< June 08	June 10 >

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 Evansville Crimson Giants players. Consensus to maintain the search term. (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Garnjost[edit]

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

non-notable former nfl player. a wp:before yields no results. Therapyisgood (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Indiana, and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: if the consensus is not to keep, please move to article to my userspace at User:BeanieFan11/Bill Garnjost. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I found this which has some depth but not anything else that I would characcterize as SIGCOV. The search was challenging because Garnjost was a prominent New York family, I did not take the time to sift through all of the hits. Cbl62 (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Evansville Crimson Giants players. No real objection to userfication/draftification, but it may be useful to have a mainspace redirect unless/until more sources are found which would justify a standalone article. Hatman31 (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Hatman. Frank Anchor 13:28, 16 June 2023 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Lowe[edit]

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

Editor invoked WP:DRAFTOBJECT but the article has too many problems which impinge upon notability. UtherSRG (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and England. UtherSRG (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ President of the US Academy of Dermatology would be a notable position. Could use a rewrite, but that's not for AfD to worry about. Oaktree b (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I misred the article, the dermatology prize seems non-notable, being elected to the society I don't think gives notability as I believe it's needed to be in clinical practice in the field. Would perhaps have a chance with academic notability, based on his citation factors. I'll leave it for others to determine that. Oaktree b (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could make a case for "Keep". The citation record is particularly good. He has 61 papers with more than 100 citations which would make him eminenly notable. His book publishing record is also excellent. He would easily pass WP:NAUTHOR. I understand UtherSRG's sentiment around the references and coi aspect. When you do a image search using Bing image search which is powered by OpenAI ChatGPT now, it doesn't turn up anything on the image, not does Google Image search which is equally powered by AI. Not that it makes a difference. If that image was present it would show in a New York second. The guy is standing in his own study. They're is just no way that image was taken, unless there was some kind of coi or fundamental relationship. It could be a student but more likely a UPE article and UPE editor. The subject is a heavy-weight academic. Obviously, he couldn't wait until a real article was created. I would suggest either stubifying the articles or getting rid of everything that is WP:PRIMARY and do a copyedit to find secondary sources. scope_creep^Talk 08:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't confirm his date of birth either, so that would have to go. scope_creep^Talk 08:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is mess. Its needs stubbed more than anything else. scope_creep^Talk 08:46, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given all that, wouldn't deletion and start from scratch be better? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article is promo in bits that is one more thing. I could do a stub. scope_creep^Talk 11:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I would say the subject is notable considering he has wrote over 450 research papers and 19 books, won five awards, was president of the British Cosmetic Dermatology Group. He is also mentioned in media outlets, [1][2]. I think the article needs to be improved rather than deleted. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Mail is non-rs . It is not a reliable source. The guardian is a paid for product promotion,,so it is not a real source. It is PR. Picking up random mentions in the press doesn't work here and you will called out everytime. scope_creep^Talk 15:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:PROF with his papers cited 20,792 times according to Scholar. I don't know what too many problems which impinge upon notability means but WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This meets all the criterion of WP:PROF and appears to be notable by those standards. I join the others in voting to Keep this article. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His publications and citations give him NPROF (and probably NAUTHOR). Probably a UPE job (although it has been in development since 2015, so maybe COI). The text seems fine now, just a statement of facts. Not particularly problematic. Aszx5000 (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2023 (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn S. Fuller[edit]

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

Old article that's been edited recently (so a PROD template might get removed.) Not a lot of third-party sources showing up on Google. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 13:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Law, Rhode Island, and Texas. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 13:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sourcing of any kind found in GSearch, many individuals with a similar name. Unsourced article, delete for non-notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She attracted quite a bit of coverage when she discovered a new species of ant. However maybe that's a BLP1E. e.g.
- Campbell, Charlie (21 October 1990). "New ant species found in wildlife activist's plant". Corvalis Gazette-Times. AP. p. 20.
- "Possible new ant species found on wildlife chief's desk". Arizona Daily Star. AP. 16 October 1990. p. 2.
pburka (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An honorary degree is a strong indicator of notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This book has significant coverage. I'm sure there are more, because I can't envision the possibility that someone could be president and CEO of the World Wildlife Fund and not have plenty of coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She was President and Chief Executive Officer of the World Wildlife Fund. And holds a number of honorary degrees. Seems to meet the notability threshold. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain, Phil Bridger and Necrothesp. Someone with an honorary degree is very likely to be notable. Someone just needs to do an in-depth Google Books search. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 00:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unsual for a senior female not to have standard RS for GNG, but she slightly pre-dates online media. Definitely gets full sections (SIGCOV) in American Social Leaders and Activists, and also in American Women Speak: An Encyclopedia and Document Collection, and Women Pioneers For The Environment. Kind of person that gets formal obituaries in the NYT and WPO. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2023 (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. New references are considered sufficient (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Solid Waste Association[edit]

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

non-notable industry association ~T P W 16:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 16:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I tried to see if there was anything that would meet notability guidelines but nothing jumped out to me, regrettably. Kwkintegrator (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important international organization. The premise of this AfD is incorrect. gidonb (talk) 23:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:GNG per the references now added to the article. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 01:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. A GNG pass with the added references. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2023 (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 03:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patriotic Komitas Union of Montenegro[edit]

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

This article might seem alright at first look, but there is a lot of POV original research. A majority of its sources are unreliable, or from tabloids, or sources that are promoting this organisation. The article also fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), as there is no significant coverage (a majority of its sources come from only one website which published their views), and besides a passing mention in a RFE source about the 2021 protests, there are no sources that significantly covered this organisation. This organisation is also very minor, therefore that also proves that it is not notable. This article should be either deleted or merged to Montenegrin nationalist protests (2020–2022). Vacant0 (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Montenegro. Vacant0 (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Irrelevant organization. Elserbio00 (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom says, almost all the sourcing is from Patriotsko-komirski savez. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2023 (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 Companion (Doctor Who). (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katarina (Doctor Who)[edit]

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

Katarina has barely any coverage in secondary sources. Content exists for the serials, but there is little analysis of her as a character. Honestly, she is a minor character that has had little importance to the franchise. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 23:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – The article has real world context (mainly regarding how the writers struggled writing for her and wrote her out due to the context) which contributes to the information of the series in the 1960s. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who) - Appears to be a pretty minor character, only appearing in a small handful of episodes. Her only real significance is that she was the first Doctor Who companion to die, a fact that is already mentioned on the proposed target. I found one book that actually has a couple of paragraphs of genuine analysis of the character, but that is pretty much the only thing I have found in a reliable source that is not simply summarizing the plots of the episodes she appeared in or just repeating the factoid of her being the first companion to be killed. Rorshacma (talk) 03:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Who#Companions as non-notable. I am loath to even direct it to the article about Companions, which does not appear to pass WP:GNG in itself, either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who) per Rorshacma. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 00:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect If they were notable, there would be sources to prove it. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Companion (Doctor Who) per Rorshacma.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ leaning keep. Daniel (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EHealthMe[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:ORG ~T P W 16:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 16:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Websites, and Wisconsin. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I hate to do all of this relisting but I'm seeing less participation lately in AFD discussions. I don't want to close a deletion discussion based on a two word deletion rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There's this in WaPo [3], doesn't appear to be a PR piece/advertising, and these in medical journals [4], [5], [6]. Appears to be a legit medical database, used in the clinical research setting. But they are trivial mentions, so likely not at GNG. I'm thinking of the recent Law blog article also here for AfD, sources appear to be similar... What do others think? Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Scrapes it. The WPO article is SIGCOV, and the database does appear in a wide range of medical journals. The article is not offensive or overly promotional. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shahrbanoo Damghaninezhad[edit]

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

Fails notability, has absolutely no important achievement. never even participated in a major event let alone winning a medal. Sports2021 (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Martial arts, Wrestling, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked the creator's other pages and none of them meet notability.

