assume, KEEP. Like, it has an article with its sign-on and it's from The Erie Times-News. Isn't that an reliable source and shows that it's notable, no? It's reliable since the TIMES-NEWS HAD REPORTED ON IT. It's quite rare for stations for stations to even get an LICENSE to the Federal Communications Commission, to get an transmitter, to have studios (until 2019) and other stuff. Like what RingTailedFox said, TV Stations licensed by a government is notable. Otherwise, a lot of low power stations are going to be in the AfD chopping block soon. mer764KCTV5 (He/Him | t • c) 14:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. it's a TV station, even if it's defunct. Those are fairly rare due to the limited number of channels/frequencies in a particular area. Not just anyone can fire up a transmitter... A TV station licensed by a government, be it full power or low power, is by definition, notable. If not... then are we going to start nominating all sorts of television stations in smaller cities next? RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 13:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @RingtailedFox There is no inherit notability for TV stations, and articles about them (especially low power stations) are deleted all the time. Mach61 20:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If that is the case, shouldn't all of them get hit by the AfD hammer, then? I don't fully understand, the FCC recognizes it's existence, (if it didn't, then problems with the stations and the FCC would occur) but how notable it has to be then, soes it have to be updated with a notable source every week or so? Month? YEAR?? How far do we have to go in the AfD counter for Television? This case if making my mind get so confused. mer764KCTV5 (He/Him | t • c) 04:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mer764Wiki A station is notable if it meets the General Notability Guideline, that is, a minimum of 2-3 independent, reliable secondary sources covering the station in depth. Mach61 05:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmm, doesn't work that well for low-power stations. Okay, well, at least Cospaw tried, and now he knows. mer764KCTV5 (He/Him | t • c) 05:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete: That the station's launch did merit an Erie Times-News article is better than most all-diginet LPTVs get regarding coverage, but the problem is not about its reliability as a source — it's more that we need more than that. We've tightened our inclusion standards in this topic area since 2011, especially after the 2021 RfC that established that there was no consensus for there being any more lenient notability guideline than the GNG. FCC licenses may be relatively rare, but for our purposes they still only really establish existence, which is not notability. As Mach61 pointed out, this is not even close to being the first LPTV to be sent to AfD in recent times — the floodgates are already open here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Subject lacks sources containing WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Please ping me if any other sources can be found. Let'srun (talk) 12:58, 15 March 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 11:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Ellis[edit]

Bruce Ellis (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 seems to be a vanity page without any refs about a non-notable person. Hardyplants (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hardyplants (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing that adds up to notability.Athel cb (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOTRESUME Written like a personal web page. — Maile (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails notability guidelines as per WP:NBASIC. Redtree21 (talk) 12:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article is pretty rubbish and resumé-like, and the subject suffers from the usual problem of being an academic working in industry just at the point when computer science was moving so fast that no one was writing about what people like him were doing. But is there any mileage in a redirect to Mark V. Shaney which is notable, and in which he seems to have played a major role? I think this would be more helpful to our readers than complete deletion. Elemimele (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Australia, and New Jersey. Skynxnex (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 20 March 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 11:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hospital food[edit]

Hospital food (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)

Poorly focussed page where the lede is talking about British hospitals but other countries are shoehorned in later. It's a collection of international anecdotes which are cobbled together for a particular narrative (ie hospital food is bad in the UK and elsewhere) WP:SYNTH. There might be some other way to write a page on this topic, but this needs WP:TNT JMWt (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Health and fitness. JMWt (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Such a mess that it's a textbook WP:TNT. As nom says article is a perfect case of WP:SYNTH. On another note I'm shocked that an editor would create an article for a global encyclopedia and write it almost exclusively about the United Kingdom. How can an article titled "Hospital food" start with "Food in UK hospitals has been the subject of attention from celebrity chefs"? Notability of the subject itself is not established by the article, because it is simply a collection of mentions, including that a hospital ran out of food. AusLondonder (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Might be an article about hospital food in the UK, but this isn't it. I mean, we have sources online about food in hospitals, usually just saying how unimportant or bland it is. I'm not sure even those would make an article... Oaktree b (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I can certainly find material that could be used to write an article on the topic of hospital food. Just a Google Scholar search with nothing fancy gives me pages of articles, discussing the logistics of providing hospital food, public perceptions about hospital food, nutritional complexities of hospital food, strategies to get patients to actually eat the hospital food, and so on. This is all really far removed from things I'm familiar with, and I'm not sure I feel up to the challenge of replacing what's been written with something more comprehensively relevant to the topic, but I'm sure someone could. I don't know what standard practice is here. Is this bad enough that it needs to be discarded versus putting up with it until someone rewrites it? Lubal (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes per WP:TNT we don’t keep poor content on the pretext that someone might fix it at some point when it is this bad JMWt (talk) 18:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. For the future, when a viable article on this topic is recreated, is there really a difference between hospital food and nursing home food? While there is a difference from other types of institutional food, I note that our article on prison food is not exactly star quality either. Geschichte (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If someone creates Food in institutional settings, I'm blaming you. -- asilvering (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Orphanage food? Geschichte (talk) 19:39, 20 March 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 11:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 TCAS incident over Somalia[edit]

