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. 16 editors have argued for deletion or "draftification," making a strong case that Wikipedia is not a news outlet. 17 editors have argued to keep the article as it has received substantial coverage beyond a run of the mill traffic accident. It seems the question is whether coverage of this is sustained---it has continued to receive some coverage since being relisted. Right now, I don't see consensus to keep or delete the article and I don't see a clearer consensus emerging in another week, so I am closing the discussion for now. Malinaccier (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Pune car 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:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTNEWS, no significant coverage outside India and trivial commentary by a few politicians, possibly because it happened during the 2024 Indian general election. Borgenland (talk) 07:50, 24 May 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 May 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As stated in WP:N(E), "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) [...] are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." There's nothing about this event that indicates it has (or will have) enduring significance. Ethmostigmus (talk | contribs) 11:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It will have enduring significance, we are seeing members of the current ruling party lauchpadding this case for the movement of judicial reform. 27.63.231.66 (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Which coinciding with the general election, may as well be an electoral stunt that everyone will forget. Borgenland (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A significance in this case my friend is the fact of how it exposes the 2 different India. The minor in the case was let off in less than a day with nothing more than a month of social service and a puny essay to write on road accident on the account he is not an adult. The minor had been allowed inside 2 pubs and allowed to drive a porsche whichunder indian law can only be done once you are above 18. This makes this case have lasting value to the legal system. This is different from most crimes, accidents and is very notable due to the social media traction it gained. The only political or criminal connection comes as an MLA that is a member of indian parliament's son was in the car at the time and beat up by people at the venue of accident and the judicial system was exposed for its flaw in giving juvenile justice and the police did a bad job on this case. Killing of 2 IT proffesionals cannot be termed as a electoral stunt. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Very much a routine automobile accident, you could replace "Pune" with almost any city around the globe and the story would be the same. NOTNEWS Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would not say so my dear friend for this accident has waters much deeper than most cases, it involves an MLA, a renowned builder and incompetency of a bribed police and hospital staff. The mom of the minor was reported to have swapped her blood making this veryyy different from an average automobile accident in las vegas etc. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The accident isn't notable, the investigation and allegations around it could be notable; that would be a different article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your comment makes no sense yet let me explain, This accident involves a builder's son crashing into 2 IT proffesionals at 3:30 AM at a speed of 200 km/h. Accused was handed to police and was giiven bail in less than a day without any notable punishment making this a notable accident. This article should not be deleted. Publichelper1011 (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Automobile accidents are very common, run of the mill incidents, sure, this incident may have gotten a tad bit more attention from politicians and the news, but at the end of the day, its frankly not really news. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This incident is different from your run of the mill accidents. This time it involves rich parents saving a brat from rightful justice as he was released in less than a day and was given a punishment of writing a "run of the mill" essay and was entitled to a few days of community service. An average murderer is remanded to 2 years of juvenile custody I must add dear dellow samoht. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It has got significant coverage for now. It will take sometime to see if it meets WP:LASTING. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete: And until then, relevant policies stipulate that the incident is not notable, and an article on it therefore cannot be sustained. If this is still in the news two years from now, I expect anyone still interested can recreate it at that time. Ravenswing 15:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:RAPID. Not the right time to decide notability of the subject that has already got enough coverage. Srijanx22 (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is incredibly MILL and probably didn't need the usual pointlessly rageful Republic/NDTV overcoverage which seems to be openly turning a simple vehicular death incident into exactly what they want. There won't be lasting coverage and it will likely end with private settlements and other justice currently happening now. Nate • (chatter) 22:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Its may 30 today 1 week after the incident and News show that minor was released in 17 hours, Hospital staff was bribed of 3 lakhs, the minor's father and grandfather in police custody. thier uncle has ragebaited the public, minors mom has faked blood reports by swapping her own blood for her childs reminding us of drishyam 2 and its amazing climax. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Still getting coverage.[1] ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reiterate a minimal casualty toll, non-notable victims (that the suspect was driving a Porsche is mere WP:TRIVIA) and no significant coverage outside India. Borgenland (talk) 06:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This above comment is posted by the same editor who also nominated this article for deletion.[2] Ratnahastin (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stricken for emphasis. That's right. You need to sign + timestamp all nominations, Borgenland, which already count as your preference to delete (!vote). El_C 07:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn’t notice that in the starter. Thanks! Borgenland (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, all good. El_C 07:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per NOTNEWS and above in general. The Kip ^(contribs) 08:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons others have mentioned, if this is something that will become notable then it's WP:TOOSOON. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep To say that an article should be deleted only because it concerns a recent incident is not sensible. Should wait for some weeks before doing AfD in these cases. Shankargb (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not that it's recent so much as it's a completely run of the mill drunk driving crash that killed two people. It quite literally is not notable. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ... which was stated in the OP. What isn't sensible is to base an opinion at AfD based on cherrypicking only one element of the nomination. Ravenswing 17:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Run-of-the-mill car crash of which hundreds of the same scale occur every day. Just because something receives a small burst of news coverage does not mean it is notable. Curbon7 (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

  1 week after the incident, multiple arrest have been done in the case. The investigation for the mother is on way, bribe of 3 lakhs has been noted, police have said this is not an everyday car crash. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • My comment no longer applies as the crash, while still fairly run-of-the-mill, has clearly has had some sort of broader impact. Curbon7 (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SUSTAINED etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete run of the mill accident without the depth or extent of media coverage, such that it is not notable. The only thing setting it apart is the odd bail conditions, but that is insufficient to give it notability. Local Variable (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  local variabled is unable to see the news i assume PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't seem notable to me at all. These types of crashes occur every day. Sadustu Tau (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  sadustu tau must catch up to recent news. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Being vague about this is not going to change my argument. Sadustu Tau (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also my comment was made before more recent developments, which do seem to make it more notable than usual, however. Sadustu Tau (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While vehicle accidents are not automatically notable, this one is a different case. 2024 elections are not really relevant for this incident. This car crash has gained significant worldwide coverage, [3] contrary to this AfD nomination. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Doubtful over its sustainable coverage though. At this rate it is a mere eccentric news from abroad. Borgenland (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's basically a car crash, which will not generate sustained coverage. If it does indeed generate long-term coverage, it can be recreated. OhHaiMark (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The case is in no way trivial. Each day has only got the case more coverage in national media. The involvement of politicians in the case has nothing to do with the General election. The Porsche case is a national phenomenon in its own right. In addition, the case continues to cause arrests and interrogation of multiple individuals involved presently.

Appu (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While Such accidents are prevalent worldwide. However, this news has got India-wide coverage and is still getting coverage.