Nswix (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps the article could be expanded from the corresponding article in Persian. fa:شهربانو دامغانی نژاد Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She has won medals in important competitions such as the International Army Games and Fajr International Competitions. she is one of the well-known faces of Iranian taekwondo.Sobhanjahanpanah (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lower-level competitions, such as those that you mentioned, usually are not enough to establish notability. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The events that this person has competed in do not establish notability under WP:NATHLETE. Partofthemachine (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NATHLETE. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 00:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing what I believe to be significant independent coverage from multiple reliable sources. Results and invitations to tryout for the national team do not seem sufficient. According to the World Taekwondo website and taekwondodata.com she has never competed at what would be considered a major event. She has never achieved any rating points from the world federation and her silver medal from Fajr appears to come from an event were she lost her only fight (to another Iranian). I didn't see any info on the other events she medaled in. It's also likely there's a COI issue. Papaursa (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE. Lethweimaster (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE per nom. Lewolka (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Fails WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Davenport[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NM, and WP: BIO. Looks like a vanity page with nothing to indicate notability. Article is dependent on interviews from non-notable websites. Filmography is filled with background acting roles and acting roles in non-notable productions with non-notable filmmakers. Search results only yield minor projects that were never produced and background acting roles. Largely PROMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis Macon (talk • contribs) 22:38, June 9, 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Serbia, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Taking the references as a combined whole, I think the credentials add up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The credentials on his page are a bit exaggerated. For example, the listed role of "Adam" in High Maintenance (2018) Season 2 Episode 1 is a background role where he is entirely out of focus and unnamed. Even the IMDB listing for this particular role is only "Actor." If you check every other credit on the list, you'll find similarly that his roles in those productions are minor. Project Olympus (2016) which he prominently says "Davenport became the first African-American actor to play Hercules onscreen" is not only inaccurate (Dwayne Johnson portrayed Hercules in 2014) but is also a minor independent project that was never produced. All online references to this project disappear after 2016. His electronic music career refers to a Youtube account where he has 40 subscribers and a Spotify where has 140 monthly listeners. The page fails WP:GNG. Francis Macon (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator's only activities relate to this nomination. See Francis Macon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The awards seem trivial ("best publicity photo"), rest isn't better, I can't find much for sourcing, beyond a Broadway actor with the same name. Non-notable as a musician, no charted singles, almost non-existent following on social media. Whole lot of nothing it seems. Agree it's PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any notability, just a lot of pr wank. Charted eponymously? Wtf does that mean, that he charted on the Adam Davenport chart? None of the "awards" are major. Claimed charting is just on one of billboards countless sub charts, not the countries main chart. PR is not independent coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The nominator is now arguing to Keep this article (after doing a lot of clean-up themselves) which doesn't mean a slam-dunk Keep but that's also the consensus I'm seeing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Green man (spirit of nature)[edit]

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

Folklorists agree that the Green man is not a mythological figure, but an architectural motif often called a "foliate head", as discussed in the main article which this was recently forked off of. (Sources: [7] [8] It makes no sense to have a separate article like this dedicated to the discredited concept that the "green man" is a mythological figure when it is not, especially when this idea is so intimately tied to the foliate head motif, essentially making it a WP:POVFORK. Many of the references used in this article make no reference to the concept of the "green man" at all making it WP:SYNTH, or are otherwise unreliable non-scholarly sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, History, and Mythology. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is now worthwhile as a separate article, though the title should be changed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @Hemiauchenia: Previously you applied a new definition of "foliate head" to Green Man. It was an improvement, better describing the main content of the article. You removed a lot of irrelevant material which was certainly WP:OFFTOPIC. Unfortunately the deletion was reverted. There then followed a rather indecisive conversation on Talk:Green Man#Article remains a mess.... Because of your objection, "mythological" was removed from the title of the spinoff article, a proposal at which nobody demurred. You are now suggesting that this spinoff article should be also be deleted because it isn't mythological. There are (by my very quick count) four mentions of "mythology" in Green man (spirit of nature), and one of those (your addition, AFAICR) is specifically refuting that mythology has any connection with "foliate heads".

As "mythological" hardly appears in this new article, its presence isn't valid as a reason to delete. None is strongly referenced (and at least one is cruft) and they could all be trimmed without loss. --AntientNestor (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently a WP:SYNTH mish-mash of essentially unrelated mythological figures that have vague attributes in common. It uncritically takes the "Green Man" mythological concept at face value, when as previously mentioned it is not taken seriously by academic experts. The mythological aspect deserves some mention at the main Green Man article to debunk it. We should always preference academic sources over the opinions of non-experts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My main point I guess is that all of the mythological stuff should have just been trimmed down from the main Green Man article rather than just moving it all to a POVFORK that treats the concept uncritically. I agree with you that Wuerzele's reversion was deeply unhelpful with attempting to fix the main article, and it looks a lot better with all of the mythological guff removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Comment~~ - I tried to find the common theme in this article. The best I could do was "everybody was green". So maybe retitle this "Green people in folklore and culture". But would that then lead to articles for other colors ("Purple people in folklore and culture")?. Where would it stop - at mauve?

I'm just not sure we need this sort of article, even referenced.

