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. I contemplated relisting this, but am comfortable closing this as soft since it's the article's creator requesting review, and there are no substantive additions from other editors. Could also be considered a G7 Star Mississippi 20:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nemo Schiffman[edit]

Nemo Schiffman (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 created this article almost a year ago, when I didn't know about notability requirements. After looking over this article again, it appears that they do not meet the requirements, with only a few minor roles. Wgullyn (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wgullyn (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Wgullyn (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2022 (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. Geschichte (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest wilderness areas in the United States[edit]

List of largest wilderness areas in the United States (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)

Complete content fork with List of wilderness areas in the United States. The complete list is able to be sorted by size, providing the same information. Suggest blanking and redirecting to the parent list. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect Obvious duplicate hardly needs discussion. Reywas92^Talk 01:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as they page does not add any value.Gusfriend (talk) 07:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect Nothing new compared to the mentioned article. Sanjoydey33 (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect per Reywas. Femke (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2022 (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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paperboy Prince[edit]

Paperboy Prince (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 WP:POLITICIAN WP:MUSICBIO Yousef Raz (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm seeing coverage well beyond what one would expect from a losing politician, including significant coverage in The New Yorker, Business Insider, Rolling Stone, and Washington Post. Mlb96 (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note @Mlb96 Each of those articles are about the subject's mayoral candidacy. The subject's candidacy received 0.4% of the votes. The WaPo article is about mayoral race with brief mentions of the subject. This level of coverage is expected and consistent with the other NYC mayor candidates for Democrat primary 2021.Yousef Raz (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article meets WP:GNG. “A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject,”. I do not know what else we are looking for here. Whatever it was that the made journos write about him is none of our concern as editors as far as he passes the criteria, there’s no need to sweat this out. And please, don’t try to convince me to change my mind, we’re not trying to get the winner or loser here. Reading Beans^{Talk to the Beans}
• Delete Incidental coverage of a person in connection with an election is not enough to show notability. Almost all candidates get some coverage, but this coverage is not enough to make us have to create articles on every person who runs for public office and gets coverage for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A quick google news search brings up multiple reliable and independent sources writing about them. He therefore meets the inclusion criteria. CT55555 (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which could be said for almost any candidate for public office above a certain level. Unelected candidates need to do more than just pass the minimum of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you agreeing that he meets the GNG? You think he needs to do something more than that? It seems you're moving the argument to why he meets the GNG, whereas I'm just sticking to the point of if he meets it. CT55555 (talk) 13:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets Notability Guidelines. I've read a few articles about them recently. Came here for more background and was quite shocked to see there was any question at all about their notability. J. Van Meter (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note @User:J. Van Meter He's a minor part of a New York City Mayoral Democrat primary. Its consistent with WP:ONEEVENT. Every person that ever runs in a New York City mayor Democrat Primary will likely get a news article about them.Yousef Raz (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Yousef Raz, please use the correct pronouns (they/them) when referring to the subject of the article.Sevey13 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG, which is sufficient. I don't think WP:ONEEVENT applies here as they appear to also be notable for their music career. NemesisAT (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @NemesisAT:You think they're music qualifies under WP:MUSICBIO?Yousef Raz (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't need to, so long as they meet WP:GNG. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @NemesisAT: Then why have a separate article defining notability specifically for musicians?Yousef Raz (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems pretty clear their biography passes the notability guidelines given the sourcing present. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even the current citations in the article demonstrate a wide variety of coverage over a sustained period of time.Sevey13 (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment At this point, the chances of this article being deleted are equivalent to a snowball's chance. User:Yousef Raz I encourage you to withdraw this AfD as per WP:SNOW CT55555 (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CT55555: I'll wait for the process to complete.Yousef Raz (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The sources do seem reliable enough and the subject seems to have coverage in both music and politics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 04:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are plenty of good citations provided. Caphadouk (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are enough sources to show that this entry is notable. Historyday01 (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kulu Abdullahi Sifawa[edit]

Kulu Abdullahi Sifawa (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)

Mid-level Nigerian bureaucrat lacking in sources about her specifically, so WP:GNG isn't satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sifawa holds a state-level office so meets notability requirements under NPOL.Furius (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep *Not* a "mid-level Nigerian bureaucrat". Sifawa is the Commissioner for Women and Children Affairs. Commissioners of Nigerian state governments are a constitutionally-defined position (s.192, 1999 Constitution) which may only be appointed following approval of the State House Assembly. This is clearly within the ambit of WP:NPOL as holding a state-wide office. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Goldsztajn.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 20:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kulu Bay Resort[edit]

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

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

Wikipedia is not for self-WP:PROMOTION. I don't see any independent writeups of the place. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would have marked as speedy delete. Blatant WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because it looks like an advertisement.
• Delete because Wikipedia is not for self promotion.ThePremiumBoy (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and blatant WP:PROMO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2022 (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. albeit weakly. There is no consensus to delete this. Star Mississippi 01:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Mickolus[edit]

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

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

No indication in the article or in searches that this article passes WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. All references are lacking in either significance, independence, or reliability. Also violates WP:NOTRESUME. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This looks like a good faith 2011 contribution by now blocked User:Geo Swan. This diff shows the insertion of all the resume info in 2018 by the subject themself. No opinion about the outcome here. BusterD (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep So I came across this article in the references section of Hassan Al-Turabi's article. I think it helps show that it's a good source for the article, but other than that, I can't think of any other reason why he'd count as notable. However, I posted on the talk page and noticeboard specifically without mentioning article deletion since I disagree with Wikipedia's notability guidelines in general, but if it violates them, then there's not much else to do other than removal. Seabass715 (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Seabass715.[reply]
• Weak keep? There may be a weak pass of WP:AUTHOR, but the BLP contains a vast amount of dross that should be deleted. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Marquis Who's Who doesn't count though and other sources briefly discuss him. But I found some book reviews so inclined towards keep. Coverage: [1], [2], [3]. 67.168.136.107 (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2022 (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. (I suspect this is a SNOW keep.) This is a strange keep, given that it comes from the person who completed the nomination (noticing a redlink on February 1's AfD listing and a tag on the associated page), but it is abundantly clear that the subject passes NPROF and the GNG, and further sourcing was fairly easy to come across. Additionally, the comments made by the Yale IP indicate that the underlying deletion nomination was intended as a BLPREQUESTDELETE that, given the circumstances, is being done in bad faith, and given the references, is being requested by a public enough figure (or someone with a connection to him) that the subsection is not applicable. There is a worthy discussion on how much the negative elements with the available sources can/should be discussed while meeting our various BLP policies and guidelines, but that is for the talk page, not Articles for deletion. I will be starting a section header at the talk page and pinging the participants in this deletion discussion there for further handling of the matter. (non-admin closure) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto González Echevarría[edit]

Roberto González Echevarría (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)