~~TNS~~ (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (1)The case has garnered significant media coverage with each & every update of the case being telecasted and covered across the board. Multiple national politicians have already made comments on it during the ongoing 2024 Indian General Elections. Therefore the subject is already notable enough for an independent page. The incident is of national coverage and has already brought the discussion on the Judiciary and Police executives to the forefront. (2) Being a recent news, as per WP:RAPID it is better to keep the page for now since there is no deadline to delete the page. Moreover, if its not WP:SUSTAINED in future, it can always be deleted. (3) For WP:TOOSOON multiple developments have already taken place in the investigation with reactions from many notable people. Therefore it is not too soon and sufficient time has already passed. EditorOnJob (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• keep the incident is clearly notable, and it passes Wikipedia:Notability (events). The incident is being covered all over India in reliable sources. Nominator's rationale "no significant coverage outside India is also inappropriate. Most of the murders, and missing persons cases (from all over the world) do not get international coverage, very few do. When the car crash took place, I thought the coverage was sensationalism, but later the decisions were cancelled, and now three generations are in custody source. The resulting coverage is now not sensationalism. According to this, (posted on 23, crash was on 19) it has grabbed national attention. The car crash has also reopened the investigation of a hit placed by Surndra Agarwal on a corporator through mafia/underworld don [4] Two doctors of state-run hospital were arrested source. These things do not happen with run of the mill car crashes. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SUSTAINED. If there are significant changes in popular media, legislation etc. because of this event over the next few years then we can recreate the article. Also to the nom, that "no significant coverage outside India" is definitely uncalled for. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This comment calls for deleting every case even those of deaths of head of state if they had no change to popular media, please use common sense brother lentical. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What a poor choice of analogy comparing a dead world leader with a local councilman bhai. You do need to make your arguments have more sense. Borgenland (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a multinational news story. It is not about a car crash, but instead about social issues such as wealth avoiding legal consequences, bribery, rich young people using alcohol, the rights of common people versus rich, and others. This is not a routine report of an automobile collision, nor is it local, and the story is very likely to have ongoing updates because of further developments including the bribery accusations and accusations of corruption of doctors, police, and the courts. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not least because of the enormous BLP violations contained within, including claims of criminality and intent that have not been fully adjudicated and the publication of minors' and non-notable victims' names. If the topic eventually does receive sustained attention, it can easily be refunded, but right now it is doing far more harm to victims' families in addition to contributing to sensationalist non-NPOV political reporting. JoelleJay (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The topic is still viral on social media and spokesperson of multiple politcal parties, and news channel still report the incident and cover it about 10 days after the reported rage break in social media. PublicHelper1101 (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This incident rather exposed a number of doctors and other people involved due to the public pressure which isn't a normal occurrence if it hadn't been public pressure the incident would have been like any normal accident out there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.89.170 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The incident has recieved notable media coverage along with multiple independent sources covering the topic over a prolonged period. The Indian General elections have ended, the media coverage should be observed over the next few days in order to access whether it was a politcally motivated topic or a notable topic of interest. Keep it for the time being and continue the discussion for the a few more days. Xoocit (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still an active discussion ongoing here. I tagged the article as lacking NPOV but I'm also baffled by editors claiming this article is about " a routine automobile accident" as this article has been greatly expanded since its nomination. What matters is not whether or not editors believe a car crash is just news but whether reliable source establish this subject's notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:RAPID It has got significant coverage till date. The question whether it is WP:LASTING will be only known in due course. The trial has to take place .Hence for now it is keep.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep This is not a random car crash but a unique one. It is still getting enough coverage and this coverage is going to happen for a longer period of time. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 15:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This incident has caused a stir in India like no other car crash has. Deeper themes of the exploitation of the poor by the rich with money (rich kid killed the poor, but almost got away with it by bribing with money) exist, and it also highlights the injustices that India’s current legal/police system allows. Coverage by many major Indian news providers still continues, alongside social media discussions by citizens.JayTea2910 (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and news coverage alone does not demonstrate notability. Come back after the news coverage ends and there are articles explaining how significant the fallout was. Creating articles for events before that happens is irresponsible. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appallingly written, but clearly extremely notable and will continue to be extremely notable in highlighting preferential treatment of the rich in India's justice system. So yes, contrary to claims above it's already very clear that this will have enduring significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. WP:BLPCRIME advises that editors should seriously consider not creating articles about living people accused of a crime, before they have been convicted, as they are presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law. It is too soon to have this article. Allow the judicial process to play out first. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cameron Dewe: Hi. this article isn't a BLP, it is about a car crash and aftermath. The article doesn't even name the accused perp. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Usernamekiran: True, the article is not a BLP but WP:BLPCRIME applies to all articles. The same consideration is set out at WP:PERPETRATOR, too. The article is about a fatal vehicle collision in which two motorcyclist have died. In most countries that makes it a double homicide, which is a crime, not just a "car" crash. Several other people who assisted the perpetrator are named in the article and they are also accused of committing crimes. WP:BLPCRIME applies to them too. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article is obviously biased but the incident has pretty wide coverage across India, and there appears to have been ramifications for social discourse in India about corruption, rule of law and wealth inequality stemming directly from this incident.Cyali (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm all for shaming the rich and powerfully connected, but I'm not sure that has been the consensus since at least 2007. Argue amongst yourselves, but please ping me if there has been a new precedent created by keeping this article. Bearian (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per comments above. Notable and unique event, with masive media coverage. Also create a couple of redirects to the page for wider accessibility. Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• this is an update, and significant coverage in reliable source on the next day of general elections. Signifying that previous coverage was not sensationalism. It has retained sustained coverage. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:33, 5 June 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 Paul's Boutique#Beastie Boys Square. Star Mississippi 14:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beastie Boys Square (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 topic of this article does not meet WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG or WP:GEOFEAT. In short, this is one of many commemorative street names given to locations in New York City. The only coverage is WP:PRIMARYNEWS coverage of the renaming being denied, then approved. A previous attempt to merge the content to Paul's Boutique#Beastie Boys Square (where the content has already existed since September 2023) per WP:NOPAGE was reverted. Epicgenius (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and New York. Epicgenius (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore merge location above, or merge to Beastie Boys. Fair game to mention somewhere, but I'm failing to see why it needs its own stand-alone article when there's so little of substance to say on it. Sergecross73 msg me 10:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep there is quite a lot of coverage on the 10 year journey. There are plenty of articles, probably over 100 plus TV coverage.. it will, be included in books and it is a designated Sq in NYc. Def passes Wikipedia:GNG VeniceBreeze (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see WP:MERGEREASON - even if there's sources, its a valid decision to merge things if the article is short and easily placed in the context of a related article, which perfectly fits in this situation. Sergecross73 msg me 18:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No one looking for info on the square would go to an article about an album. I added several articles from 2014, 2019 and 2021 to show ongoing coverage but, there are thousands more and the article could certainly be improved beyond what would be appropriate for a section under Pauls Boutique. There is coverage on several votes, the guy who lobbied for it, and the tasks they had to accomplish to get it approved. I didnt write a front page article.. its 3 days old.. do what you want but there is 10 years of I n depth coverage.. VeniceBreeze (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The point about "no one looking for info" will be easily met by leaving a redirect from Beastie Boys Square. ColinFine (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Due to WP:REDIRECTs and how they work, people will find it just find it just find in the merge target if they type in the name in the search bar. And if there's "10 years of coverage", then you should use that to write an article with more substance and content. Right now its quite barren. Is there anything else to say other than "they tried a couple times and eventually it happened?". There's not much more than that right now... Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I updated it with some more info but the idea is they have a huge fanbase to contribute.. the article was 3 days old before he tried to delete it without even leaving me a message on my page. VeniceBreeze (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why wouldnt anyone think this is an important site that should have coordinates and a map pin for tourists? VeniceBreeze (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No one is objecting to the inclusion of coordinates or a map. However, when I merged the article, it looked like this.