~~--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. That said, I'm impressed with all the work that someone did on this article. It's nicely laid out with good images, too. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a kernel of something coherent here (theories linking a certain artistic/cultural motif to a religious past) with an outgrowth of synth (listing random green-coloured deities and things that happen to have the name "green man"). For the former stuff, the further the sources get from being focused on the motif, the more zany and unreliable-looking they tend to be. small jars tc 23:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I agree, there could be an article for this mythical creature/figure/thing, this doesn't seem to be it. SYNTH for sure is happening here; various mentions of mythical beings, smooshed together to try and create an article here. Valiant effort, but I'm just not seeing it as subject for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I very much doubt it is true that "Folklorists agree that the Green man is not a mythological figure" (for one thing, they never agree on anything). Most would perhaps agree he is not usually any specific figure, with any myth attached. The article is messy and dives off in several directions, but that goes with the territory. The deletion rationale is completely defective: "It makes no sense to have a separate article like this dedicated to the discredited concept that the "green man" is a mythological figure when it is not." There is abundant coverage, some cited in the article, of folkloric interpretations of the heads; the topic is therefore notable. The nominator seems to think that because it is "an architectural motif often called a "foliate head"", it can't represent anything else. This is completely wrong. I think the fork, based on a very thin consensus, was perhaps a mistake, but in any case the material here, scrappy as it is, should not just be deleted (people will only add similar back to the main article anyway). Johnbod (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The recent coverage asserting that the "Green Man" is a mythological figure are not academic sources. The big 5 publishers will publish any old nonsense, whether that's Worlds in Collision or anything by Graham Hancock. people will only add similar back to the main article anyway is not an excuse. People will add titillating details to the "Personal life" sections of BLPs, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be trimmed. Articles should always be based on reliable, scholarly sources when available. The mythological concept of the "green man" is not separable from the "foliate head" concept. They should be covered in the same article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second Comment The field of folklore almost seems designed to create scope problems. According to this source cited in the article, the term "green man" was first invented by the folklorist Lady Raglan as part of a folkloric theory, but what she first used the term to refer to was the specific architectural motif of the foliate head. She went on to hypothesise that this motif was related to other figures such as Jack in the Green and Robin Hood, who she also saw as forms of "the green man.” A key question here is how far later folklorists concerned with theory of the green man have shifted their focus away from the original evidence of foliate heads. According to the same source, the phrase "green man" has also ended up being used by several folklorists who disagree with Raglan's hypothesis. With my present, very limited, understanding of the topic, I'm thinking that it might be a good idea to move Green man to Foliate head, since that strips it of the originally folkloric connotations of "green man,” allowing it to focus squarely on architecture, and to move Green man (spirit of nature) to Green man, where it could hopefully be ~~cleaned up~~ weeded and reworked to provide appropriately critical coverage of the various competing theories that make use of this term. small jars tc 02:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We should report what people have said about the GM, even if it is not a "real" mythological figure (which ones are?). The article needs work, and if necessary I wouldn't object to it being remerged, but no content should be lost if this happens. Boynamedsue (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The content in § Early agrarian societies does need to be lost. Its first three paragraphs are pure WP:SYNTH based on mythology textbooks and direct reference to scripture, and the last two cite these sources, [9][10], which are both essentially works of Jungian psychology arguing for the green man as a subconscious "archetype,” but which the section treats more like sources of rigorous comparative mythology. small jars tc 15:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That is by far the worst section in the article for the reasons you stated. If it is kept, the article needs to be trimmed to remove unreliable sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whatever else happens, please don't reinsert this stuff back into the original article, where it's very definitely off topic.--AntientNestor (talk) 07:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That should remain an option (not all of it, there is far too much). I didn't see the nomination to split, but nor did anybody else much, to judge by the turnout. I agree that "The mythological concept of the "green man" is not separable from the "foliate head" concept. They should be covered in the same article." as the nom says above. Two words should not be used at all in this discussion: "mythology" and "architecture". We should instead be talking about folklore and art - the most common surviving form is architectural, but there are plenty of paintings and manuscript illuminations. Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether or not it was a mere architectural motif, it has become a real belief held by a number of pagans (see e.g. Smith 2017). First reason: I've been confused before by the lack of a page about this aspect of the religion. If this is the primary thing discussed by the page, the current version should probably be made into a religion article rather than a folklore/mythology article. Alternatively perhaps it could be merged into the Horned Man article, but I am not certain whether those are the same deity or not. Second reason: A quick review of articles available in ResearchGate suggests that at least some researchers do see it as a valid construct or archetype—whether or not it was invented wholesale in the last few centuries, there seems to be a belief that it is being used now. (see e.g. Bucher 2023, Wood 2022, Yarova 2020, Araneo 2018). Kalany (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sorry, but deletion makes no sense. This was a very recent fork with long-standing information from a long-standing article which is now being nominated for deletion. Seems a round-about way of deleting the material from Wikipedia's coverage of Green Man, which also makes no sense when viewing the two articles as a unit (which they were until a few days ago). Signed, Confused in Kansas. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kalany and Randy Kryn: I hope you agree that if the article is kept, the title Green man (spirit of nature) is not a good description of what this conglomerate of ideas is. Would you be in favour of the moves I suggested in my second comment? Do you have any alternate ideas, maybe Green man (folklore)? Clear distinctions should be made between sources treating the green man as a folkloric motif, as an "archetype" and as a neo-pagan deity, though these ideas may be related. I also don't believe the fact that the information is "long standing" excuses some of the synthier parts. small jars tc 19:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly agree that a title like Green man (folklore) is better, & that much of the article can be junked. The stuff that should be here includes this sort of thing. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I see much of that has now gone. But the stuff in the link above needs adding. Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a really good link, thanks. The more I look at this topic, the more confusing it gets. It's obvious that this concept of the "Green Man" as a whiffler in the Early Modern Period (as also discussed in "The Name of the Green Man" from 1997) seems to be linked to the concept of the wild man, but the source does not support Ragland's assertion that there is a direct link between the foliate heads and those green men. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should this be renamed if kept as Green man (mythology) like Pluto (mythology)? Green man (spirit of nature) seems to assert that it is a confirmed spirit. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- No - see above - there is NO mythology here. What do you think the myth is? You could fill a book with accounts of Pluto's doings. Johnbod (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After to improvements made by nom, ironically. AfD is cleanup after all. small jars tc 03:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still really struggling to think about how a coherent article can be written about a topic like this. There are so many concepts about what the "green man" is supposed to be, that it's really hard to talk about them in a balanced way, while also incorporating the criticism the entire "green man" concept has gotten. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  At least one of those sub-concepts (the debunked (?) folklore theory) would be notable on it's own if you took them as seperate, but since all of them are ultimately due to Ragland's initial assertion, they seem related enough to justify them being in the same article. You could have something like § History [of the term], to talk about the facts of where the term came from, whose been using it, etc.; then § In folklore [studies], § In psychoanalysis/As a Jungian archetype, § Neo-Paganism, and § In popular culture, to discuss each use and respective criticism in detail. small jars tc 03:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Damn it seems like the LOC source denies that Raglan actually was the first to coin it. This is confusing but I have to wonder how much the earlier mentions actually matter. small jars tc 04:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course they do. It's pretty clear; she was the first to apply it to the "foliate heads" but the term long preceded this, for the carnival-type figures, and the pubs named after them - see the OED. The question is, what is the connection between these two? There's no difficulty connecting the Wild Man figures in art and in festivities. Johnbod (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2023 (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 per author request. ✗plicit 11:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TOI-4342 b[edit]

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

no sources or indication of importance greyzxq ^talk 20:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find a published scientific paper about it[11] and the NASA website's entry[12] but little else. The article is unsourced. My only argument to keep would be that the exoplanet was recently discovered but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. We can't predict this will become notable.

A question to the nominator about the timeliness of this AfD. How did you find and nominate this article for deletion an hour after its creation?[13] Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I used the Special:NewPagesFeed. greyzxq ^talk 22:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:29, 10 June 2023 (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) 19:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sadichha Shrestha[edit]

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

There is an evident notability issue with no real information, apart from some beauty pageants in 2010 and her marriage in 2022. Nothing seems to validate notability according to online sources. Chiserc (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There appear only to be simple celebrity articles, she got married, she does interviews, I can't find anything for NBIO. Oaktree b (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails SIGCOV and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2023 (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 Kuwait Twenty20 International cricketers. No consensus to keep, unanimous consensus to redirect as an ATD (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Amin (Kuwaiti cricketer)[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Kuwait. SportingFlyer T·C 18:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kuwait Twenty20 International cricketers Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC, however there's a suitable redirect here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Kuwait Twenty20 International cricketers per Rugbyfan22. Also fails WP:NCRICKET. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 00:32, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kuwait Twenty20 International cricketers. I found no evidence of independent notability. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Kuwait Twenty20 International cricketers.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2023 (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. RL0919 (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Ritchie (baseball)[edit]

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

Minor league prospect, fails WP:NBASE. Can possibly be redirected to the Braves prospect page. SportingFlyer T·C 16:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 16:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @SportingFlyer: NBASE no longer exists; all that matters is whether the player passes the general notability guideline. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Yow. That's going to lead to some bad outcomes with potentially trivial prospects like these. SportingFlyer T·C 17:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I didn't know of that NBASE being depreciated as well. It likely doesn't help that many of these players were created under that old guideline. Oaktree b (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems to be enough coverage in the Seattle Times, the MLB.com coverage is not terribly in depth or routine, but it helps. Oaktree b (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As the creator of the article, I do believe that the subject passes GNG although just barely. A merge into Atlanta Braves minor league players would be a good alternative to deletion if it is decided that the subject isn't notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with coverage primarially from Seattle Times along with profiles/coverage from smaller publications. Any MLB.com coverage is non-independent and would not apply to GNG, but it is not needed in this case. Frank Anchor 15:02, 13 June 2023 (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. RL0919 (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subunit (format)[edit]

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

non-notable protocol ~T P W 16:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 16:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not notable, and wp is not a manual. Artem.G (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2023 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:04, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpisms[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was deleted at AfD already and recreated. To be clear, the new article is quite different from the old, reframing from a list to something that's more about his rhetorical style. The neologism "trumpisms" does not seem particularly notable (in the sense that it does not have a clearly agreed upon definition, making our article an inevitable hodgepodge of various people's criticisms of wacky things he says). It's possible some of the content could be merged to public image of Donald Trump or one of the many many other articles about Trump's activities and persona, but there's just not enough to sustain a stand-alone article here per WP:NOPAGE and WP:NEO. It's possible someone could create an article "Speaking/rhetorical/communication style of Donald Trump", but this isn't the material we'd want to start that with. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bidenisms. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Politics, and United States of America. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the last AfD and the nominator's argument. It's also arguably WP:OR, as none of the articles go into depth regarding the term. SportingFlyer T·C 16:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just like the other AfD, a trivial media term to refer to one's behaviors, can't see anything significant that deserves its own Wikipedia article. This is just WP:ORIGINAL research. Karnataka (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2023 (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bidenisms[edit]