Completing a nomination for IP nominator 130.132.173.30. No reason was given, but this editor then removed a section with the edit summary Contentious material about the living person named in this article is poorly sourced (blog) and libellous. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Some background: The "contentious material" section covered a sexual harassment allegation from 2017. See the removal diff. The main source cited in the paragraph is the Yale Daily News. The case was approved to go to trial in April 2020 ([4]) and it got written up in Law.com at the time the allegations surfaced in 2017 ([5]). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Further, the IP geolocates to Yale University, where the subject taught. The IP left a comment at User talk:GB fan reading, You are a previous editor of the Roberto González Echevarría page. González Echevarría would like the entire page removed from this cite. Would you be able to do that? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Although the Yale Daily News url has "blog" as part of it, all the stories on the front page appear to direct to similar urls, and these otherwise appear to be normal Yale Daily News pieces. I think they are as reliable as student newspaper sources usually are. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That is my assessment as well, likely a CMS item. The more I look at this, the more I see this as not a matter for AfD. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NPROF criterion 5. Regarding whether to include the allegations, that's beyond the scope of this AfD, but as this is where attention is, I'll weigh in. It's tricky. WP:BLPCRIME states that for non-public figures (which would include a professor) editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Weighing against that is the fact that the allegations appear strongly substantiated, that the Yale Daily News is one of the most respected student newspapers in the U.S. and therefore very much a reliable source for Yale-related topics per WP:RSSM, and that it appears likely someone with a conflict of interest is trying to tamper with the article (which would nullify WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE considerations for me). I'd be alright seeing this go either way, but at the very least, we can include in the article the aspects that aren't strictly legal. I've done that here. (As disclosure, I came to this AfD through a generally neutral but conversational invitation on WP:DISCORD.) ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 19:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although I give some consideration to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, I think that the notability here is unambiguous: he passes WP:NPROF C5, also WP:NPROF C3 multiple times over, and the citation record (in a low-citation field) looks like a pass of WP:NPROF C1. He's fairly widely quoted on Cuba-related issues. A casual search of JSTOR turns up lots of reviews for WP:NAUTHOR. Comment that basic personal details can probably be sourced to a Yale Alumni Magazine piece [6]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be notable under the GNG from the articles revealed by Google News, which goes beyond NPROF. The Miami Herald feature plus the consistent coverage by RS going to him for quotes on his field of expertise is more than the usual academic. It might even make him a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Would not be surprised if the IP who refers to the prof in the third-person is in fact the prof himself. Notability is well-demonstrated for reasons already given. Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof. Notability is not marginal so BLP1E does not apply. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Well sourced. Needs the stuff pulled from the page history, also work to bring text up to standard. Closing admin: feel free to ping me to do this work if kept. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 20:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corbin Maxey[edit]

Corbin Maxey (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. Surprised this article has existed since 2008 given obvious WP:AUTOBIO, WP:COI, WP:NOTRESUME, and WP:PROMO issues. KidAd • SPEAK 20:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete You don't get to write an article on yourself, sad that this self-promotion has persisted. Reywas92^Talk 22:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete People should not create articles on themselves in Wikipedia. This is one of the reasons we really should go to making all new articles go through the AfC process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does seem to have been created by the person themselves. Counts as self promotion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per all of the above.TH1980 (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2022 (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 Page should have been restored to my user area as requested. I have moved it there and will not resubmit it until I have found more and better sources. . (non-admin closure) Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Letha Weapons[edit]

Letha Weapons (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've done some searching and while there are a number of passing references, I'm not seeing enough to support an article. Hobit (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Hobit (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Still no significant coverage to justify an article. Just passing mentions, interviews and trivial coverage. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Just a namedrop" is generally a euphemism for "mentioned in an article, but the coverage is slight". Here, the phrase is literal. Several sources are actually just a one-and-done name. In short, the sourcing to support the notability of the subject is nonexistent. Zaathras (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I specifically asked for this to be restored to my sandbox. I have moved it there to work on. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Polycarpa aurata: Deletion review restored the article to main space. Now that it is back at AfD, we should reach consensus. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The page should not have been restored to the main space. I will not resubmot the article until I have found more and better sourcing. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2022 (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 keep. While the ideal merger target hasn't been identified, there is consensus to keep the content at a location TBD. That can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 01:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Game of Alice in Wonderland[edit]

The Game of Alice in Wonderland (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 came across this while trying to clean up Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. The two sources are dead, as is the link in the attribution template on Talk:The Game of Alice in Wonderland. There is another game, called The New & Diverting Game of Alice in Wonderland, which is probably not notable either but which I see some hits for: [7] [8]. I'd happily be proven wrong here but I don't see a GNG pass. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment [9] looks like a probably reliable source. [10] is maybe a bit more than a passing reference. I suspect the (now dead) links in the article may have only a bit more. I'd really prefer not to see this deleted and am hopeful someone can find more. Hobit (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Your first link led me to [11], which has more pictures but the text is mostly a general comment on Alice and not on the game in particular. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, sadly. It seems like some non-notable historical object that sadly did not generate much if any coverage so far. We have one sentence and few pictures here, and the second link seems dead and not saved in the Internet Archive. The book Hobi found has two sentences and I am sorry, it is a passing reference in my book. Ping me if anyone finds new good sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. @Hobit and Piotrus: I also found the following: "In the U.S. Selchow and Righter produced a trick-taking game in 1882 while in England Thomas de La Rue & Co. created a 'Go Fish' Alice game around 1899. Both versions adapt John Tenniel's original illustrations." That's on page 27 of doi:10.4324/9781351392143. Now that we can verify this game's existence, maybe a merge to Works based on Alice in Wonderland#Games is appropriate? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that seems like a good solution. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm hoping we can find more, but that's much better than deletion. And we have other RSes, so we are well past WP:V. It's just none of them are hugely in-depth. Hobit (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article has been expanded significantly, if that helps. BOZ (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The expansion relies substantially on [12], which I do not consider a WP:RS. I think we've discussed the other sources on this AfD already. [13] is arguably SIGCOV; [14], not so much. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • BGG is clearly not a RS. The other two most certainly seem to be. What objection do you have to the University of Indiana's page on this topic? Hobit (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Indiana's page has only one sentence of prose about the game. The rest is commentary about Carroll/Alice in general and pictures from other editions and Alice memorabilia that Indiana has in its library. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ah, my bad. I'd read it as claiming it wasn't a RS, but that's not what you said. You clearly were discussing SIGCOV. Sorry, I think I got your first sentence confused with your second. But to that point, I think we have at least 3 sentences.
      • A matching game, The Game of Alice in Wonderland consists of 52 cards: twenty cards numbered 1–20, and thirty–two cards, numbered 1–16 in pairs, with images of the Wonderland characters.
      • Pictured below are images of cards from the game and illustrations from various editions of Alice in Wonderland in the Lilly Library collection.
      • Curiouser examples of playing cards for the Alice in Wonderland Game