  I understand you may feel offended that I didn't leave a message on your talk page when I merged the article. I did not delete anything; all of the content in the article, aside from the references, was already in Paul's Boutique#Beastie Boys Square, with some minor wording changes. To be honest, I was looking for reliable sources so the article could be expanded, but all I found were references that parroted what was already in the page, as well as unreliable sources. (This page currently contains four NY Post sources, which are generally not reliable per WP:NYPOST, and an Atlas Obscura geography article, which is not reliable per WP:AOPLACES.) – Epicgenius (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ny post is fine except for politics. Its the oldest and most read paper in ny. If you dont like it, a simple search for beastie boys square before 2020 results in 1000s of hits.[5]https://www.google.com/search?q=beastie+boys+square&sca_esv=cfae4c7047bddcaf&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS945US945&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2013%2Ccd_max%3A2019&sxsrf=ADLYWIIt9UAK34OYWynm8i2jGGNjm9pQxA%3A1716659031135&ei=VyNSZv7xB_7GkPIPmqGEqAo&ved=0ahUKEwi--YCeramGAxV-I0QIHZoQAaUQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=beastie+boys+square&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiE2JlYXN0aWUgYm95cyBzcXVhcmUyBBAjGCcyBBAjGCcyERAuGIAEGJECGMcBGIoFGK8BMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIFEAAYgAQyBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeSO0OUIkDWPwHcAF4AJABAJgBYKABowOqAQE1uAEDyAEA-AEBmAIFoAK5A8ICCxAuGIAEGMcBGK8BmAMAiAYBkgcDNC4xoAftIw&sclient=gws-wiz-serp VeniceBreeze (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I tried to post an external link.. not sure why that all came out. I posted more sources incase the ny post doesnt represent reputable coverage of The Beastie Boys and NYC events. VeniceBreeze (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is not what WP:NYPOST says... Sergecross73 msg me 21:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You seem to be an experienced editor.. why are you purposely being ignorant and obtuse? I said i added additional articles.. LA Times, Variety, Billboard, Rolling Stone.. all prior to the 2020 coverage.. there is plenty for an article and its a tourist attraction. VeniceBreeze (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What does that have to do what I said? You said NY Post was okay to use outside of politics. That's objectively not the current stance. Sergecross73 msg me 23:09, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Does it not say i added billboard, rolling stone, variety,and the LA Times if you werent happy w the NY Post's coverage of the Beastie Boys. All before 2020? VeniceBreeze (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't commenting on everything you said, I was merely singling out a falsehood you stated in your argument. You haven't countered that point at all, so I'll assume you're dropping that aspect of your argument. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please stop trying to provoke me into an argument. You can lawyer all you want but an easy search shows how many articles the nypost is cited in. Also, i feel very threatened and triggered by the messages and attempts to provoke me on my talk page. I would appreciate it if you would keep the conversation here. Im done working on this article.. if 20 years of experience lead you tp these beliefs, fine. I believe in quantum information storage, so if your lying it will be recorded for eternity. Best of luck to everyone.. good bye beastie boys square, no page forever.. thanks to these voters VeniceBreeze (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not trying to provoke you into anything. I corrected your statement on the NYP and notified you of WP:NPA on your talk page since you keep calling me "ignorant" and "obtuse" for not agreeing with you. How you feel threatened by this series of events is beyond baffling to me. Sergecross73 msg me 19:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore merge to Paul's Boutique § Beastie Boys Square, which contains content identical to the article, although missing the Gothamist source. A merge will preserve the visibility of the history and the functionality of inbound links. Folly Mox (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. gidonb (talk) 03:56, 7 June 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 Hull Kingston Rovers players as a viable if not ideal ATD Star Mississippi 01:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Heil (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)

Redirect to List of Hull Kingston Rovers players as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Three professional appearances is not notable, oppose above redirect as he has played for multiple clubs, can't even say he spent the most time at KR. Mn1548 (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Hull Kingston Rovers players as he’s not notable enough on his own. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support of a Redirection or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Hull Kingston Rovers players: Best option for their stylish type of article. May nearly get notability but not now. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:09, 3 June 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 Dorothy Durgin. However I have not deleted it as it isn't clear why the content must go entirely. If I've misread, please ping me. Star Mississippi 14:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hart and Shepard (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:NCORP. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, Christianity, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the Harvard magazine article and Union Leader newspaper article already in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - While Harvard magazine and a single article in the Union Leader may be reliable for use in verifying facts, just those two citations together are insufficient for establishing notability. The two publications would appear to not have the circulation/audience necessary to demonstrate notability beyond a small region or special interest niche. The citations do not show that Hart and Shepard is anything close to a household name. CapnPhantasm (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - anything from that period that is even being discussed today in magazine articles is surely noteworthy. An additional source: the "famous Dorothy cloak" made by Hart and Shepard is held by the Shaker Museum, and is discussed in Beverly Gordon's 1990 research paper "Victorian Fancy Goods: Another Reappraisal of Shaker Material Culture". A different take is provided by Antiques and the Arts ("Smalls Bring Big Prices At Willis Henry Shaker Sale" of 4 December 2007) which notes the high prices fetched by the cloaks. I am certain there are numerous other such sources that credibly establish the importance of this brand, back in its heyday. And "Once notable, always notable". Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of those article provide in-depth information about the *company* (which is the topic we're looking at here), they all discuss the cloak. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dorothy Durgin. An article on the "Dorothy Cloak" or the "Shaker Cloak" would appear to meet GNG as a standalone topic, but a topic on this organization/company fails GNG/WP:NCORP and therefore a Delete is in order. A search on Google Books for "Dorothy Cloak" provides lots of suitable references. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and delete, per HighKing. Fails NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 30 May 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!} 03:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma Beg (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)

So at first glance, this BLP looks legit but upon but digging deeper, I couldn't find any major roles in TV shows or movies as required per WP:ACTOR. Also, when I tried to find more about the subject per WP:BEFORE, I didn't come across enough coverage to meet WP:GNG either. Plus, it's worth noting that this BLP was created back in 2021 by a SPA Sahgalji (talk · contribs) and has been mostly edited by UPEs so there's COI issues as well. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: some of her roles in notable productions seem significant enough, so that she meets WP:NACTOR imv and deletion is not necessary. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mushy Yank, In which shows, if I may ask? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Chupke Chupke, Pyari Mona, Hum Tum.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) (Again, sorry but so many Afds related to Pakistan/TV series, I might not reply here any further, should you, as I expect, not find the sources to your liking for one reason or another or if clarifications are needed; it was already challenging for me to find time to check some of them and !vote).[reply]

It's not a matter of whether I like a source or not. It's obvious that the sources are clearly not reliable, no even for WP:V purpose. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In looking at the original article and the SPA creation & editing of this article, as well as other articles that mention the subject, it is likely this is an autobiography. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I am 100% certain that this is not an autobiography. Even if it were, that is not necessarily a valid deletion rationale. UPE might be an issue though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Inadequate sourcing fails to directly details the BLP subject. The subject is verified but in my opinion (based on applied, presented and found reliable sources), doesn't meet GNG, ANYBIO or NACTOR. BusterD (talk) 22:20, 4 June 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 IRIX. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4Dwm (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 think this fails WP: N. There was a previous nomination in 2021 that failed on the basis that there are mentions of the software in Google Books and Google Scholar. However, these sources are either not independent (published by Silicon Graphics) or are not in-depth (passing mentions in a book chapter or a paper). HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to IRIX: no independent notability. Owen× ☎ 15:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Owen× ☎ 15:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to IRIX per above. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew's Best Hit TV (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:NTV; no sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:45, 30 May 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!} 03:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Likely not notable, the listed reference is the only one I can find that has the same use of systemic vulnerability, others refer to "systemic vulnerability" usually in information technology. Love, Cassie. (Talk to me!) 14:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Love, Cassie. (Talk to me!) 14:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I found this [6]. Maybe it helps? Conyo14 (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Relying on a single source is the very definition of original research, for which we have never been the appropriate forum. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Bolze (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)

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing GNG in SA newspapers. JoelleJay (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiaan Dorfling (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)

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only seeing namedrops in player lists, no GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:23, 2 June 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!} 05:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe van der Hoogt (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)

Rugby BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. I can't also find a possible redirect. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:07, 31 May 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 Motijheel Thana. Malinaccier (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamalapur (neighbourhood) (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)