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

Nominating for roughly the same reason I supported deleting Trumpisms at its AfD, but even more so because there's so much less coverage of this neologism. Perhaps it could be redirected to public image of Joe Biden, but I don't think there's really anything to merge (I think this is true of the post-deletion recreation of Trumpisms, too). There are a range of policy-based reasons for deletion/redirection here: WP:NOPAGE, WP:NEO, and WP:SALAT to name a few. Per the latter, there's no way to set good inclusion criteria. The subject is really just about his speaking style, which is covered at the public image articles. Even if someone were to create an article on the speaking/rhetorical/communication style of Joe Biden, this isn't the content we'd want to start with. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trumpisms (2nd nomination). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Politics, and United States of America. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but the term is so poorly defined in secondary sources (I mean, we all know what it means, but still) it's also potentially WP:OR. SportingFlyer T·C 16:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a trivial media term to refer to one's behaviors, can't see anything significant that deserves its own Wikipedia article. This is just WP:ORIGINAL research. Karnataka (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. The inclusion criteria is so broad and ill-defined that it just doesn't hold any value as a stand-alone list. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, SYNTH, etc. Wikipedia is not Wikiquote. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 03:21, 16 June 2023 (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 Andy DiGelsomina. Given the recent creation of the work, consensus to redirect as an ATD (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sic Itur Ad Astra[edit]

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

Non-notable album, reviews are mostly in Amazon/seller sites, MetalBite and similar sites that don't appear as RS. Band also does not have an article, making this appear to be PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per the nom. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not passing WP:MUS. Chiserc (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Maliner (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Andy DiGelsomina, since the band was clearly named after him. The album was just released last week, so it's remotely possible that pro reviews could come in soon and that would help for notability in the future. But until/unless that happens, there is no merit to a stand-alone album article, and if anyone searches for the title, it is useful to send them to the musician's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Andy DiGelsomina is a better option than outright deletion. Pichpich (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Andy DiGelsomina - not (at least for now) a notable album, but reasonable search term. LadyofShalott 13:20, 15 June 2023 (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) 19:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Religious Texts Banned From Some Schools in the Davis School District in Utah[edit]

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

Non-notable local issue. Could perhaps be a redirect to a discussion of books in the USA or similar. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Religion, and Utah. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This fails WP:GNG and (in my opinion) also has a waft of WP:SOAPBOX to it. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others' reasoning. Really only notable in the larger context of censorship of books in the US, so if there was a "2023 book censorship in the US" article this could be included there.

ForsythiaJo (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title of this one gave me a laugh, could arguably be considered WP:NOTNEWS, but definitely fails the WP:GNG ULPS (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, it's not NOTNEWS, and not even arguably so; do read that policy thoroughly because like may policies referenced with a WP:VAGUEWAVE, what people think it says often differs markedly from what it actually says. I agree that this issue probably should not be covered at this level of granularity, but am sure that in due course it will become evident how to handle this and similar issues as a cohesive whole. Jclemens (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - At this point, all sources are primary news accounts. IMO, that makes it NOTNEWS#2, but in any case it means it fails GNG for lacking secondary sources. I agree with the others that we should have an article titled perhaps 2023 censorship controversy in the United States and this should be part of it. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah, this was my reasoning for saying it could be considered it. Obviously it would be a stretch and I wouldn't !vote delete based on that alone (Which is why I did not). ULPS (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This information certainly could be part of another article, but it doesn't need to be a standalone article. I could support a redirect, but the title doesn't really lend itself to that.Jacona (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only two items, hardly notable enough for a standalone list. Wikipedia is not the news. Ajf773 (talk) 11:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:03, 15 June 2023 (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) 14:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saddam Hussain (politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable activist, working for the student union doesn't give notability. Largely PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article for this subject has been deleted before under Hussain Saddam. Nothing has significantly changed about the subject's notability and nothing in the coverage shows he meets WP:NPOL. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He has become the President of one of the largest student led political parties in Bangladesh. If this is not significant, I do not know what is. Md.Azhar Uddin Bhuiyan (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable student politician, coverage is all routine. SportingFlyer T·C 16:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — T. 10:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Student government is not a level of office that satisfies WP:NPOL, I remain confused as to why it's specifically editors in India and Bangladesh who are so uniquely prone to thinking otherwise, and the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him any special treatment. Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Galtsev[edit]

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

Sourcing is PROMO, Forbes in particular. Nothing in RS we can use, nothing found in my search. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sourcing is weak, in news, and mostly advertisement. My very best wishes (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Memorial Cemetery (Nebraska)[edit]

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

Non-notable cemetery, not listed on the NRHP and nothing significant found in a BEFORE search, beyond obituaries, listing people buried here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Government Inter College, Devkhari[edit]

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

No sources, no indication of Notability. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since this article was created. No useful sources were surfaced by the minimum searches mentioned in WP:CONRED. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Uttar Pradesh. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and could find no coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources and WP:BEFORE comes up empty. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to New Brunswick New Democratic Party#Decline, 2019–2021. Consensus exists not to retain, and this was a viable ATD presented. Daniel (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2021 New Brunswick New Democratic Party leadership election[edit]

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

Extremely unnecessary article. B3251 (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. B3251 (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as no rationale is provided by the nominator.--User:Namiba 14:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With only a single candidate being confirmed by acclamation, it's not clear that this is a notable election. Could be merged to New_Brunswick_New_Democratic_Party#Decline,_2019–2021. Reywas92^Talk 15:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial coverage, no depth of coverage, no diversity in sources. Not a notable election, Heart ^(talk) 18:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - The event did occur, but is it notable? Don't know. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: As an WP:ATD to the target provided by Reywas92 so as to not break the template on some of the other pages (example). Curbon7 (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2023 (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 Gilgit Agency. Preserve as a search term given it did exist; no desire to keep this article (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Punial State[edit]

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

No reliable sources I could found and the only source is a humorous travelogue called Report from Practically Nowhere which is generally not reliable. Vitaium (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Vitaium (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The only source cited is simply inadequate, and I couldn't find any other significant coverage in reliable sources either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Gilgit Agency, which it was a part of. This princely state did exist (alternatively spelled Puniyal) but there is such a dearth of sources that I'm not sure it can even surpass the bare-minimum of WP:NOPAGE. Curbon7 (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Curbon7. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:06, 14 June 2023 (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. This AfD discussion has been superseded by a series of merge requests on each of the challenged articles' talk pages, please see WT:FILM#Deletion of DCEU articles. (non-admin closure) InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Stone (DC Extended Universe)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As per WP:NFILMCHAR. The only major appearance of the character is in Justice League (2017) and its editor's cut, and the character doesn't seem to be notable itself. Redjedi23 (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because none of these DCEU characters seems to be notable. Most of them made just one appearance, and many of the things reported in these pages concerns more the development of the film (e.g. Steppenwolf and Victor Stone):

*I'll toss in a few other DC film characters from outside the DCEU. Once again, some are obvious candidates to merge, while some others may be more debatable:

Merge all to their main articles. Non-notable incarnations of popular characters. Dronebogus (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There are some with better claims to a standalone article than others, but none of them demonstrate where they need separate articles from their overall character articles. The reception of characters that would demonstrate they are significant standalone incarnations doesn't exist in the articles at present (CBR or Screenrant content) or are focused on the film itself (Leto's Joker performance) and the main articles aren't so long that size issues justify splits. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd hold off on Amanda Waller and Peacemaker, or at most draftify those, as Peacemaker is the main protagonist of his own television series, and he and Waller will appear extensively in upcoming DCU media. Lex Luthor has some good commentary, but I can probably see it merged with Lex Luthor (1978 film series character) into Lex Luthor in film or simply to the existing Lex Luthor in other media. The same can be said for Zod, which I'd say can be merged with General Zod (1978 film series character) to General Zod in film.

Victor Stone/Cyborg and Steppenwolf have material that can be merged to Production of Justice League (film), especially as their characters were the most affected by the reshoots and what happened with Cyborg caused notable controversy. Mera's article has stuff that is mostly covered in Depp v. Heard and Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom and can be simply merged to the main article.