2024 TCAS incident over Somalia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTNEWS, fails WP:GNG , WP:LASTING and while an essay, does fail WP:AIRCRASH. The only articles talking about the incident are aviation websites with basically no mainstream news sites talking about the incident. I seriously have doubts whether this incident will result in any changes as it happened over Somaliland. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Somalia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not the first recent WP:NOTNEWS contribution from this editor, if we had a page on every averted aviation incident, we'd be taking over Bitcoin's servers for space. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A trivial incident, of no great significance, and not having received significant coverage. An aircraft was directed onto a flight path fairly close to that of another aircraft, so both pilots were given an advisory notification as a precaution. The flight paths did not bring the aircraft close enough to cause any significant risk, or to necessitate any change of course, and they passed one another safely. That's it. The first reference is a blog post, and the others don't look much more significant. JBW (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Routine news event with no significant and sustained coverage. There are many near misses like this involving aircraft, and pilots are warned to reroute once a potential collision might be possible. HarukaAmaranth ^春_香 08:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Aviationwikiflight as you correctly point out, WP:AIRCRASH is an essay and failing or passing it has absolutely no relevance in AfD's so please do not use it. There is also no requirements that the coverage comes from mainstream news sites, a significant coverage can come from a subject specific site (sport related news from a sport website for instance). That said, while I'm not putting any judgement on the publications of the sources aside from the blog (Aviation Week Network and Flightradar24 might be reliable), this seems to have been a minor incident with the coverage in the article coming from a period of a few days with no indications of continued coverage and thus little hope of it having WP:LASTING effects or having the WP:SUSTAINED coverage to pass WP:GNG. So Delete unless someone can point to more sustained significant coverage of the incident. Alvaldi (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Very much with JBW's argument above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:21, 15 March 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 11:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Phypers[edit]

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

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

Not notable Samp4ngeles (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC) There is very little notable about Aaron Phypers, other than being married to Denise Richards and previously being married to Nicolette Sheridan. The article describes him as an actor, but he isn't WP:NACTOR and isn't WP:N for other activities.--Samp4ngeles (talk) 10:00, 14 March 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 March 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Health and fitness, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Being married and operating a wellness clinic are confirmed in the sources, but don't make you notable; all I find are "get to know the celebrity" articles. I don't even see anything for ACTOR. Oaktree b (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: NACTOR not established. I couldn't find any sources with SIGCOV either. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:31, 21 March 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 11:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Katchungu-Tchambogo Cessna Grand Caravan crash[edit]

2024 Katchungu-Tchambogo Cessna Grand Caravan crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTNEWS, fails WP:GNG and WP:LASTING. The accident barely has any coverage. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No indication of any factors that might lead to lasting effects. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are largely self-contained aviation websites. Borgenland (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Aircraft_accidents_and_incidents, I know it's an essay, but is the only guidance that exists. The subject wouldn't meet GNG which in the absence of any other guidance it would need to.James.folsom (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and James. Should be at most a list item somewhere. Choess (talk) 15:20, 16 March 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 06:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IConji[edit]

IConji (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)

Failed PROD due to half of a RS—otherwise seems a non-notable app. Remsense诉 11:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]