Reviewed during NPP. Does not meet wp:notability. A neighborhood in the city of Dhaka. Clearly does not have presumed wp:notability under the SNG per the criteria there which leaves GNG. The only source is a blog and even that just gives it a one word mention. So no sourcing much less the required GNG sources. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 22:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Kamal Siddiqui et al.'s 2010 Social Formation in Dhaka, 1985-2005: A Longitudinal Study of Society in a Third World Megacity ISBN 978-1-4094-1103-1 contains half a page about the concentration of the city's Buddhists in Kamalapur and the adjacent Basabo neighborhood, describing the related viharas, pagodas, and schools there. Other than that, sources of any depth focus on Kamalapur railway station, about which we already have an article. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Motijheel Thana, of which Kamalapur is the easternmost slice, until sufficient in-depth reliable sources are written about the neighborhood to justify a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as suggested to Motijheel Thana. Right now, there is a single source in the article, which constitutes WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 15:21, 4 June 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Op:l Bastards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable band. SL93 (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Finland. SL93 (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to Bio in Allmusic. Album review in NME, review in Allmusic, review in Sonic Seducer, review in Visions (which has a printed magazine). Small news piece in Billboard magazine. Single review in NME, another in Music & Media, another in Sonic Seducer. Review in an outlet I'm not familiar with. That's a start without even looking into Finnish media Geschichte (talk) 08:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:MUSICBIO. In addition to sources identified above by Geschichte, the band has had a single and an album in the Finnish national chart - see link, the citation of which has also been added to article. ResonantDis_tortion 12:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Jamal Al-Omar (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)

Was speedy deleted but immediately re-created; sourcing is largely promotional or non-RS. I don't find any additional information we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's substantially identical to the version that was speedily deleted, this could just be speedied under WP:G4. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely false, never mind. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promotional vanity page. All refs appear to either not be independent or reliable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your feedback. We understand your desire to see this article on Wikipedia.

  Updated Reliable Sources: We've incorporated, reliable sources to support the information in the article. These sources should meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources, such as published news articles, or independent biographies.

  Notability: We understand Omar Jamal Al-Omar is a well-known businessman in Kuwait City. To ensure the article's inclusion, Wikipedia requires evidence of this notability through significant coverage in reliable sources beyond just press releases. Khushboojain191 (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Who is "we"? If you are working on behalf of an individual, you must declare a conflict of interest. Oaktree b (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're absolutely right. I apologize for using 'we' in a way that could be misconstrued. Since We represent Mr. Omar Jamal Al-Omar as his social media team, we have a conflict of interest in editing his Wikipedia article directly. please gudie us to how can we declare a conflict of interest. Khushboojain191 (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time they have referred to themselves as "we" and in a tone indicating that they represent the subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're using an AI to write this. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. It also matches the writing style of the PR branch of the subject's company, which usually indicates that the claims made in the article and refs are likely not even accurate. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. A close match between the article's style and the subject's PR materials can raise concerns about neutrality, regardless of who wrote it. Khushboojain191 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are not using the AI to write up. Khushboojain191 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Khushboojain191 has now been blocked after admitting to being a shared account for use by the subject's PR Team. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is that a reason to speedy the article? Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A CSD was already declined, so deletion via AfD is probably the best option. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I see nothing outside of promotional links; when the PR team (as "we") comes out to play, that's generally a red flag here, that the article isn't notable. I don't see any RS in the current list, nor do I find any. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and WP:SALT. This is an obvious case of WP:NOTRESUME; all of the sources are PR type websites, none are reliable. In 2024, everyone knows, or should well know, that Wikipedia is a private charity, not a place for cyber-squatting. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 4 June 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of suicides in fiction (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)

Indiscriminate list full of unsourced original research. The few sources don't concern the subject matter at large, but specific pieces of fiction listed. Zanahary (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A completely indiscriminate, poorly sourced, example farm. Actual prose information on the topic of depictions of suicide in fiction could very likely be developed, either under the "Social and Culture" section of the main Suicide article or even potentially as its own article. But this list would not be useful at all in that endeavor since, as pointed out in the nomination, it does not actually include any sources on that topic, just a handful of specific examples, mainly just sourced to the pieces of fiction they are from. Rorshacma (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rorshacma. The topic is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, besides being badly sourced. The subject of this article cannot practically built or maintained in a way that meets our policies. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is a gigantic collection of indiscriminate information that could easily include a significant portion of every single fictional work ever created. Furthermore, the vast majority of it is completely uncited. It is simply impossible to maintain this type of list. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Odd and seemingly random, it's totally unencyclopedic and poorly sourced. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:51, 2 June 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. Malinaccier (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eric K. Little (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 tagged this for speedy deletion as an attack page, which was declined. Nevertheless it is not evident to me that the subject is really notable, and the purpose of the article appears to me to be to memorialise his misconduct. Mccapra (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Mccapra (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sexual assault in the United States military: Seems to be the logical redirect, there is some coverage [7], but it's more about the scandal than the person here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG. A US Major general removed due to sexism is significant. Mztourist (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This article was added with the intent that it demonstrates the issues that have come with US military confronting systemic issues that are prevalent within their ranks. Skuzbucket (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the article creator for this explanation. Please see WP:RGW. We don’t create biographies of living people to highlight broader issues. An article on the broader issue would be absolutely fine, but personalising it isn’t what we’re here for. Mccapra (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly satisfies WP:GNG. Not just an attack page, as he is a general and therefore plenty has been written about him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep US generals are not inherently notable, and this comes close to notability for a single event, but coverage like this [8] and, to a lesser extent, these [9][10] reinforces that he was likely marginally notable before his firing. The article is far from an attack page and does a good job of maintaining NPOV. Toadspike [Talk] 09:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. Malinaccier (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Another in a questionable series of articles created by this user on African businessmen and companies. Sources in this one are all WP:TRADES, WP:INTERVIEWS, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS,WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, or links to data aggregators and mass awards that don't confer notability in and of themselves. No WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. Nice resume (and the article reads like one), but not notable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable business person, most coverage is what seem like non-RS, but I can't confirm which are or aren't. Happy to revisit if others can confirm the quality of the sources. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Zimbabwe, Singapore, France, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, I would like to take my time and re-write it. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator I would alternatively support draftification, but since another editor has !voted to delete, we now need to let the discussion proceed. (I can't do a non-admin closure in this instance.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in computer science (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)