Other than that I have no issue with merging, especially if we've defined what makes an incarnation of a character notable. Lois Lane should be merged to Lois Lane in other media and Joker can also be merged to Joker in other media.

In addition, there are a lot of Donnerverse and Burton/SchumacherVerse characters that could also be merged or deleted. --WuTang94 (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Waller and Peacemaker articles have potential. Maybe they can be put in the draft namespace, as you suggest. Redjedi23 (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Handle outside AfD You could call this "Speedy Keep per criterion 1b" but that's a bit passive-aggressive, and I empathize with what the nom is trying here. Basically, you're making a reasonable point, but 1) it's better served by individual discussions, and 2) when notability of a set of characters is discussed, it's inherently impossible to have a nuanced, data-driven discussion on more than, say, 2-3 characters at once. Draftification is a legitimate option, but results in something being a) lost from mainspace, and 2) missing from a search until someone does something, so a redirect with possibilities is clearly a better option. But this is all something better hashed out on individual talk pages. I am entirely sympathetic with the notion that fictional characters appearing in slightly different franchises/universes should generally be discussed together in one article per character unless they diverge as much as, say, Lieutenant Starbuck and Kara Thrace. This is just not the right tool for that job. Jclemens (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd rather see them discussed one by one. On the surface, merge is reasonable, but I checked two entries and they both appear to have quite a lot about the actor and reception, which may be undue in the article about the comic book character. Better merge targets may be some relevant movies, and the case for those characters having stand-alone GNG is less far fetched than what I imagined at first.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you and Jclemens, there shouldn't be a one-size-fits-all solution for all of these at once, as I believe some articles merit keeping over others. Each article should be examined individually, but I do think that having a place to oversee discussion for all these articles would be good for management, and I'm guessing that's what Redjedi23 was aiming for when they decided to mass-nominate all the DCEU articles. However, I wouldn't be opposed to splitting this into individual talk pages. WuTang94 (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem in splitting discussion. However, I think it's fine to talk in a single discussion about every Batman article that @WuTang94 added. Redjedi23 (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close I agree with the nominator's sentiments, but unfortunately, this is a WP:TRAINWRECK. These articles should be re-nominated in smaller batches based on their shared attributes, for example, everyone who has only appeared once as a supporting/minor character, everyone who has only appeared once but as a major/lead character, etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The initial batch was of only DCEU characters. Which DCEU characters would you list in a single batch? Redjedi23 (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd renominate each one separately. See my comment below. WuTang94 (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all of them. Kill 'em. These spinouts are completely unnecessary and pure fancruft. Take out the MCU ones while we're at it. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 21:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to review and challenge WP:MCUCHARACTERS and WP:NFILMCHAR, then. WuTang94 (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These mass nominations seem like a bad idea.★Trekker (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Initially, it was a minor-DCEU character nomination, but Wutang94 added other articles. Redjedi23 (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Apologies if this is just piling, but I agree with the above concerns that these mass nominations are just not a good idea. It puts a lot of weight and expectations on editors to look through each article, do the research to fairly judge about if coverage exists or not, and make a decision. I do not have any opinion either way about this set of articles, but these kinds of mass nominations never seem productive to me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the articel nominated by WuTang94 after the concern by the users. Is it fine now or we have to create another discussion? Redjedi23 (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also would have individual discussions for the DCEU ones. Even if all but two of them seem to be merge-able [single tear rolling down my face as the author of pretty much all of these pages, but if it has to be done, it has to be done], the merge targets should be more specific, especially with Zod and Luthor.
I'll also renominate the non-DCEU articles separately. WuTang94 (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, just created merge requests for all articles listed above except for the ones in which I more strongly disagree on (Peacemaker, Amanda Waller, DCEU Lex Luthor). Redjedi23 if you want to make merge requests for those, you can follow my template on any of the other pages, or follow the guidelines of WP:Merging. WuTang94 (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD and the merge requests should not be open at the same time. Either @Redjedi23 should withdraw this nomination or @WuTang94 should withdraw theirs.

For reference, the following are the pages that were tagged with merge requests:
Talk:Victor Stone (DC Extended Universe)#Merge request

Talk:Joker (DC Extended Universe)#Merge request

Talk:Zod (DC Extended Universe)#Merge request

Talk:Mera (DC Extended Universe)#Merge request

Talk:Steppenwolf (DC Extended Universe)#Merge request

Talk:Lois Lane (DC Extended Universe)#Merge request

Talk:Supergirl (1984 film character)#Merge request

Talk:Vicki Vale (1989 film series character)#Merge request

Talk:Oswald Cobblepot (Batman Returns)#Merge request

Talk:Harvey Dent (1989 film series character)#Merge request

Talk:Dick Grayson (1989 film series character)#Merge request

Talk:Edward Nygma (Batman Forever)#Merge request

Talk:Victor Fries (Batman & Robin)#Merge request

Talk:Pamela Isley (Batman & Robin)#Merge request

The following pages were not tagged:
Talk:Amanda Waller (DC Extended Universe)

Talk:Lex Luthor (DC Extended Universe)

Talk:Lex Luthor (1978 film series character)

Talk:Joker (Jack Napier)

– InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I would close out the mass-AfD in favor of the separate merge requests as each article should be looked at separately. WuTang94 (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem in close the AfD, but I would note that it is not a massive AfD because there are 8 DCEU related articles that have the same problem. Maybe Waller is the exception. Redjedi23 (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity TV[edit]

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

Article about a possibly defunct television channel not properly sourced as passing WP:BCAST. As always, television channels are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be the subject of third-party coverage in media besides themselves to establish their significance -- but the sole "source" here was content on its own self-published website about itself, and even that website is dead.
And for added bonus, this was half-hijacked in 2020, with the body text overwritten to describe the subject as a newly-launched thing in Canada, but without the referencing, the dead external link or the Emirati categories having been changed at all -- and the fact that this went 2.5 years without being detected implies low traffic and visibility.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to Emirati media than I've got can find the sourcing needed to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to pass WP:GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Arab Emirates. Bearcat (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no sign this exists today, although it announced a 'reality TV show' back in 2004/6 there's no indication it got as far as the GFC let along survived it. No coverage since then, appears to have dropped off Nilesat, to all appearances it was barely on it to begin with. Right now, we've got a signal (ha) failure of WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've managed to find ^[1]^[2] (2nd link gives the name of Station Manager, TV name and launch date) which are fantastic however that's all I did find, They've had various websites [14][15], More baffling they've amassed over 1k followers on LinkedIn[16] and in 2010 launched a Twitter account[17] and YouTube account[18] yet other than the 2 sources listed I cannot find any evidence of any notability or even anything that says they existed, Even searching in Dubai language brings up nothing[19],

I'm going to take a wild guess and say it had been running for 3 years and at some point got booted off and maybe the 2010-Youtube/Twitter creations were them trying to revive the name but weren't on anything ?, I've been convinced we were missing something because of the amount of LinkedIn followers they had but I don't think so..... Anyway no evidence of notaility, fails SIGCOV and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Cherian, Vijaya (23 Aug 2007). "Infinity TV launches second channel". ArabianBusiness. Retrieved 10 June 2023.
^ Khalil, Joe F.; Kraidy, Marwan M. (14 October 2017). Arab Television Industries. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84457-576-3. Retrieved 10 June 2023.