By themselves, not a ton, but with the art included? I'd say we're over the edge of significant coverage. Add to it the fact that the Lily Collection includes this and documents it makes it feel like something we should have here too. YMMV. Hobit (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been going back and forth. I think I'm at weak keep Two okay sources on an older topic where such sources are harder to find. That said, I think an article, rather than list, on the topics of AiW games might make sense. Hobit (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Being the first game published about one of the most popular chidren's books in history establishes notability. The search for further sources continues, but it could be that someone will have to go through microfiche rolls of American newspapers of 1882 to find further information. Guinness323 (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Being the first X of Y does not make something notable. There has to be significant coverage about it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Hobit and Guinness323, although I would note that if a volunteer has access to Newspapers.com then we don't need to bother with microfiche. :) BOZ (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I looked it up in newspapers.com and I see nothing. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Works based on Alice in Wonderland#Games - BGG is generally not considered a reliable source due to being user generated, and the two other sources are fairly weak in actual information on the game - the Indiana University page, for example, really only has a couple of sentences of actual coverage of the game itself. Its really not enough to sustain an independent article, but should certainly be included in the main article on works based on Alice. Rorshacma (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Things is that I think we should have more than a sentence. Our coverage, should for example, include the art. The proposed target it too broad. But I agree a standalone article seems like too much... Bah. Hobit (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John S. Darling[edit]

John S. Darling (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 fails WP:GNG as far as I can tell. WP:BEFORE (Newspapers.com and Google Books) turned up nothing for me but minor mentions alongside other artists in a few news articles in Richmond, Virginia. I found nothing specifically about him, or otherwise any significant coverage in WP:RS. The tone of the standing article is promotional as well. If significant coverage of him can be found I'm happy to withdraw the AfD, but I didn't see it. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Since no sources that would constitute passing GNG have been identfied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that this has existed as an unsourced article for over 13 years is not encouraging. We really need to stop letting articles exist without sources for so long.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Similar to the nominator, I found only minor mentions on Newspapers.com, nothing to sustain an article. There was very little elsewhere. Curiocurio (talk) 20:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No references. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2022 (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 followed by move of the old page to this page and a history undelete. Interested editors should checkmthe content to make sure it is correct . Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block, Inc.[edit]

Block, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This page appears to be a duplicate of the existing Square (financial services company) article. I propose that the article be reverted to the redirect that it was prior to 1 February. Chrisclear (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Square (financial services company)#Splitting proposal for more info DownTownRich (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Square (financial services company) because this is just a duplicate of it. ThePremiumBoy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The company has changed its name. The page should have been moved to the new title instead of copy-pasted at the new title.— Diannaa (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As nominator, I agree with ThePremiumBoy, that Block, Inc. should redirect to Square (financial services company). Chrisclear (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom - DownTownRich (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and then move the Block article to this title, which will leave the redirect around the other direction. W Nowicki (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect because it is a duplicate.Fulmard (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Square (financial services company) to Block, Inc. (and I mean this title) since Square, Inc. has already been renamed to Block, Inc. The article's title should reflect to the company's current name. (EDIT: I mean, Move to this page, but use the old page as a redirect) 20chances (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @20chances: Do you mean (1) Redirect Square (financial services company) to Block, Inc. or (2) Move Square (financial services company) to Block, Inc.? If you are advocating for (1), the outcome is that (a) a lot of content from the Square (financial services company) will be deleted and (b) the page history for the surviving Block, Inc. article will only start in December 2021. Chrisclear (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Chrisclear: I think I was trying to say is that we should keep all of the Block, Inc. article from Square (financial services company) and rename it to its current name. Hopefully I got the clarification right. Also, I was aware about the consideration from what it should be named. I think I was the first to propose to naming it to Block, Inc. though some have thought of renaming it under "Block (company)". I may consider Block, Inc. though I HAVE used it for an infobox for the company. 20chances (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment @20chances: It sounds like what you are advocating is option (2) from what I wrote above, ie., Move Square (financial services company) to Block, Inc.. While it may sound pedantic, this is quite different to what you wrote previously, which was "Redirect Square (financial services company) to Block, Inc.". If my assumption is correct, would you mind amending your post with the timestamp of 14:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)? Chrisclear (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment @Chrisclear: Yeah, I was trying to get the meaning right but yeah. I got that adjusted And apologies if I forgot the timestamp on the last one. I forgot to mention, as for the naming of the article, are we going for "Block, Inc." or something else? 20chances (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TzarN64 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While I agree with the redirect !votes above in principal, it appears this company has indeed changed its name, so this article should be deleted, and then Square (financial services company) should be moved to this title. The page should simply have been returned to a redirect, and then Moved. This is a cut and paste move, and should have been handled without coming to AfD. If an admin takes a look at this I might suggest a speedy close, since this is all housekeeping at this point. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In principal, I agree with most of what you have written. Furthermore, I agree that Square (financial services company) should be moved to Block, Inc., to reflect the name change. However, in practice, that move was proposed on 14 December and (unfortunately) rejected on 21 December. There is also a practical consideration as to what the article should be titled, eg. Block, Inc. or Block (financial services company) or Block (company) or something else. Chrisclear (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - how, User:Chrisclear isn't a duplicate article, always a redirect - which doesn't need an AFD. Nfitz (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Redirect - With the acquisition of Afterpay by Block Inc. closing on 31 January there is now another significant business unit under Block Inc. that is not Square (payment system) and it is time to have Square (financial services company) become a redirect to this page. Is there somewhere that a combined discussion taking into account all of the pages can take place?Gusfriend (talk) 11:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment1 With regards to your last sentence - a discussion is taking place at The talk page for Square (financial services company). Chrisclear (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment2 Regarding your suggestion to "keep" and "have Square (financial services company) become a redirect to this page" would mean that (1) A lot of content from the Square (financial services company) would be deleted, including but not limited to edits made to Square (financial services company) since 1 February, and (2) The history of the Block, Inc. article would only commence in December 2021. I believe that a better solution would be a two-part process. Part 1: redirect Block, Inc. to Square (financial services company), which is covered by this deletion discussion. Part 2: move Square (financial services company) to Block, Inc.. This would ensure that (1) content is not deleted unnecessarily and (2) page history is maintained. Chrisclear (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will make a comment on the talk page of Square (financial services company) that it should be renamed and recommend a redirect, possibly with protection, of this page whilst we are waiting for the page rename.Gusfriend (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a copy/paste move. Move the Square article here and perform a history merge if needed to preserve attribution. Star Mississippi 00:14, 9 February 2022 (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 Pro Football Hall of Fame. ✗plicit 23:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Hay Pioneer Award[edit]

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

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

Award is only given periodically, specifically this award has only been given out nine times since 1972. There seems to be some notability, but sources don't seem to be totally independent. I would support this being Merged with Pro Football Hall of Fame since that's where the award comes from, but I don't know if the award should have it's own space. Some content can be salvaged there. Spf121188 (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2022 (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/2022 February 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Pro Football Hall of Fame, as the origin of the award. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging Vinnylospo, What are your thoughts on merging your article into the Pro Football Hall of Fame article? I think the content you've put in this article is perfect for supplementing that page. Let us know what you think. Spf121188 (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Pro Football Hall of Fame per above. Not enough WP:SIGCOV in independent sources to establish notability as a standalone topic, but certainly enough to warrant a mention in the merge target article. Frank Anchor 16:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of Kylen Schulte and Crystal Turner[edit]

Murders of Kylen Schulte and Crystal Turner (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)