Inherently original research/synthesis. Previously survived AfD in 2006 when those policies weren't enforced I guess. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bibliographies, History, Science, Computing, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Without clearly defined criteria for what "important" means, this article is as OR as it gets. The three criteria listed are subjective and (more damningly) unsourced. Only reference 11 approaches a treatment of this subject as a whole, and it's based on an informal survey conducted by somebody at Penn who made the results into a personal webpage. That's pretty weak. Other sources are all primary and don't discuss the topic of the list as a group, so this is a failure of WP:NLIST and grossly OR. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very much a violation of WP:OR to create a topic this way. Even with that aside, you'll often get some listing somewhere (course material, reviews in annals, etc.) describing seminal papers that may be required or important reading for those purusing advanced degrees in a specific field. That generally would not satisfy WP:NLIST and at most would just be a secondary source in the main article (in this case computer science) at best. This isn't a useful redirect either, so this comes across as a pretty unequivocal case for deletion. KoA (talk) 15:02, 6 June 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. Malinaccier (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on CBC commentators (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:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY and announcments, not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on NBC commentators SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Canada. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Olympics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I found only this so far [11]. So, maybe more exist? Otherwise it's WP:LISTCRUFT mixed with WP:OR. Conyo14 (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That source appears to be from the CBC, and as such isn't independent. I can't find much else so far. Let'srun (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article should as a secondary option, be merged with the main CBC Olympic broadcasts article. Otherwise, a lot of great effort has hopefully recently been made to provide better context and information (there are now, about 60 references that have been added) behind the extensive history of CBC's Olympic Games coverage in Canada dating back to the early 1960s and to make it less "bare bones" looking. Here's some additional information on CBC's Olympic telecasts of recent times: Steve Armitage retires after 50-plus years calling Olympics and more for CBC, Famed CBC announcer Steve Armitage will miss Rio Olympics over heart problems, CBC’s Devin Heroux shares how he won’t be going to Beijing after December positive COVID test, illustrating wider media concerns, With Canada’s women’s curling team eliminated from Olympic medal contention, Canadian Twitter is upset…at the CBC’s Colleen Jones?, Support pours in for CBC’s Elliotte Friedman, who’s still hard on himself, VIDEO: CBC announcer mixes up Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte during 200 IM Final, CBC hot mic catches swimming analyst saying 14-year-old “died like a pig”. Also from the CBC Media Centre, CBC'S TOKYO 2020 BROADCAST TEAM, CBC'S OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES BEIJING 2022 .... A "full" list of CBC's television personalities can be found here. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Checked the sources; the first three sources are about the announcers, the one about Canada’s women’s curling team (source 4) are about the team, the other three about the games itself and the last two are WP:PRIMARY. Anything supporting this list is doing nothing for it. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Concur with this analysis. Let'srun (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep copy/paste rationale, no evidence of a WP:BEFORE check. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Before you accuse me of a copy/paste rationale, I have made a WP:BEFORE check. I already debunked the new sources above. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 62 sources have been added since nomination. WP:HEYMAN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This does not meet the WP:LISTN as the group isn't discussed in non-primary sources or really any RS whatsoever. The sources are either YouTube links, press releases, blogs, or are from the CBC. Another example of WP:REFBOMBING. Let'srun (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 30 May 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 00:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Ludwig of Wettin (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 not convinced this person exists. Louis Frederick of Saxe-Hildburghausen is listed as his father, but that article says he was childless. He is listed as being made a cardinal but none of the lists of cardinals created between 1741 and 1830 list his name. He is listed as an archbishop of Olomouc but List of Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops of Olomouc does not mention him or have any gaps during his lifetime. The German Wikipedia article that text is apparently copied from is about a different person. I cannot find him mentioned in the online copies of either of the article's references. Various Google / online book searches only turn up text from this article and unrelated princes called Ludwig. Mgp28 (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Royalty and nobility, and Religion. Mgp28 (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a misreading of sources or a hoax. Mccapra (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Austria, and Czech Republic. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No citations. Contradicts other articles that say his supposed father was childless. Probable hoax. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability. And the contradiction with other articles is not really helping. Keivan.f^Talk 13:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. Article creator only made 4 mainspace edits. C679 06:53, 1 June 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 14:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live with Moeed Pirzada (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 GNG. Page relies mostly on what I safely can call [unreliable sources]. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 22:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. 86.130.244.141 (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WNCE-CD (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) 20:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:46, 30 May 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!} 18:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. The 2 sources provided are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Ethiopia, Cambodia, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly not notable. If there were more sources then it would've been fine. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 15:15, 31 May 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!} 18:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Henri Boshoff (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 unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. JTtheOG (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG. No suitable redirect (no list for Zimbabwean internationals currently exits) per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:04, 1 June 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!} 18:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hein Potgieter (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 unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Could only really find this. More needed for a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:03, 1 June 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!} 18:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Beerwinkel (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 unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found three sentences of coverage here. JTtheOG (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lots of team announcements etc, but struggling to see anything else to suggest a WP:GNG pass. No suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: He helped people or did something which leads to an award isn't notability. Though there are WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, they don't independently and significantly cover him. However, there is still clue for notability maybe in the future. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:16, 3 June 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!} 17:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Memento Exclusives (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:COI article moved to mainspace, skipped AfC in contravention of policy. Paid editor created an article for this company and its founder, who is also up at AfD. In the case of Memento Exclusives/Memento Group, the sourcing does not support notability under WP:NCORP. Despite being a WP:REFBOMB, sources are almost exclusively WP:PRIMARYSOURCES like press releases, WP:INTERVIEWS or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Other coverage is limited to WP:TRADES publications, which do not contribute to notability for companies. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPROMO, and without sufficient WP:SIRS, this article doesn't clear the bar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Motorsport, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with the nom. All the independent coverage is not WP:SIGCOV and all the WP:SIGCOV coverage is not independent. Article moved to mainspace in clear contravention of WP:AFC rules for WP:PAID editors. No real claim to notability. Surprising to see an established editor with 4000+ edits and with apparent affiliation with Wikimedia act with such brazen disregard with settled policy. Melmann 19:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest delete - "independent" coverage is limited to brief passing mentions ("X teamed up with subject to do Y", focusing on X and Y and not subject, with the sources often being closely related to X in the first place). Possibly worth reporting to WP:ANI due to being a paid article made in obvious violation of relevant policy. I do have to wonder what this "research" is that the user is undertaking that would cause such atrocious paid content to appear in mainspace. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – As above. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Oh I wanted to AFD this but thanks I saw this after voting from the founders page. A promotional WP:PE and doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:41, 3 June 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!} 17:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Gough (businessman) (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:COI article moved to mainspace and skipped AfC in contravention of policy. Paid editor created an article for this businessman and his company, Memento Exclusives, which will also be sent to AfD shortly. In the case of Barry Gough, the sourcing does not support notability under WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Sources are almost exclusively WP:PRIMARYSOURCE or WP:TRIVIALMENTION. For example, the Mirror piece solely interviews the subject, and the Times article is an as-told-to WP:INTERVIEW. Other sources, in-article and in BEFORE search, are similar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Motorsport, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest delete - Rich guy paid a few outlets to interview him, then paid a Wikipedia editor to compile those interviews. Barely ambiguous enough that G11 probably wouldn't work, but barely. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Paid articles don't establish notability. Azuredivay (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: PR published source and unreliable sources. The company doesn't meet WP:ORGCRIT. In TOTAL, a promotional article that doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:39, 3 June 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!} 17:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notcoin (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, fails WP:NCRYPTO as it has no real coverage outside of crypto-centric news orgs. – Hilst [talk] 16:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. – Hilst [talk] 16:15, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Huh. I guess A7 doesn't cover crypto stuff. E: Oh well, may as well pile on another delete, I really think crypto stuff should be included in A7. Maybe I should start a discussion on getting it added. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC) (E: 14:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete. Concur with nominator as failing WP:NCRYPTO without independent source interest. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NCRYPTO. Not notable, one sentence of content, and an orphan. The page creator also seemed to have foreseen this outcome in the edit summary for its creation here, justifying the article's existence using wishful thinking. Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 18:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: if not A1. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 00:55, 3 June 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 under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Lack of notability. I got fed up with looking at the references; as the identical titles suggest all thosse I looked at were mirrors of the same content. Which is spam flavoured, and is not about the subject of this article. TheLongTone (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheLongTone, thanks for raising this. You're right that press releases often share similar titles, and that can be frustrating when searching for references.

However, in this case, the references we have come from credible sources. For instance, the OJO Group website lists Omar Jamal Al-Omar as their Chairman and details his role within the company. URL: https://ojogroup.net/chairman-message.

Additionally, the University of Notre Dame's Kroc Institute website showcases Omar's work as their Program Coordinator for the Peace Accords Matrix.

While the titles might be similar, the content itself should provide distinct information about Omar's accomplishments and experience.