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Onuigbo[edit]

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

Declined speedy deletion, but doesn't appear to be much actually about him in this promotional biography, so sending to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Black Kite (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PROMO, I can't find much about this person other than the flowery articles used as sourcing. The one gov't source isn't useful, the rest appear in un-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Please kindly look closely the sources listed referenced for the article which is significant enough for him to pass notability and they are reliable and independently(Secondary) references aswell. Thanks.Christbueze (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage about the topic, it was just mentioned, in series of secondary source that doesn't pass notablity Oloriebi 11:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2023 (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 Characters of Kingdom Hearts#Terra. RL0919 (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terra (Kingdom Hearts)[edit]

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

There are sources that amount to WP:REFBOMB going on with small quotes from reviews and/or passing mentions. Cannot find a single WP:SIGCOV. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Refbombing is one thing, but there's a ton of content and prose here. It's...difficult to see this as entirely unimportant "padding". Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Kingdom Hearts characters. Lots of content yes, but Wikipedia is not FANDOM - it still needs to pass GNG. In this case the character does not appear to, due to a lack of SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:06, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Kingdom Hearts characters. I think User:Sergecross73 has a point that there's some meat in there, but it doesn't feel like enough to keep it going when the empty lists are pulled out sadly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning possible keep? It's possible the article could have some fat trimmed, sure (I recognize that Tintor2 was expanding in good faith, but let's please not add CBR.com , a clickbait site), but the Boss Fight Books source on Kingdom Hearts II seems promising. I don't have access to it and Boss Fight can sometimes be a bit "deep reiteration of the plot" rather than critical analysis, but it seems like a good start if someone wants to try salvaging the article. SnowFire (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with dropping CBR by virtue of the fact that the article isn't even about Terra. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2023 (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) 14:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Selwyn Sese Ala[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT; no sources available beyond some short obits like [20]. By the way, the sources currently in the article don't verify that he indeed died from suicide, which is just fucking swell. "Best" I could turn up on that end is this transcript of a radio broadcast: [21]. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, since there is currently no List of Vanuatu international footballers to redirect to per WP:ATD-R. ミラP@Miraclepine 00:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Tennessee Tag Team Championship (Smoky Mountain)[edit]

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

No notable independent wrestling title. Not enought coverage to prove notability. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2023 (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/2023 June 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Tennessee. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Mountain Empire Championship[edit]

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

No notable independent wrestling title. Not enought coverage to prove notability. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NWA United States Tag Team Championship (Tennessee version)[edit]

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

No notable independent wrestling title. Not enought coverage to prove notability. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Southeastern Heavyweight Championship (Smoky Mountain)[edit]

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

No notable independent wrestling title. Not enought coverage to prove notability. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IPW United States Tag Team Championship[edit]

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

No notable independent wrestling title. Not enought coverage to prove notability. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2023 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of Wales[edit]

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

This article is a POVfork of Welsh history articles. If there is a primary subject of Welsh military history, this is not it. Wales has never had its own standing army and this article mixes Celtic history, then the English conquest, then revolts, then British history and finally Welsh regiments in the world wars. At the very least WP:TNT applies.

Article content is entirely copied from other articles, and per discussion on the talk page, [22] it is badly done. Referencing is inconsistent and often broken. No information willl be lost if this article is deleted as it is all in other articles.

Considered WP:BLAR but not at all clear what the primary topic would be for a redirect. Thus I favour deletion, but redirect would be fine if editors can find consensus for a target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Wales. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my feeling is that the topic is likely notable (there are books written about it) but the current page needs WP:TNT for reasons described above. Possibly someone eventually could write a properly sourced article containing different information from other related pages, but this isn't it.

Fwiw I don't agree that the topic is invalid because some of the history occurred before Wales was a nation. JMWt (talk) 09:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It looks like it should blow it up and start it again, and also, it like a POV fork. CastJared (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A pointless article cut and pasted from existing history articles. DeCausa (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the purpose of WP:TNT --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator and JMWt. This article doesn't present us with anything new and is a content fork of other articles. Wales has a history of battle and conquest but that is covered in History of Wales. We also have Armed forces in Wales and Wales in the World Wars which cover more recent, specific topics. The article was draftified because of the problems, the origonal 'author' copied a large chunk from another cpontent fork article and re-pubished it. I don't believe draftifying it will yield any significant improvement or re-write. Sionk (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and check for cleanup of linked articles. Some of the previously renamed/redirected/deleted POVfork copy/paste articles still have wikilinks from the articles they have been copied from which can be removed or changed, in this case though it seems to be mainly linked through ((History of Wales)). EdwardUK (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can support a delete via Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over with an aim to use sources that are relevant that avoids copy-edits. Titus Gold (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Contains a massive amount of personal analysis and dubious claims. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand much of the reasoning given here. The claim that "Wales has never had its own standing army" isn't the least bit relevant. And of course the article should be redundant. Many high level articles ought to be 90%+ redundant to sub-articles. The topic is certainly notable. There is a monograph by Sean Davies, War and Society in Medieval Wales, 633-1283: Welsh Military Institutions. It is probably more of a problem that our history of Wales article is so dominated by military history. I say redirect to History of Wales for now. Srnec (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TNT can apply as it may be a notable topic if re-written better or just made into a list like some other "Military history of" articles. But the existing article is largely copy-pasted. Dank Jae 15:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Filipo Bureta[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Player should be notable based on where the level where they play, but all I can find are trivial mentions such as [23]. Delete for lack of sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Cambridge Foundation School[edit]

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

No sources, no indication of Notability. The WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since this article was created. No GNG-level sources were surfaced by the minimum searches mentioned in WP:CONRED. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL. 33ABGirl (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced very short article. Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 03:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RBCG30[edit]

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

There is not general secondary sources establishing notability. I could only find one recent development: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2021.706727/full

I don't know 100% that this is an appropriate deletion, as a fair number of pages link to this one, but think that discussion may be merited. Kwkintegrator (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Technology. Kwkintegrator (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep recency of developments don't directly matter. There is significant coverage in secondary medical publications, and even making it as at least a mention in textbooks and some more general books (see Google Books link in the AFD header and archive.org open library search and at least one newspaper story covering a clinical trial: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-springfield-news-leader-tb-vaccine-t/125717448/. Skynxnex (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 9 June 2023 (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. Sources presented demonstrated GNG (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Lang Market[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines - sources are unreliable due to being largely self-published and user-generated as far as I can tell. Suntooooth (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the few remaining street food markets in Bangkok, widely mentioned and has received some substantive coverage. I've added some cites; this isn't an issue of notability but of a need for sourcing for the article. Oblivy (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy: Could you please link to a few sources that you think best meet WP:SIGCOV? JML1148 (talk | contribs) 09:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only had a short amount of time to work on this, but the Sethlui.com cite[24] is quite substantive. The Bangkok Post article [25] supports the material about naming, and mentions the market. There are some Google Scholar hits as well like this[26] (paper here[27]) which are entirely about the market. Oblivy (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Oblivy has added a citation to Sethlui.com (a noted Singaporean food website), and in-depth coverage exists by plenty of established food and travel guides, including Travelfish[28] and Time Out[29], not to mention Thai-language sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Suntooooth, since this appears to be your first time nominating an article at AfD, I'd like to suggest taking a close look at the guidance at WP:BEFORE, if you haven't already done so. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add information backed up by reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV of the subject: references mentioned here show that the article evidently passes WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 17:46, 11 June 2023 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Race Wars (The Fast and the Furious)[edit]

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

This is simply not a notable topic. This is a plot point in a film and has no independent notability outside of the film. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could be simply mentioned in an article about the real-life event, in the "In Popular Culture" section of an article. The first paragraph talks about the movies, then goes on to describe the real life event. Some sort of SYNTH, mooshing two subjects together. Oaktree b (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable greyzxq ^talk 20:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plot points are incredibly tenuous as notable. This is infinitesimally unnotable. DMT Biscuit (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2023 (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. No one has argued for keep since the strong source analysis. Given that, I am inclined to give less weight to the keep arguments. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seb Jewell[edit]