References and web search don't indicate this rises above routine coverage. Star Garnet (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Star Garnet (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If this case had been routine, it would not have been receiving the sustained national [15] and international [16] coverage that it has been getting, per WP:GEOSCOPE. There has been WP:DEPTH of coverage in this case, partly due to the fact that the event occurred in the same time and place as the events surrounding the killing of Gabby Petito, leading to considerable speculation about who the perpetrator/s might be. By all accounts, the event was highly unusual for the location in which it happened. StonyBrook (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are passing coverage (classic WP:PRIMARYNEWS), and any sustained coverage in this case is routine coverage of the stages of a crime investigation. WP:DEPTH specifically discourages using articles like the Independent one (and the vast majority of possible sources for this event), noting similarities/contrasts to a notable event, as evidence of notability. The event warrants a paragraph in the Petito article, nothing more. Star Garnet (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Before commenting I read what meets the criteria for routine events. This is not routine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Routine_coverage CT55555 (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is run-of-the-mill murder coverage, i.e. routine. WP:NOTNEWS, etc., etc., etc. Star Garnet (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've read the policies that you link to, but I don't specifically see parts that back up what you are arguing. And I do see where the event meets the general notability requirements. I'm open to being persuaded, but you've not persuaded me. Can you really specifically point out where this should not be on wikipedia, rather than linking to a policy, spell out the parts that you think apply? Until then, I remain unpersuaded. CT55555 (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • On a world-scale, the media covers thousands of murders/killings/unnatural deaths at a high level of detail annually. It is not WP's place to compile that information, or even the few hundred that were covered most closely. Wikinews, sure. The four articles I nominated for deletion after browsing through the 30-odd 2021 murder/killing/death of X articles fall short of the others in level of news analysis and impact on outside events (I'm also skeptical of plenty of the others, but I could at least see a competent argument for them meeting at least one of the WP:EVENTCRITERIA). While they certainly received signicant coverage in the media, that is in the form of news reports. We don't have the secondary sources to satisfy SIGCOV. Could this incident gain notability through a book, law, or otherwise? Sure, in the way that some of today's paintings may get articles in 40 years. But until they have gained that secondary coverage, these are WP:NOTMEMORIAL material. Specific to this case, WP:DEPTH states that "Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally." Star Garnet (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, I appreciate this context. I don't want to make a hasty comment, so I'll reflect on this. May I just ask one other question of you, I see AfD described a some sort of last resort whereby we should try to improve articles before deleting them. Would you say that you or anyone has done that with these four examples? CT55555 (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • No problem, I should have made a clearer case in the original nomination. While I didn't edit the article (which I did for several of the other pages that I didn't nominate), I did search for sources that could help satisfy SIGCOV, and came up empty. Star Garnet (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting aside whether or not the 'significant coverage' that the event received qualifies as SIGCOV (the sources are reliable but not secondary), I would suggest you look at WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Particularly this paragraph: "Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article." Star Garnet (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This double murder has been linked by the media to the Killing of Gabby Petito because they occurred within days of each other and in the same vicinity. Both cases also involved the same police department. However, the media speculation connecting the two cases was not substantiated. If one is to consider other possibilities, such as merging with another article then the Killing of Gabby Petito would be a candidate merger option, even though it is not connected. Keeping this as a separate article in some ways protects other articles from inappropriate addition of content. There is enough coverage, worldwide, simply because of the coincidence in space and time for it not to be a "routine" murder or "routine" coverage. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, article is well sourced and I agree with those who want to keep this as it is clearly not routine. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plenty of good sources. Sustained coverage. BabbaQ (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the unsolved nature of the crime and the FBI investigation into a possible connection to the killing of Gabby Petito appears to be generating sustained and significant coverage in diverse sources, which could further develop the article, e.g. Newlyweds told friends about a ‘creepy guy’ at their Utah campsite. Five days later, they were found shot dead. (Washington Post, Aug. 26, 2021), Details released in deaths of newlywed couple at campsite (Associated Press, Sept. 9, 2021), Utah newspaper pens apology for coverage of double murder in Moab (Independent/Yahoo, Sept. 10, 2021), Utah authorities make rare public appeal for help solving Kylen Schulte and Crystal Turner homicides (Independent/Yahoo, Sept. 29, 2021), Unsolved murders and Petito case leave dark cloud over Moab (Associated Press, Oct. 3, 2021), Remembering the light: Local artist creates sculpture in memory of Kylen Schulte and Crystal Turner (Salt Lake Tribune, Jan. 8, 2022), FBI says Petito, Laundrie not involved in double murder outside Moab (FOX13, Jan. 20, 2022), Investigators Have 'Persons of Interest' in Moab Murders of Crystal Turner and Kylen Schulte (People, Jan. 24, 2022, also reported in the Independent), Family still searching for answers in Utah double-murder investigation (WTKR3, Jan. 25, 2022). Beccaynr (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 23:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Heuberger[edit]

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

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

Only thing that has happened since previous AFD is some ref-bombing with WP:ROUTINE sources. If no one is interested in this subject, let alone write an actually meaningful article about him, there is no encyclopedic value in an article about him. Tvx1 16:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, AFD is not cleanup, and this is a stub about a clearly notable person (as was established in the previous AFD), even if you may be tempted to redirect to Germany men's national handball team, the source of his notability. Suggest to withdraw this AFD. —Kusma (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not going to withdraw this. The claim that this subject is notable is a joke. Cleary no-one is interested in this person, or else a meaninful article would have been written a long time ago. There is nothing that proves the encyclopedic value of this article.Tvx1 23:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "else a meaninful article would have been written a long time ago"... well, it sometimes takes a while, and non-inclusion is not an indicator for non-notability (else we couldn't write any new articles anymore; in the last year alone, I created articles on people including Max Wallraf and Emil Utitz, who are clearly worthy of inclusion despite having had no articles). It is clear that a sports biography can be written about Heuberger (successfully lead his hometown club to the Handball-Bundesliga, managed the national team, did something else, now manages junior national team). Easy to find more sources: [17], [18], [19]. —Kusma (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This article has existed like this for ten years. Five years since the last AFD. That’s more than enough to make “it takes a while” a ridiculous excuse. Clearly no one is interested in this person thus justifying a standalone article. Accept reality and stop filling Wikpedia with rubbish articles.Tvx1 06:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @LeFnake and @Malo95 have now expanded the article, which is much more helpful than us all arguing here about what potential the article has. It still isn't great, but at least now lists some of the person's sporting achievements. @Tvx1: please tell me which of my Wikipedia articles is rubbish and why, and I'll try to fix it. Most of my rubbish articles are 15 years old now. —Kusma (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Expanded with nothing but WP:ROUTINE information. Nothing that actually establishes notability. Let me ask you a question? What are you obessed with blocking deletion of this article? Why is this person so important to you? Why would it be such a drama for you if this were deleted?Tvx1 00:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not interested in this person at all (I don't care about handball). I came across this deletion discussion because I look at all Germany-related AfDs. I care about improving Wikipedia, and so I argue to keep or to delete as needed. Sometimes others agree with me, sometimes they don't. But my personal approach isn't the issue here. The Deutschlandfunk Kultur and Handball World sources are significant coverage. There are enough sources interested in the person, not just mentioning him. —Kusma (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Kusma says it. There's no time limit on these things. Ingratis (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing you state is a valid keep argument.Tvx1 06:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable and as Kusma said above, no need to delete. If someone wants to expand it, they can, even if not he stays notable. Kante4 (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Kante4 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