If you'd like some help evaluating the references or finding additional ones, feel free to ask! We can work together to ensure this Wikipedia article is well-sourced and informative. Khushboojain191 (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 15:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are no sources present which can be considered reliable, third-party sources to support notability, because literally every source here is a press release. Although some of the venues that opted to publish these press releases may produce their own content and have that content deemed reliable, press releases never establish notability. Lubal (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete under WP:A7 and WP:G11. No independent refs and horrifically promotional. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Mathematics (album). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Energy (Melissa Manchester song) (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. Dug through everything including WP:LIBRARY and only found passing mentions. 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:50, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom, no significant coverage in reliable sources and fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSINGLE. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mathematics (album); absolutely nothing to suggest that this song meets notability criteria.TheLongTone (talk)
• Redirect - agree with User:TheLongTone Free Realist 9 (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mathematics (album) - It was released as a single and someone else did a cover version, but neither of those rose beyond fan trivia. The fact that it was released as a single can be described at the album article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:24, 4 June 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) Let'srun (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul (scientist) (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)

Unnotable individual fails to satisfy the general notability guidelines see WP:SIGCOV. Most of the existing sources are unreliable and not independent of the subject. The individual also has no significant coverage. N niyaz (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Scotland. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 15:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – After being appointed to a personal chair, Paul was appointed director of a cancer institute and then during his tenure the research capability was transformed with the Beatson becoming an internationally acclaimed organisation. He was awarded an honorary Dsc. The obituary published in the Independent included that "During his most productive years his publications were among the 1,000 most-cited scientific papers in the world". Clearly meets WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- a hint: when someone gets an obituary in the top journal of their field, they have made a significant impact on their field. Also with an obituary in The Independent, etc. speedy keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In addition to the above he passes WP:AUTHOR through multiple published reviews of multiple books. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, supporting/agreeing with the comments above. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:04, 4 June 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 14:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, biographical coverage in independent sources is absent. Cited sources largely just describe FreemiumPlay, a business the subject founded, which might be notable; if an article can be created for that subject, it would make sense to redirect there, but until then I don't see a basis for a page at this title. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTRESUME. I don't know who wrote this, but the use of bare links to his own website(s) and a head shot are red flags. In 2024, everyone knows, or should know, that we are not your free web host. WP:SALT. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Ireland Historical 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)

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE. Sources cited in the article are all primary. Searching on Google Scholar and Google Books, I was able to find mentions of the COIHS in citations and acknowledgements, but no significant independent coverage. Searching online, I was able to find some concerning, scandalous, coverage that still appears to fall short of the ORGCRITE line: two letters to the editor in The Independent ([12], [13]) alleging that the COIHS played a key role in covering up a child sex abuse scandal in the Irish church, and two articles in The Phoenix making the same assertion in passing ([14], [15]). I was able to find exactly one likely (but paywalled) example of significant coverage in an independent RS ([16]) reporting on the same allegations, although even if we assume the absolute best of this source, we fall short of ORGCRITE's requirement of multiple such sources. I tried to look for potential merge targets on Wikipedia but didn't find anything promising. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, Christianity, and Ireland. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator source analysis. I also tried to identify a redirect, but the organization appears independent from the Church of Ireland and I couldn't identify another option superior to deletion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My own WP:BEFORE returns the same coverage/mentions that the nominator identified in their own. Namely things like ROTM announcements in the Irish Times and mentions in letters to the editor in the Irish Independent. Or this in The Phoenix. A search in RTÉ returns only a single similar/fleeting passing mention. The only substantial coverage I can find is the same article (titled "Historical society accused of 'rewriting' its own past" and subtitled "Church of Ireland Historical Society removes references to founder following accusations of child sexual abuse") noted by the nom. Which, on its own, doesn't establish independent notability of the org. I also can't conceive of target for a redirect. Or other WP:ATD. Guliolopez (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, regretfully, since my paternal grandmother was a member of the CoI. There's just not enough sourcing. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 4 June 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) Let'srun (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling Bowling Bowling Parking Parking (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 many reliable sources out there. Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 14:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, meets criterion 2 of WP:NALBUMS as it charted in Japan. Plus I added another reference. J04n(talk page) 15:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the Japanese chart source is dispositive. Also discussed in reliable sources from BEFORE search: Rock Extreme and DiPerna. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stnh1206 (talk) 04:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Energy Water (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:CORP, sourced only by press releases, and in a WP:BEFORE search all I could find was even more press releases. They've worked with some notable companies, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. No indication of notability for any of the awards they've won. Spammy tone can be fixed, but notability issue will remain, so I can't really be asked to clean this up. Wikishovel (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and California. Wikishovel (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I honestly don't think the tone can be fixed here without effectively starting from scratch. Blow it up. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can't find independent significant sources. Most are press releases. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Hkkingg (talk) 22:58, 1 June 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) Let'srun (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, essentially no coverage in secondary sources. The cited secondary coverage in the article is primarily about an incident where Katkore was treated by a field medic during an international friendly match ([17]), and goes further to establish the notability of the medic than of Katkore. I was unable to find any additional coverage searching for variations of his French name as well as his Arabic name (بوريما كاتاكوري ), as well as the alt-spelling "Katakore" (which turns up some additional mere mentions in rosters, but nothing GNG-worthy). Somewhat confusingly, Arabic sources (including the prior Al-Jazeera link) appear to prefer referring to the subject as Katkore-Boureima, rather than Boureima-Katkore, and often omit his first name; searching for these permutations in Arabic and French did not turn up any significant coverage, however. There also appears to be an unrelated Algerian player named Boureima Katkore ([18]) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Africa, and Saudi Arabia. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep—Obviously a fixture on the Niger national football team with 48 caps over the course of a decade. This should easily stand in for a lack of WP:SIGCOV, especially given that he is from an area that is well within the limits of WP:BIAS and plays in a league that does not garner much genuine media coverage. There must be some reasonable measure of significance based on senior international appearances, regardless of nation or league, and 48 caps for a national team that does not play a heavy yearly schedule should easily fall within that measure. This player is clearly very important to Nigerien football and the country's national team. Anwegmann (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears as though he actually has 59 caps for Niger, making him the third most-capped player in Niger national football team history. And according to this article, he is also the captain of the Niger national team. Anwegmann (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Anwegmann, there are clearly sources out there and he has a significant claim to notability. GiantSnowman 16:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He actually has 55 caps [19], the problem with Africa, it really doesn't have the same media coverage like America and Europe. So that can be a problem, but with the amount of top football he has played. There must be more on him, that what is online. I am going to have to put my faith for WP:OFFLINESOURCES here. Hoping there is more. Govvy (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The player spent time in Lebanon. I'm therefore pinging @Nehme1499, not to sway the !vote, but to attempt to find constructive sources. Geschichte (talk) 07:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The sources in the article is good enough to establish notability. Aside that, WP:ANYBIO is sufficient for a entry. Per such an article, more sources exists. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG--other than publications affiliated with his team, Lechia Gdansk, there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage of Brzęk available, with several pages of Polish search results containing only very brief mentions in match reports. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Poland. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify—Appears to be a clear example of WP:TOOSOON. He's a young player who has made a handful of meaningful but inconsistent appearances for a senior professional team (that is now in the Polish first division again). He definitely only starting out. Anwegmann (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. GiantSnowman 16:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Constantine Zaccaria-Damalà (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 assertion of WP:NBIO for a living person. The article is largely a very dubious exercise in claiming titles defunct since the Middle Ages. Main 'scholarly' source is an article at the Social Science Research Network that does not appear to have been published in academic journals and thus not subject to peer review. Constantine ✍ 13:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As noted, the only substantive source here is effectively self-published. Nor does there appear to have been any interest in reliable sources of the holders in pretense to a title that has been irrelevant since the mid-15th century. Lubal (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Respectfully, why do you view this as dubious? There are many articles, of various descendants, of various Houses on WP. This is no different, and as a researcher of this particular area of history, Frankokratia and the Principality of Achaea, it absolutely seemed appropriate for there to be an article created, especially after seeing that a recent case study was written about the topic. As to your other points, a good portion of the paper discusses the claims of the extinct Italian Tocco family until 1933, with the death of its last claimant, less than one hundred years ago, so this is not something that hasn't been thought about since the middle ages as you said but it has been present almost until WWII. The case study that you mentioned was in fact picked up by the "Legal History eJournal," curated by a known professor at Yale University, Reva Siegel of the Law School. I would not have used this source if it appeared that a trusted expert had not laid eyes on it as I fully know and understand the rules of WP.