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

Non-notable player, only coverage I can find is from match reports and a handful of interviews. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Primefac (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Rugby union, and England. Primefac (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's enough in a simple search in terms of interviews and other bits to suggest that there will be enough for a GNG pass if local and offline sources are taken into consideration also. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There’s enough info out there to write a more comprehensive article, just needs major updating. RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he was a very established Premiership Player for a number of seasons, there must be enough sources to write a good short article on him.Skeene88 (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC) EDIT: I've now substantially updated the page, I believe that easily meets the criteria to be kept now.Skeene88 (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Rugby Paper newsletter is written by him N. The This is Local London source is a contributor piece written by a "young reporter", not a staff member. BLPs demand high-quality sources, amateur submissions don't cut it N. The Rugby World piece is also a contributor submission, not professional journalism N. The Bucks Free Press has less than a sentence of independent secondary coverage of Jewell, it's almost entirely quotes N. The Express is GUNREL N. BBC Sport is a routine trivial transaction announcement N. JoelleJay (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JoelleJay's excellent sources analysis. If it wasn't a BLP, I think the contributor pieces would have barely passed the article through WP:GNG, however it is a BLP, and we need high-quality reliable sources. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per JoelleJay's sources analysis.Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:04, 9 June 2023 (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 A Little Touch of Schmilsson in the Night. RL0919 (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Little Touch of Schmilsson in the Night (TV special)[edit]

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

40-minute TV special documenting the recording/creation of a record album. The wiki article contains only two sentences about the TV show; the rest of the wiki article is about either the album (A Little Touch of Schmilsson in the Night) or the artist (Harry Nilsson). I have Googled the TV show and have found no significant coverage; it appears to have no independent notability outside either the album itself or the artist. Softlavender (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music. Softlavender (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either the album or the artist. This is a non-notable TV show otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to A Little Touch of Schmilsson in the Night per Oaktree b. I lean towards the album (what I linked), rather than the artist. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 08:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The lone two instances of this title in The Times archive at Gale are just TV listings, as are most of what the British Newspaper Archive has to offer. However, BNA does bring up a couple of articles on the special itself, as well as one review on the parent album (which we may use to start a Reception section or ratings box). (Refs below improved with matches from Newspapers.)
"BBC 2 Highlights: 10:50: A Little Touch of Schmilsson in the Night". The People. London. 1973-06-10. p. 4. Retrieved 2023-06-09 – via Newspapers.com. Cult singer-composer Harry Nilsson normally refuses to do live concerts or appear on TV. Which is what makes tonight's show something of a coup for producer Stanley Dorfman, a close friend of Nilsson.

Ariel (1973-06-11). "So relaxed as Nilsson sings the oldies". Liverpool Echo. p. 2. Retrieved 2023-06-09 – via Newspapers.com. The only pretentious aspect of Little Touch of Schmilsson in the Night...was the title. which may well have deterred many viewers. In the event, it turned out to be a delightfully relaxing 45 minutes in the company of singer Harry Nilsson.

"Musicbox". Coleshill Chronicle. 1973-06-29. p. 9. Retrieved 2023-06-09 – via Newspapers.com. ...[Nilsson's] new album shouldn't come as too much of a surprise. Called A Little Touch Of Schmilsson In The Night (RCA), it follows the Schmilsson theme of his last two albums but in name only. For Harry has forsaken rock for the sweet strings and moon-in-June lyrics of the vintage years in songwriting.

--Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 14:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The text from Coleshill Chronicle is about the album, not about the television special. Softlavender (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing new from Newspapers, apart from improvements to the refs above--plus this extra concerning the special. (A couple more on the album await as I find time to put them in that article.)

James, Clive (1973-06-17). "Television: Caught by the throat". The Observer. p. 31. Retrieved 2023-06-09 – via Newspapers.com.

--Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have rewritten the page to summerize why I think it should be kept, which is as follows:

A Little Touch of Schmilsson in the Night is one of the only television appearances that American singer-songwriter Harry Nillson ever made on TV. Nilsson never toured and never played a single formal concert for a paying audience.^[1] With exception to an episode of In Concert, which was Nilsson's first and only other show on television, A Little Touch of Schmilsson in the Night, was Nilsson's only televised full-length concert, albeit in the studio and without an audience.^[2] One of the legends surrounding Nilsson is that he never performed any live concerts.^[3] Despite being described as "a pioneer of the Los Angeles studio sound" and "a crucial bridge" between 1960s psychedelia and the 1970s singer-songwriter era, and that he was voted No. 62 in Rolling Stone's 2015 list of the "100 Greatest Songwriters of All Time"^[4], Nilsson was known as a "singer-composer who is heard by not seen". He had appeared only once, for a few moments, on television in England and once in America.^[5] As noted by Van Dyke Parks, "He didn't buy into the idea that you must go out and get clapped at and approved of in public to make a living."^[6] A Little Touch of Schmilsson in the Night, named after his album by the same name (A Little Touch Of Schmilsson In The Night)^[7], was filmed few days after recording the album, which he recorded in a few days in March 1973. Nilsson, Gordon Jenkins (also Nat King Cole and Frank Sinatra's arranger) recreated the scene of the album recording with a live orchestra, filmed by Dorfman at the BBC TV theatre in Shepherd's Bush. In 1994, almost twenty years later, the english journalist and record producer Derek Taylor summarized the TV special in Mojo magazine, saying "There has been nothing better on music TV since."^[8] There is much more that I can (and will when I have time and if it doesn't get deleted to the page to show it's notability, but hopefully the proceeding does an inadequate job to describe why it should be kept - if only even as a stub. - SacredLotus7 (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to A Little Touch of Schmilsson in the Night (the parent album), where the TV special can be discussed in a new section. The show did indeed get some notice, but I don't think it was significant enough to merit a separate article. Even with some recent additions, this article is still mostly about the album itself and the fact that Nilsson rarely appeared on TV, and both of those are outside this particular TV special. Worth noting briefly at the album article, but that's all. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As this 2010 article states^[1] "If there was one roadblock in constructing the film, it was Nilsson's career-long aversion to live performance. Because he never toured, only two BBC specials and barely a handful of guest appearances on TV shows survive to illustrate him at work" and "Harry Nilsson had an aversion to live performance, leaving only two BBC specials and some TV guest appearances to illustrate his work" - As the article points out, this TV special was one of the two appearances left to illustrate Nilsson at work, and that deserves to be highlighted outside the album page. - SacredLotus7 (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://www.newspapers.com/image/426567492/?terms=harry%20nilsson%20tv%20performance&match=1

As (now) noted on the page, with exception to an episode of In Concert, A Little Touch of Schmilsson in the Night was Nilsson's only televised full-length concert. In 1994, almost twenty years later, the english journalist and record producer Derek Taylor wrote about the TV special in Mojo magazine, saying "There has been nothing better on music TV since."^[1] SacredLotus7 (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.rocksbackpages.com/Library/Article/singer-songwriter-fab-across-the-water-1941-1994

@SacredLotus7 you're only allowed one vote per AfD so I've struck your second and third keep votes. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The bludgeoning for keep is badly unconvincing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Rollen[edit]

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

Refbombed piece, not clear if any of the sources are WP:RS. Likely to fail WP:MUSICBIO. Declined draft. KH-1 (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Uganda. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PROMO. Even a Gsearch brings up Imdb, various social media links, his crunchbase bio, twitter. Nothing beyond promotion or social media. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want you to do some homework. Gsearch for Chris Brown, Among the very first search results on his SERP is his official website, instagram, twitter, linkedin, youtube, deezer, youtube. But doesn't he have a wikipedia page! Does that make it a promotion page? Or does his page therefore qualify for deletion since his google search results don't have news websites through out from top to bottom.

Let me educate you, the results that appear on google search when you search for a brand is 70% affected by how optimized the brand personality is. Some brands don't give room for any news articles to appear on google search for atleast two or three pages down. That's SEO. But if you continue down and down, You'll then find the articles you need.

You can't therefore claim that since Jack Rollen's SERP brings his handles firts, it makes it a PROMO. That will make every brand that optimizes their brand subject to wikipedia page deletion. Pro Art Editor (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a vanity page with nothing to indicate notability. _signed,Willondon (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Am sure you are claiming that this page is a vanity page just because the subject is not famous in your country. I have something for you!

A page should not be cast away as vanity simply because ths subject is not famous(in one editor's region). There is presently no consensus about what the degree of recognition is required for a page to be included in wikipedia, and therefore, lack of fame should be completely ignored in deletion debates.

what am trying to say is(something that even professional wikipedians like David Gerard believe in), just because you think a page is a vanity page doesn't make it qualify for deletion.