• You came up with the exact same nonsensical arguments five years ago. Literally no one was interested then and is now to expand this, because there simply isn’t anything to expand this with and because no-one is interested in this subject. I really don’t understand why you are so hell-bent on keeping an article that has no encyclopaedic value whatsoever. Moreover, when you claim something is notable, you need to prove that. Something isn’t notable just because you say so.Tvx1 06:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are you commenting on every single voter who does not share the same feeling as you do? Just let the AfD run out and see how it went (pretty clear right now, tbh). Kante4 (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm not particularly impressed with the sources in the article and found during AfD, since they seem to be heavily interview-based rather than independent analyses. If all that can be found on him is restatements of his quotes there's not really any encyclopedic merit to a standalone article. JoelleJay (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree that there is a lack of secondary source, but I found those in german [20], [21], [22]. Nowadays, he played 164 matches in best handball league, played 26 international matches with Germany, was a successful manager of Germany men's national junior handball team between 2002 and 2011 (leading to 2 titles in Junior World Championship in 2009, 2011 and 2 titles in European Junior Championship in 2004 and 2006) and with Germany men's national handball team, he headed two major competitions (7th at 2012 European Championship and 5th at 2013 World Championship). Ok he is not the best known handballer, but I think we should keep this article. --LeFnake (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Just playing matches in a sport doesn’t make one notable. Everything you provided is WP:ROUTINE. Notability is achieved through significant coverage in independent sources. You just haven’t provided any justification for keeping this.Tvx1 15:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, he did not just played matches in a sport, he played 164 professional matches in 1st handball League (Bundesliga), 26 international matches with Germany (one of the best national team) and has been Germany's coach for 3 years, heading two major competitions (7th at 2012 European Championship and 5th at 2013 World Championship).--LeFnake (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He's 100% notable. He was head coach of one of the best and most watched handball team in the world. And most media groups in Germany has a lot of articles about him. (taz: 49; FAZ: ~117; Spiegel: 10; RP Online: 481; Süddeutsche: 23; baden.online: 905) I know most of this is only WP:ROUTINE but I didn't looked at all this articles and some will have deeper coverage. And he will pass WP:GNG without any problems. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Handball. Just being a coach of a team in a sport doesn’t make you notable. Not every sport is fundamentally notable. What we need is significant coverage, which no one so far has been able to provide. You only give a personal feeling about notability.Tvx1 16:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Significant coverage is already provided. It looks for me that your personal feelings are in play here. Here an other example of a source which provides a complete interview of him and the women's coach (part 1 and part 2). It is a interview in one of the most prestigious magazine in the world. And here an other article. I really don't know what you want more. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Interviews are not considered acceptable for notability purposes unless they include SIGCOV by the interviewer (otherwise they are WP:PRIMARY and not independent); that one clearly does not. The second source is better, since, despite having a lot of quotes, there appears to be independent analysis by the reporter. JoelleJay (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found more articles about him from the ARD (National public-service broadcaster)

• Start as national team coach:[23], [24] & [25]
• End as national team coach: [26], [27] and [28] (This would be a news broadcast in the tv, but in the archive not able to play)

The second big national broadcaster ZDF has also an article about the end: [29]

This two broadcaster talked for sure in there sports program about the start and the end of Heuberger. They also showed handball games which he gave interviews etc. And these games watched several millions of people. I really don't know how you have the feelling that he is not notable. If he wouldn't be notable most coaches of all team sports wouldn't be notable as well.🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the only "bombing" taking place here is the WP:IDONTLIKEIT WP:BLUDGEONing in this discussion. For context, Germany is one of the few countries in the world which actually has fully professional handball, with good attendances, media coverage etc, which, more importantly, has been demonstrated in this discussion. The article/subject is a bit beyond the need for debating certain details of this or that source, which is an editorial question belonging to the article's talk page. Geschichte (talk) 06:16, 8 February 2022 (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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary A. Conlon[edit]

Mary A. Conlon (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 appear to meet WP:BASIC. No WP:SIGCOV on her career. – DarkGlow • 16:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 16:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 16:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 16:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 16:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Walton High School (Bronx) at least if someone can find a source verrifying she was the founder. If not, we need to delete this. Since there are no sources, there is no verrified content to merge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Keep - Her obituary was in the New York Times [30], and I added that and a few more sources. I am looking for more sources as I have not yet found anything that specifically says she founded the Walton School, though she was its principal. DaffodilOcean (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe her obituary in the New York Times is WP:SIGCOV, and it's certainly a reliable source. Her work in establishing the Bronx Day Nursery is covered in a 1927 book on the Bronx [31]. The other citations confirm her role as principal of schools. I cannot find a citation for the school's first graduation, nor that she watched the construction of the school so I left ((citation needed)) in two places. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are not weighing the fact she was local to the New York Times coverage area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in WP:GNG about locality of sourcing. That is a made-up requirement by people who want GNG to be based on significance when really it is based only on coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some local coverge clearly runs into problems of violating not news guidelines. We really should add better guidelines on local coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Even if you accept the argument that the NYT is more likely to publish obituaries about people from NY, it would still be equivalent to a state-wide newspaper, so providing SIGCOV. In addition with the paragraph in the 1927 book, that should just about establish notability. Femke (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm finding more about her in Google Books, in particular this delightful (?)[32] lengthy testimony before a US Committee on Communist Propaganda, in which she gives details about a small number of students taking May 1 off, which was apparently a sign of dangerous communist ideas, and of pamphlets found in the neighborhood. Being called on to testify before a congressional committee shows her stature. She is also credited with running an experiment on the teaching of shorthand [33] and praised by the Classical Journal [34] for introducing the study of Greek in the schools. These all show that she was a significant educator. There are regular bulletins of the NY education department that we may be able to use to fill in some of the factual details and other hits on G-Books that I haven't gotten to. Lamona (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lamona - nice job on the added sources. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. NYT obituary should be enough but the newly added sources strengthen the case for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough sources have been located to clear the wiki-notability bar. XOR'easter (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2022 (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. Stifle (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Dees[edit]

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

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

This is an article on an actress who spend all her career in uncredited roles, with one exception. The exception is 4-minutes of standing in in a film for the lead actress who died during production. However they had someone else dub in the voice, so she was just a physical stand in. Our sourcing boils down to a "home town women makes big" coverage article that is predicting this will lead to true stardom, but that does not happen, another paper covering the incident because it is a rarity that someone dies during filming and you need to film them afterward, her papers having been archived, and a primary source on her birth. She clearly fails the acress notability guideline, because even if her one role was significant, that requires multiple roles, and all her other roles were so far from being significant they were not credited at all (it is not even clear she was credited for her stand-in). So I see no way that this article meets our inclusion criteria, and no way that our sourcing is enough in-depth to meet GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She had a by-lined obituary in The Guardian when she died in 2005.[35]. Combined with the other more contemporary coverage already in the article she meets WP:BASIC. pburka (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Saratoga film was a big deal back in the day (New York Times from 1937), and the Guardian obituary is convincing in terms of enduring coverage. Pikavoom ^Talk 10:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep articles in The Guardian and The New York Times are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC by sources listed by prev. editors. Samsmachado (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2022 (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 Maharashtra cricketers. ✗plicit 23:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Chavan[edit]