Thanks. Eugene de Moree (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC) — Eugene de Moree (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The article itself is about a non-notable person, whose biographical details occupy a handful of lines and are nothing extraordinary. Most of the content is about the titles, rather than their current presumed holder. This might be OK for a blog article, not an encyclopedia. On the various articles about various descendants of nobility, yes, they exist, but then the descendants are notable, or at least the titles are notable; the pretender to the throne of France is of a different order of notability than the Damalades. Wikipedia also has deleted articles for nobles who did not satisfy criteria for notability, even from royal houses, cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Odysseas-Kimon of Greece and Denmark. The most important problem with the rest of the article is that it makes unsupported claims. Assuming the lineage is correct (which is always a big if with genealogy, especially the Zaccaria-Damalas connection, I have had quite a few battles over this over at the Damalas talk page), at one point one of his ancestors had the title 'King and Despot of Asia Minor', which was a one-off symbolic award without any real substance, as Asia Minor was lost to the Turks at the time. The article makes the casual reader think that this title had substance, through the entirely erroneous and unsupported assertion that Martino did control a sizable portion of the defined boundaries of this Kingdom, he did not control it in its entirety...reclaim the said territories, which is patently false as soon as you look upon a map and compare Chios, Phocaea, and Smyrna to the rest of Asia Minor. Furthermore, I am not aware of any Damalas-Zaccaria claim to the title of Prince of Achaea, in contrast to the well attested Tocco claim. Whether the Tocco had the right or not, they laid claim; the Damalades, who for most of the period were an obscure Chiot family, did not. The article suggests that these titles are claimed by 'Prince Constantine' by virtue of descent, but whether he knows or is interested in such a claim is uncertain; the phrasing of the article is almost teleological, but thin on evidence on that matter. It is not for Wikipedia's users to award him these titles because of Salic (or any other) law, or making judgments based on the observed dynastic succession. This is the essence of WP:NOR. If this person makes these claims and if these are recognized by independent authorities (i.e., not someone who was paid for the job), and if this claim, or any other of his actions, attract notability sufficient to satisfy our criteria, then he is to be included here. Constantine ✍ 15:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how being heir to the patrimony of this historic family is not noteworthy in its own right. Not to mention the close relations to the last members of the Byzantine imperial family through blood and marriage. As a historian, I would absolutely say that this is worth people being able to read about. Perhaps make some corrections, sure, but this should be out there, and this is why I created the page after finding the very valuable case study. I do think that you may have some misunderstanding on what I wrote about Martino though, because the Lordship of Chios (which I linked in the text) was more than Chios and Phocaea. So I am not sure how one could think that I was being misleading. Martino's kingly title was titular in nature, yes, but a high hereditary  honour nonetheless. Actually, the fact that it was not attached to an actual fief means that it's transmission to descendants is cleaner than that of other royal titles that were attached to territories that are now lost. It is one of the very few instances in history where the title of king has been given as a titular honour, and therefore would legally remain fully intact today. Just these few things are notable. Lastly, the case study plainly states that Constantine knows about his patrimonial inheritance. It also says the strict method of ascertaining the proven  genealogical connection. The fact that you thought otherwise leads me to believe that you did not fully read the study. Eugene de Moree (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, all the information about Constantine Zaccaria Damala is taken from "Achaean Disputes: Eight Centuries of Succession Conflicts for the Title of Prince of Achaea". “The handful of lines” is because I am not in a position to know further insights about this person apart from what is already written in this particular article. Also, personal information can be found in the new publication of the Annuario, on the page discussing the history of house Zaccaria-Damalas, and was sent to me through mail. The Annuario does not approve nobility status without a rigid reflection first. Obviously, the British Royal family members have a greater degree of notability than each member of the house Zaccaria-Damala. Still, this article is about the Head of the House, not a brother, sister, cousin, or a distant relative and certainly, this is NOT the first case of a noble in WP with only a handful of information to adorn his/her page. The few insights provided (parents, wife, place, date of birth) do not mean this person doesn’t exist.

Martino indeed controlled Chios, Phocaea, and half of the city of Smyrna for some time, the titular imperial couple of the Latin Empire recognized this sovereignty. The diploma was granted in 1324 and Martino lost Chios in 1329, certainly, the Kingdom that Emperor Philip and Empress Catherine envisioned and for which they even crafted a crown and appropriate regalia was one where Chios, etc were included. This is why I linked the page Lordship of Chios to the chapter of the article. If you read the diploma -I linked it to the page references- you shall see that the imperial Latin couple of Naples are especially specific on what they offer to Martino and that this is very true and not a vague idea.

The article makes it clear that after the mid-15th century, the Zaccaria-Damalas family did not openly claim the title of the Prince of Achaea, and the title was monopolized by house Tocco (where in the article I mention that the post-1469 Zaccarias held the title?), though it concludes that with the extinction of the Tocco line in 1933, the senior descendant of house Damalas (for reasons analyzed in detail by the author) can rightfully claim the title now that is vacant for decades.

“not someone who was paid for the job”

These accusations are concerning and it is more useful to be avoided as they are potentially directed against an academic of Yale University and a researcher for whom we know nothing in order to insult them this way and are not present in the undergoing discussions to support their thesis. Eugene de Moree (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The study is interesting, but it is not WP:RS as it has not undergone peer review. I have perused it, and though it states that Constantine Paul Damalas is interested and took steps to verify his descent and lineage, that's about it. The very abstract of the study is clear IMO: "This study delves into the intricate succession landscape surrounding the medieval title of Prince of Achaea...its theoretical rehabilitation in favor of the Damalas descendants of the Zaccaria Princes of Achaea", and this is reinforced later on "since the current claim that is available to Constantine Paul Damalas" (p. 98). I.e., this study is an examination of descent and possible claims under a legal perspective, and nothing more. The assignation of these titles as is done in the article is yet to be established.

Plus, as I have stated in a different discussion we had, this cannot be seriously considered a WP:RS without the actual study to examine and verify. My reference to being paid for something is exactly on this, as the study was clearly commissioned by someone, and not undertaken in the interests of scholarly research (MyHeritage is not an academic institution, but a fee-based service). Taking an uncharitable view, this is no different than all the medieval upstart monarchs who paid some scholar to 'discover' links to the ancient Greeks, Romans, or Jews. As a lot of the argument hinges on this study, color me unconvinced. But the veracity or not of the claim is indeed somewhat beside the point: the article simply does not establish notability of the subject per WP:NBASIC. Constantine ✍ 18:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree on upstart monarchs conducting fraudulent discoveries, still Annuario della Nobiltà holds some very strict requirements on accepting new houses to be included on its pages and there's no way to grant nobility status without extensive research. As there is a scientific committee conducting independent research. The paper of Stornaiolo Silva cites Annuario and makes it clear that the aristocratic status of Constantine Zaccaria-Damalà has been approved. The Annuario would thoroughly examine her work and would not publish it if she could not provide the extensive proof that they require. The MyHeritage chart seems like a simplification of her research to help the reader have all the genealogical information in one file.

I think there is even a small degree of notability through Annuario and "Achaean Disputes: Eight Centuries of Succession Conflicts for the Title of Prince of Achaea" and the little information available is not against the encyclopedic character of Wikipedia. Especially when we are dealing with members of old dynasties lost in history, usually, we have scarce information known, but that doesn't stop many editors from actually establishing a small article about them with four or five lines.

The paper states clearly that Constantine Zaccaria-Damalà is actively pursuing the princely title since 2023. Eugene de Moree (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Annuario della Nobiltà still hasn't published the newest version that is referenced in the article though, so verification remains an issue... And again, the veracity of descent is one thing, the active pursuit of the nobiliary claim another, and notability a third. The deletion request is based on notability, not of the family or the title, but of the holder. Even complete frauds like Peter Mills or Eugenio Lascorz have some wider presence in scholarly literature, which attests to their notability. Here we have no information other than this person exists, and that from a non-RS. Constantine ✍ 20:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern regarding proof of inclusion in the Annuario. For the same reason, I reached out to the author of the case study to see proof of this when writing this article. He produced this proof in the form of a PDF, which is an extract from the Annuario's database and is exactly how the pages will appear in the next edition. I received this as well as an email where the editor confirmed the successful review of all documentation and approval for publication. I can readily provide the same proof that was provided to me.

As I mentioned in several other comments, being the head/senior heir of this lineage is historically notable in itself. There are many examples on WP where this is sufficient to demonstrate notability, but a few examples would be: "Princess Vittoria of Savoy", "Prince Jaime, Duke of Noto", and "Joachim, Prince of Pontecorvo." All of these either have little biographical information, nothing truly noteworthy besides the noble lineage that they come from, or both. Furthermore, none are heads of their respective Houses either, unlike Constantine.There are many, many more on WP, and if really necessary, I will share more. I should hope that this is strong enough reasoning to conclude that notability shouldn't be an issue here, and the only way that it could be would be to pick favorites. We should be encouraging the coverage of all history, not only the mainstream and I know that you agree with that.

It would be one thing if this person had some ridiculous imaginary Order of Knighthood or was granting bogus titles, but as explicitly mentioned in the case study, he nor his family have ever done anything of the sort nor they claim to be "the last Palaiologoi alive" and I found that refreshing and worthy of recording/highlighting their respectable patrimony for others to read.

The thing is, an argument for his notability would have been more legitimate if he had "granted bogus titles", because then there would be press about his actions. The fact of the matter is he has not done anything worthy of note, especially in regard to this noble family that he is supposedly the head of. It doesn't matter if you find it "refreshing" and "worthy of recording".. it hasn't been "recorded" by legitimate independent sources. He is not notable. Virtue is not a credential for establishing notability. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that I will agree with you on, is that there needs to be an explicit mention that Constantine claims his hereditary inheritance. It is clear from the study that he is interested, but it doesn't explicitly state that he is claiming it. I don't think this is a reason to delete the article, but it is reason enough to reword it to reflect this current understanding.

Actually in the article one can find much more information about this case, that I did not added at the current WP article, but now that I rethink of it, I should have. These will boost the notability of this person as they include information that prove that this "Achaean case" is too singular to be ignored. Eugene de Moree (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that could establish notability of this person would be reliable, independent sources. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of any kind of notability.TheLongTone (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As someone interested in late Frankokratia, I welcomed the addition of previously unknown information on the topic. Just as with other defunct countries, if there are heirs living to this day, then it is definitely notable and this page should ex as the articles of other heirs doist. Also, I would like to add that perhaps editors responding here should take the time to read the entire case study as I have done, since all the points against this article are not accurate or true. This reis is longer than the time it took some to reply here. Alfor tome to so say that there is no notability of any kind is absurd, and likely anti-monarchist biaOtherwise, one would have to delete all pages on the topic of heirs. s. Laurelius (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC) — Laurelius (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I can assure you I have no "anti-monarchist bias" as I have created hundreds of articles on royal and noble persons. But I see no notability established within this article. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I was not referring to you, but the user that only wrote that it was not notable. Thank you for pointing that out to me. Laurelius (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet WP:GNG. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The article has been included in the Yale ejournal and has been curated by an academic of the university. I contacted the author of the article before establishing the page and he mailed me that this article is going to be published as a book in the near future with a greater decree of information available about the topic. He mentioned that the publisher is an active one in the academic field. By what I understood, the book will be concluded in the next months. Eugene de Moree (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Things may change in the future. But right now, "Achaean Disputes: Eight Centuries of Succession Conflicts for the Title of Prince of Achaea" appears to be only on SSRN, which is considered a self-published source here (it's a pre-print archive with no peer review), and as far as I can tell, no edition of Annuario della Nobiltà supporting this article's claims has actually been published yet. If that comes out, and "Achaean Disputes" gets publication in a book with reliable editorial oversight, it may be appropriate to revisit this. Also, keep in mind that "notable" is a term of art at Wikipedia; just because something is "not notable" in Wikipedia's sense doesn't mean it isn't interesting or even important, just that it does not satisfy the requirements for inclusion. Lubal (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is certainly not self published https://www.ssrn.com/link/legal-history.html, the professor reviewed and agreed that it was worthy of posting in her eJournal at Yale. Also Annuario is going to be published this November and its content is most likely finished thus it's hard to imagine that an author whose working with Yale University would use references from the Annuario without having access to the text. Also the genealogical research of Ms Souli has been approved by the committee of Annuario as they informed me.

  I understand your concerns and I share some of them. My proposal is for the article to remain but it must be heavily edited as its current form is problematic. More personal nformation about Constantine Zaccaria Damalà should be added (taken from the "Achaean Disputes, one can find more there) while the passages discussing the titles of this person should be reduced.

  If in the next months the research of Stornaiolo Silva is not published as a book with academic editorial oversight and the publication of Annuario makes no mention of the protagonist of this case, then I will nominate it for deletion myself. Eugene de Moree (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion nomination discussion is happening now, because sources do not exist. If sources are created after the deletion, then you could re-write the article. But as it stands now, this subject is not notable in any way. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I concur with some of the previous voters. Self-published sources cannot be used to establish notability, no matter where they are published. Keivan.f^Talk 13:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - scion of a country that hasn't existed for hundreds of years is not the allegation of notability that a few folks think it is. Otherwise, hundreds of people would be notable. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How many people do you know are senior agnates/legal heirs to any former sovereign state? Even if there were hundreds, compared to over eight billion people, that's rather notable. It is one thing to argue that it doesn't meet WP guidelines, sure, but let's not be ridiculous. Royal and even noble families routinely die out in the legitimate male line, and that is the rule, not the exception. When there are extant families, the only relevant person is the senior heir if we're being honest with ourselves. Sorry to be so blunt, but some of the comments need stay in reality instead of becoming emboldened by the scales of opinion here. Laurelius (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, Wikipedia's guidelines on notability are not established by who we do or don't know. If he were notable, he would have been written about. No one here is sharing personal opinions on the matter.. we are simply reminding you of Wikipedia policy and guidelines for articles. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Totally understood, this is about WP guidelines. I think the disconnect here is that WP's idea for notable is not the same as in reality/everyday life. The actual definition of notable is: "worthy of attention or notice; remarkable," and the definition of remarkable is: "worthy of attention; striking." If you were to go to a party, and someone pointed out that the individual of this discussion was there, and disclosed the facts about them, it would absolutely be remarkable and striking because it is not something "run-of-the-mill" as one commenter erroneously tried to suggest, it's very rare to come across. If he has been a private individual, you wouldn't find much on him, but it doesn't reduce the fact that his existence is infact notable. I can respect that WP can do whatever it wants with its guidelines/rules, and I respect the very successful platform that has been built, but let's at least acknowledge the glaring difference of what the dictionary/humans says notable is, and what WP says it is, even if only for the sake of helping newer users understand this and not polarize discussions. We don't have be androids about it when you're not speaking to an android at the other end of the keyboard. That is just my two cents, and I'm sure it will be met by some technical, rule based response, which will completely miss my point just like the other points made here, but that's okay. Laurelius (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The Annuario has already confirmed this person as a noble and head of house Zaccaria Damalà. It is only a matter of time until it's published and I have the full reference so to use it in WP and I will! I've made contact with them before making the article as it would have been absurd to establish an article without further knowledge of the situation. Actually house Damalas Zaccaria has a confirmed connection to the rulling families of Byzantine Empire (house Kantakouzenos, Asen, Palaiologos) and of course the Principality of Achaea-Morea and its nobility status is not something debatable (also confirmed by Annuario). Eugene de Moree (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  He is not notable. The Annuario does not establish WP:GNG. If he does not meet the GNG guidelines, he is not notable. If it is "only a matter of time", then you can wait to write the article again. As it stands now, there are no credible, independent sources that establish his notability. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]