Ajay Chavan (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:BLP of a cricket player, not making or reliably sourcing any claim to passage of our inclusion standards for cricket players. The only notability claim being made here is that he exists, and the article fails to say anything about him that could even be measured against WP:NCRICKET, such as what league he played for Maharashtra in. And while there is an external link to a paywalled subscription-only database of cricket statistics, that means I can't get into it to see whether it adds a meaningful notability claim or not -- but there are no footnotes being cited at all to verify anything any other way.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who can access CricketArchive, and/or some evidence of Indian sports media coverage, can actually add something to this article that would constitute a notability claim -- but we don't keep unsourced articles just because there might maybe possibly be a stronger notability claim than anybody has been arsed to actually include in the article, we keep unsourced articles only if somebody can prove it. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've restored the content and rewritten it, but all we have here at the moment is a database entry. I haven't looked for significant coverage yet, but List of Maharashtra cricketers seems like an appropriate WP:ATD if none can be found. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We lack sourcing that would lead to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Maharashtra cricketers 1 FC and 9 LA matches for Maharashtra, but I'm not really seeing anything to suggest a GNG pass in English language sources. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redriect per Rugbyfan22. A technical pass of NCRIC but, there really isn't much on him; any users with access to Hindi sources able to find any additional stuff on him? StickyWicket (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kaka Muhammad Umar[edit]

Kaka Muhammad Umar (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 and the article was created by a blocked user. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sabeelul hidaya (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom, there is no significant coverage. Both this article and the university he founded have been tagged for notability since 2019. Under the article itself, it fails GNG.-Cupper52^Discuss! 18:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I added the basic information and reference about this person into the Jamia Darussalam article, but the reference is no more than a passing mention. Fails to demonstrate individual notability. AllyD (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2022 (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 13:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Cannon Film Company[edit]

The Cannon Film Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable company. Article created by the owner. MClay1 (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is not enough news coverage on this. MartinWilder (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guadacanal Resort[edit]

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

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

This unsourced "suburb" article seems from the few available sources online to simply be a holiday resort, and at the wrong title to boot (should be "Guadalcanal", not "Guadacanal"). Fram (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The coordinates don't point to a resort, but to Lungga community. Reywas92^Talk 20:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• When I mentioned this at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 1 § Ironbottom Sound: The Guadacanal Campaign (which is where I'm assuming Fram noticed this article), I made an effort to verify its existence, especially at this unusual spelling, and found nothing. Really all of the Honiara suburbs articles need a lot of attention, and some probably should be redirected for lack of meaningful content; but of those I've spot-checked, this is the only one that outright fails verification. (I'd bet there's one or two more, though.) So, delete unless someone can find sources. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 03:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Maluma[edit]

Greg Maluma (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)

Appears to be related to Gregson Maluma which was deleted after clear consensus here. Some of the sources appear to be new so I'm not sure that this qualifies for speedy deletion. A lot of the sources look like self-published spam and there is no claim to meeting WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NSPORT or any other guideline. Source analysis to follow. I did a WP:BEFORE search but found nothing additional. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Source assessment - fails WP:GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12739962/		WP:IMDB	Just a profile page	✘ No
https://contents101.com/2021/09/18/greg-maluma-biography-age-educational-career-and-net-worth/		Clearly a user-generated page rather than professional work		✘ No
https://www.radiotimes.com/programme/b-8ud37w/martial-arts-mind-and-body/			Passing mention	✘ No
https://nofilmschool.com/u/gregmaluma	This is Maluma's own user page	https://nofilmschool.com/about - filmmakers can make their own user page on this site. This is what Maluma did.		✘ No
https://www.musicinafrica.net/directory/greg-maluma		This is a social media site where artists can promote themselves. It is unreliable and doesn't indicate notability.		✘ No
https://nofilmschool.com/u/gregmaluma			As per #4	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20220130051520/https://newscolony.com/entertainment/greg-malumas-biography-fact-career-awards-net-worth-and-life-story/		Unreliable content scraper		✘ No
https://viadeo.journaldunet.com/p/greg-maluma-7966008	Personal profile created by Maluma	Personal profile created by Maluma		✘ No
https://www.amazon.com/kyokushin-kenbukaikan-technical-syllabus-karate-ebook/dp/B09PDVKMT2		Anyone can sell on Amazon	Linking this on Wikipedia is a form of advertising and fails to establish notability. Anyone can sell a book on Amazon	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom, fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. DMySon (talk) 14:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 1 February 2022 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trackpedia[edit]

Trackpedia (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 the general notability guideline. The only sources I could find were forum posts, affiliated pages and unreliable YouTube and Vimeo videos. Page creator appears to have been a single-purpose account dedicated to promoting the website on Wikipedia. – Teratix ₵ 13:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 13:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 13:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 13:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Article is written like an advertisement, and I'm shocked that this was nominated for deletion before this. Spf121188 (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nominator's comments. Quite an audacious bit of advertising. Subject lacks meaningful coverage and what exists does not warrant an article. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 13:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Promotional article for an apparently non-notable subject. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Not only does it read like an advertisement, it also solicits advertising. Kablammo (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertising material and promotional content. Mann Mann (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Promotional tone aside, the sources on this page fail WP:SIGCOV, and other than brief mentions in book sources, I was unable to find any that pass. Heartmusic678 (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• G11 Speedy delete this promotional content. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 21:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it's starting to snow Spf121188 (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete though CSD:G11 does not apply since this article is not “exclusively promotional,” it is somewhat descriptive of the topic. However this is still a clear fail of GNG per nom Frank Anchor 02:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doru Sechelariu[edit]

Doru Sechelariu (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)

Unable to find significant coverage of the subject of this largely unsourced WP:BLP, with a WP:BEFORE search only seeming to return WP:ROUTINE coverage, passing mentions, or sources which do not appear to be independent of the subject. Ideally someone who can read Romanian could help with determining whether there are any suitable sources which could get this article up to the WP:GNG. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Subject fails the GNG. The article claims he is/was a professional driver but GP3 was not a professional series. Either way, not enough coverage to prove notability. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral – After looking at MSport1005's comments clearly there aren't zero sources. I wouldn't say he unambiguosly passes GNG, and I'd personally prefer deletion, but there appears to be coverage in Romania so it doesn't seem as bad as it did. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 21:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — I don't speak Romanian, but I could find these with ease: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40] covering his "promising" career and his future aspirations, [41] apparently covering an incident with the police, [42] is more of a passing mention as a young up-and-coming Romanian talent, [43], [44] two visibly non-ROUTINE announcements, and [45], [46], [47], [48] which suggest some sort of relevance as an F1 pundit/expert in his country. Funnily enough, he was the subject of an F1-related april fools joke: [49], and even the gossip press talks about him nowadays [50], [51]. I might have a second look later to see if I can find more, but just based off this (combined with the fact that he completed a full GP3 season) he seems to comfortably meet GNG. MSport1005 (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm undecided for now. He completely fails WP:NMOTORSPORT, so we turn over to WP:GNG. Looking at MSport1005's sources, bits in Adevarul [52]/[53] (per WP:GNG they count as one source) are good examples of secondary non-trivial coverage. Automarket seems good enough, but I am not sure whether that website is a reliable source. Fanatik one is an interview, and thus isn't independent to count for notability. Realitea Sportiva one just copies Fanatik's interview. Cancan is a tabloid website, making it not reliable. Evenimentul Zilei bit has only 3 sentences (2 of those being short) about him, so I can't call that WP:SIGCOV. SportAuto is a quote farm (meaning it's not independent), and MotorsportNews is a mere blog. Gazeta Sporturilor contains his analysis of Hamilton-Verstappen battle, but is of very little importance in terms of his own notability. TVS24 is yet another blog, Cancun again, WP:TRIVIA April Fools, WowBiz isn't a significant coverage of Doru. I'll try to dig for more sources if possible (including my research on Automarket), but for now I'm leaning delete. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've had another look at them. #1/#5 and #2 are SIGCOV (Automarket indeed is reliable). #4 as you say is just a copy, #7 and #8 aren't sufficiently extense. The ones you wrote off as blogs (#9, #11, #13) I'm not sure they actually are, as messy as they might look (their reliability might need review though). The fact that a newspaper like Fanatik (#3) went to interview him, tabloids (#6, #15) talk about him without even needing to introduce him, and GSP (#10, #12) have him as their go-to expert suggest clear notability within Romania. #14 I never intended it as SIGCOV, and #16 is a tabloid and refers to him as "Dumitru's son" so we can ommit those two. We're left with potentially 6/7 proper sources, plus whatever we can find in an advanced WP:BEFORE search, so I'm heavily inclined towards keep. MSport1005 (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. It appears that you have found some sources which I was unable to find in my searches. I'm still not fully convinced that this meets the WP:GNG, but the Adevarul sources probably take the article half-way to meeting it. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sources shared by MSport1005 appear to establish notability per WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2022 (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. RL0919 (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Ziani Guennon[edit]

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

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Can't find any newspaper articles or the like on him. Just barely scrapes by WP:FOOTYN having made a 84th-minute substitute appearance in the CAF Champions League for Wydad AC. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to pass GNG from a cursory Google search.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ortizesp: Could you link examples of references? I only posted this AfD because I didn't find any from my own "cursory Google search". Robby.is.on (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and subject is 22 years and actively playing for a club playing in a Fully professional league.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Where does it say that he is actively playing there? The article says he is not. Geschichte (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I didn't find any news reports using "Bilal Ziani Guennon" or "Bilal Guennon", although there was one routine hit with "Guennoun". It looks like Ziani is what he goes by. Regardless, none of these searches turned up anything approaching significant coverage. And meeting NFOOTY is irrelevant. JoelleJay (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. From what it appears, player hasn't appeared in any professional games in his career? Josh (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Only the 6 minutes against Kaizer Chiefs so far. Geschichte (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2022 (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. czar 16:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TerraDrive[edit]

TerraDrive (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)

TerraDrive Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This niche RPG seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE is of little help (the only indepedent sigcov surce I see is the cited ArsTechnica piece [54]). It seems this was a 2007 era attempt to promote an upcoming product - the article hasn't improved much since and still states "It is scheduled for release at PAX: The Penny Arcade Exposition on August 26, 2007." This is also a near fork of a related game TerraDrive Live which seems even more niche (google just gives about ~200 ghits for this...). We also had an article about the developer, that was deleted a long while ago it seems (Technomancer Press). PS. I am not sure how to make a bundle AFD (since TD Live is de facto a fork). If this is deleted, I guess TDLive can be prodded? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Piotrus, I have tagged TerraDrive Live for deletion in this nomination discussion. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. They don't seem to meet any criterion for notability I can find. FalconK (talk) 03:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: TerraDrive was previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Both articles clearly fail WP:GNG. Searching for sources, I only really found this Ars Technica article about TerraDrive Live ([55]), and then absolutely nothing else. One article does not an article make. Nomader (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2022 (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 13:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waterland WaterPark (Thessaloniki)[edit]

Waterland WaterPark (Thessaloniki) (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 failed to detect significant coverage from indepedent reliable sources. C messier (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – fails WP:GNG. Best I could find outside of personal blogs was this from GTP Headlines, a marketing agency for the travel industry in Greece. Despite lack of WP:RS qualifications, they post a top 10 list in Greece supposedly compiled by TripAdvisor. While the top 4 water parks are discussed by GTP, Waterland barely makes the list and is nothing more than a passing mention. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous circuit[edit]

Autonomous circuit (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)

Single sentence unsourced article that has remained unchanged for ~13 years. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Justiyaya 10:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Justiyaya 10:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A Google search shows that there's a LOT of research in this area. While this article is currently just a definition, there seems to be more to be said on this topic, to the point where I think it certainly meets WP:GNG. I'll add what seems a reasonable reference, and hopefully someone with a more relevant area of expertise can do more. PianoDan (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olimjon Karimov[edit]

Olimjon Karimov (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)

Has only made appearances in WP:NOTFPL leagues to date (checking Football Database as well as Soccerway) so no claim to WP:NFOOTBALL. Searches such as this and this only provide trivial coverage so WP:GNG is not established. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Does not appear to have WP:SIGCOV so fails GNG. Per nom, delete. GauchoDude (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2022 (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. If people think a redirect is warranted, they can create one, although it appears unlikely to me that somebody would search for this phrase. Sandstein 09:25, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M&M Desexualization Controversy[edit]

M&M Desexualization Controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Not every flash-in-the-pan "controversy" or talk show host stupidity needs an article here. Fram (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. These days people raise such "controversies" on everything everyday, but being a notable subject requires more than the mocking by a TV-host. Cavarrone 10:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This is not worth an article, but the anthropomorphized M&M commercials are. People have been talking about the oddly sexualized nature of some of them, casual violence/cannivalism, etc. for some time now. So reframe to be about that broadly. I thought about doing it myself, but I can't bring myself to start an article about a commercial campaign. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have a lengthy M&M's#M&M's characters section, isn't that sufficient. The M&M's article also has a very long section on "marketing", with little focus on encyclopedic discussion of the marketing, but a rambling series of trivia like "In 2007, M&M's introduced a limited-edition raspberry flavor called "M&M's Razzberry Chocolate Candies"." A cleanup of the main article, with one line about the "controversy", may be feasible. Fram (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I mean is that section could probably stand to be its own article. If someone did that, there might be cause for a few words about this (certainly not as a "controversy"), but it would be undue in the parent article so I guess Delete otherwise. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cavarrone. I'd like to add: NOT-WP:LASTING. It's so funny and sad that this wasn't successfully prodded. It's precisely this that was frivolous (with reference to the edit summary), and not the proposed deletion. tw^sabin 17:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete M&M's#M&M's characters should cover it without the usual 'culture war' kvetching (as long as the yellow M&M remains the kind and nervous soul he is, I don't care about the rest of it). Nate • (chatter) 23:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. I get that performers are always trying to drum up a reaction to whatever is going on in pop culture, but Wikipedia is a place to cover long-term factual information, and not short term bursts of opinion. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep content somewhere: Readers would be best served by this episode being covered somewhere in our coverage of m&ms and the recent mascot changes, with the barest mention of Tucker's views. Carlson's attitude to sexual issues leads him to make the most bizarre comments on these things. I fear to know the inner workings of his brain.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to M&M's#M&M's characters per WP:NOTNEWS, that way if any content does need to be preserved it can be done so. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These are twitter people starting the controversy. TzarN64 (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unlikely to be WP:LASTING. Will likely stay undue for the main M&M's article. Femke (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't believe this page got made before Twitter got bored of the M&M thing. This realistically shouldn't even be on the main M&M page, let alone have it its own page. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a few sentences to M&M's. Does not appear to have generated enough secondary coverage to warrant a separate article, however. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:SUSTAINED. If a company thinks so many people are getting sexually attracted to their anthropomorphic candy mascot that they have to change it, that's their perogative and not a real "controversy". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to M&M's#M&M's characters. Never heard about this incident, I thought I was the only one who thought some of the M&M characters were oddly sexualized for a candy mascot. Surprised to hear someone objecting to a desexualization of an anthropomorphic character but it's not worthy of an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 8 February 2022 (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 Rename to List of rowing clubs. Sandstein 09:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of rowing blades – Club oars[edit]

List of rowing blades – Club oars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced (tagged since 2011) gallery with no indication of notability for the topic as a group (individual oars will be verifiable, but that isn't sufficient to have an article here). Only external link is a hobby website, not the kind of source that establishes notability either. Fram (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weakest Keep but certainly needs citation. This is a tough one as it empirically does NOT meet Wikipedia's guidelines, but the nature of it (a list of information relating to a broader topic) is of value to that broader topic, which itself has established clear notability. That said, following a few of the club links, it appears that most of them have their own colors (usually in the same image as found here) so this list is a nice reference, but not strictly required. -Markeer 13:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Valid information list. Plenty of things listed have their own articles as well, so valid navigational list as well. Dream Focus 14:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must have missed it. Which of these rowing blades have their own articles? Fram (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The clubs, like Drummoyne Rowing Club have their own article. --evrik ^(talk) 16:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This list not just the color of their oars, but the names of the clubs, that's what linked to. Just rename it to List of rowing clubs. So far the Category:Lists of rowing clubs only has List of rowing clubs on the River Wear and List of rowing clubs in Australia. Dream Focus 15:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, reusing information for a list with a different focus then. That wasn't really clear from your original post... Fram (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Valid information list. --evrik ^(talk) 16:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copying the text from someone else's vote, which they afterwards had to clarify completely as the original vote didn't make much sense, isn't really helpful. Keep as is, "keep" as a completely repurposed and retitled list, or something else? Fram (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are you being so aggressive and critical? I thought it was pretty straightforward. Why belabor the issue. I have now started adding references. --evrik ^(talk) 16:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • So no reason to keep this actually. Fram (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is a lot of negativity for a Monday morning. It's a valid list, it has sources. --evrik ^(talk) 16:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • But that's not what creates a valid list. You need sources for the topic as a whole, not just (primary) sources for the individual entries. You could create list of rowing clubs whose president is called John and find sources for that as well, that doesn't mean that it is a valid list. Fram (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's part of a broader topic, which is itself notable. --evrik ^(talk) 17:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • And...? How does this translate to a keep for this list? Notability is not inherited, that an unnamed briader topic is notable has no bearing on this topic. Fram (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename it to List of rowing clubs. --Bduke (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I would lean towards delete here but I think this needs to be looked at alongside List of rowing blades and List of rowing blades – National team oars. These articles are badly sourced and I cannot find anything other than very niche and unreliable sources speaking about this as a subject. I have a feeling that all of these fail WP:LISTN. I cannot see the argument for navigational purposes unless each individual rowing blade had its own article. To argue for navigational value this would need to be List of rowing clubs as Bduke said above. If reliable sources can be found - I say keep and merge the three. If not - delete all three. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to List of rowing clubs as per above. Remove all the non-notables. The distinction of just being a club is more notable than the colours of their oars (or other uniformed equipment). Ajf773 (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment At this point the consensus is to keep the article. --evrik ^(talk) 21:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, why do you add your interpretation of the consensus at a random point in the discussion? The closing or relisting admin will decide this, they don't need the article creator (or the AfD started) to tell them what the consensus is. Fram (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as mentioned above. Gusfriend (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to List of rowing clubs, since the current topic does not meet WP:NLIST. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would sugges merging to National Team oars or List of rowing blades – School and university, but that would make those unwieldy.--evrik ^(talk) 21:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kakistocracy[edit]

Kakistocracy (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:DICDEF. While the article contains several sources, none of them provide substantial coverage of Kakistocracy itself and I can’t find evidence that it’s anything more than novel way to say the government is a pack of thieves and liars. RaiderAspect (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RaiderAspect (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Not a lot of in depth discussion, but there is certainly RS here to indicate the term is being used, and enoough context and usage indicate what its about. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes WP:GNG, based on being the subject of many reliable, independent, secondary sources.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

SailingInABathTub (talk) 11:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't believe that any of the sources meet the substantial coverage requirement that GNG and DICDEF require. To quote from WP:DICDEF: such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term. These sources all use the term Kakistocracy, explain its definition, and sometimes include some of its etymology - but they swiftly move on to their real subject, the political culture of various nations/governments. --RaiderAspect (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... so, the social and historical significance of the term then. SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — I agree with the comment above. Unlike e.g. kleptocracy, for which there is serious academic analysis of the term of what makes a regime kleptocratic, that is not true of kakistocracy, which is for all intents and purposes just a fancier way of saying idiocracy (a term that inspired a whole movie, but is still not notable as a political science term in itself). The "scope and use" of the term is very simple: it's bad government by idiots. It does not entail some broader reference to how the government functions, like kleptocracy, or its mode of decisionmaking, etc. There's not a whole lot else that can be said about it. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 19:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding a caveat to the above that there does appear to be a novel attempt to define kakistocracy systematically à la kleptocracy etc. in Abadjian 2010, a journal article by an independent researcher. The definition offered does not seem to have been replicated or examined elsewhere. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 17:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources describe this beyond just a definition and there is adequate content and context here for notability. Open to a merge target, but deletion isn't warranted here. Reywas92^Talk 14:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think there's enough to go on here that the "just a dictionary definition" concern, while understandable, isn't fatal. Whatever ails the page, deletion doesn't seem like the right fix. XOR'easter (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2022 (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.