David Gerard once said, "notability is not a deletiion criteria" but now I say "Vanity claims doesn't make a page subject to deletion." We need more than that. Pro Art Editor (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with previous comments that there is nothing to indicate notability, and everything presume this is a vanity page. --VViking_TalkEdits 17:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sirs, I don't think we shall agree on deleting a page just depending on the way someone thinks about the matter. I've seen all the previous comments are based on what someone thinks about the page Jack Rollen, which isn't right. Before coming here to comment on this, I had to read the Afd policy, and it so clearly states that decisions about the fate of a page shouldn't be based on thoughts but sources to support one's idea about the subject. I'm here to neither support the deletion nor the Keeping of the page. I rather request us as wikipedians to be fair and unbiased.

Someone was saying there's nothing more than linkedin profiles and social media links on Gsearch results on Jack Rollen, a claim that is entirely wrong. We need to base on facts and sources if we're to conclude this deletion process. I know most of Ya'll want the page deleted, mostly coz Ya'll are biased, you don't want to do your homework but rather to get done with what you feel is right(which is wrong) in your mind. I'm not here to change anyone's mind. But not all musical artists, producers, songwriters, have a big platform as the establshed American figures but these subjects are notable in their respective regions. Pro Art Editor (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

mostly coz Ya'll are biased: speculating on other editors' motives is usually a non-starter in these discussions
just because the subject is not famous in your country: it is true that parochialism can lead to less dominant cultures being unfairly ignored
you don't want to do your homework: WP:BURDEN provides guidance which I believe can be extended to articles as well as portions of content
if you continue down and down, You'll then find the articles you need.:

Improvements to an article are very welcome, even (especially) while an AfD is being discussed. It will be good if you can find reliable secondary sources and provide content based on them. One thing I noticed in the article: "Jack Rollen has been known by many names in the Uganda entertainment industry. Bomba, JAVIN, Karts Pro, Tritto Pritto & Producer Karts are some of the pseudonyms he has used". This makes it difficult to verify content without a reliable source tying those pseudonyms together. For example, some sources refer to "Bomba", but provide no indication that "Jack Rollen" and "Bomba" are the same person. _signed,Willondon (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2023 (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. Withdrawn by nom (non-admin closure) Lightoil (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (8 June 2023 – present)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Dylan | ✉ | ✓ 00:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dylan | ✉ | ✓ 00:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is a split of the previous page, Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (12 November 2022 – present). Before creating it, I asked on the talk page, and the consensus was unanimous in favor of splitting. The previous page was the longest of the timelines up to this date, and a split is more than warranted. WP:NOTNEWS is irrelevant as not only the offensive itself is certainly notable and has its own article, but the content of the timeline is the same whether it is in one or two articles. And the beginning of the recent counteroffensive is the best point to split these. Chaotic Enby (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn - I did not realize this was a split, I apologize. Chaotic Enby is correct. Dylan | ✉ | ✓ 01:09, 9 June 2023 (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. Per WP:HEY and nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Aszx5000 (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hotelbeds[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails NCORP. Sources are not reliable and sufficient enough to establish notability. The article is reliant on dependent coverage and coverage from travel websites. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Spain. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 00:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator, per the discussion below. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 23:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Very PROMO with routine business mentions used for sourcing. That's about similar to what I find. Oaktree b (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please indicate non-independent business mentions so that I can find better sources or remove? Travel&tourism-es (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need coverage of the company in the New York Times, a peer-reviewed business journal or the like. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Added coverage in International Travel & Health Insurance Journal, Bloomberg, The Times, El Mundo and El País (the two biggest newspapers in Spanish), Expansión (the leadinh economic newspaper in Spain) and two published books on hotel distribution available in Google Books. Travel&tourism-es (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An unmistakably promotional article, created by an editor with conflict of interest. JBW (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Withdrawn: see below. JBW (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest is declared and the article intention is to be factual, not promotional. Please provide suggestions to remove promotional references. Travel&tourism-es (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What ever may be the intention, the character of the article is promotional. JBW (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please review the new version? Travel&tourism-es (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added references to help identify notability: companies ordered by revenue in the state. Travel&tourism-es (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have indeed added a couple of links, including a list of companies ordered by revenue in the state. However, inclusion in a list is not evidence of notability in Wikipedia's sense; you need to provide citations to substantial coverage of the subject, not just inclusion in lists. In fact, your comment here prompted me to check all the references ion the article, which I had not previously done, having based my impression purely on the promotional tone of the article. I have found that not a single one of the references is substantial coverage of the subject. One of the references doesn't even mention the company, others include announcements of changes in the business's structure or management or of acquisitions of companies, pages which only very briefly mention Hotelbeds, etc. Also some of them are clearly not independent sources, being on the company's own web site or stes of other businesses connected to it, and others look very much as though they may be write-ups of press release information or similar. In fact, now that I have checked the references, my "delete" above has now become more like "DELETE". JBW (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mistake, I’m new to creating articles. I have rewritten the page correcting the tone. Added as well coverage in International Travel & Health Insurance Journal, Bloomberg, The Times, El Mundo and El País (the two biggest newspapers in Spanish), Expansión (the leadinh economic newspaper in Spain) and two published books on hotel distribution available in Google Books.

Could you please review? Travel&tourism-es (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted someone to "review", you should have used the WP:AfC process as advised for WP:PAID editors. It is also not other editor's responsibility to provide you with links or tell you where it is promotional. Finally, it is also up to you to provide references that meet WP:ORGCRIT, not just adding as many references as you can find. Can you point out the references that meet ORGCRIT? --CNMall41 (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your guidance and sorry for the mistake :-/ I’ve added now my assessments of the sources with respect to the notability guideline for organizations (ORGCRIT) in a comment into this discussion. Travel&tourism-es (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing more than ad copy. XOR'easter (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of article rewritten, could you please review? Travel&tourism-es (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have looked at the current version of the article, and compared it with the version which existed when I posted my comments above.

Firstly, I will comment on the promotional tone of the article. You have made some changes to the article, including removing some promotional wording, but on the other hand you have added further promotional text in other parts of the article, so that the end result is certainly not significantly less promotional than the earlier version, and I should say if anything slightly more so. You have declared a conflict of interest in relation to this article (thank you for doing so) and you may well work in marketing, PR, or a related field. Over the years I have found that professionals in such fields very often seem to be totally unable to see why other people view their writing as promotional, and strive to make it unpromotional in character, but fail to do so. I have formed the impression that such people are so used to reading, writing, hearing, and speaking marketing speak for hours on end, day after day, year after year, that they become desensitised to it, and actually cannot see its promotional character even when it is right in front of their face. That is probably one of the reasons why time and again I have seen editors of this kind sincerely trying, in perfectly good faith, to produce something which looks neutral to others, and never succeeding in doing so.
Now, the references. You have almost doubled the number of references since the last time I checked, from 14 to 27, but unfortunately it is almost all just more of the same: a book of 221 pages, which includes one mention of Hotelbeds, and that one mention is merely including it in a list of six businesses; business announcements such as "The former TUI Travel Accommodation & Destinations is now called Hotelbeds Group", "Hotelbeds Agrees to Buy Wholesaler GTA"; and so on... There is, however, just one citation to something which could be regarded as substantial coverage in an independent source, namely an article published by the newspaper El País, at the URL https://elpais.com/economia/negocios/2023-06-07/uno-de-los-mayores-bancos-de-camas-de-hotel-es-espanol-y-esta-en-venta.html. If there are a few more sources available like that one then there may be enough evidence of notability to justify an article about the business, but even if that is so (which needs to be demonstrated) then this is not the article which would be justified, because it really is just an attempt to promote the business. JBW (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much @JBW for your time and very useful guidance.

On your first point, the article is now rewritten in much more neutral tone; hopefully it also appears neutral to others.
On your second point, the references, thank you for pointing me in the right direction.

I add the ORGCRIT table to review notability. Please correct if I may not be selecting the appropriate values based on my review. Travel&tourism-es (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here are my assessments of the sources with respect to the notability guideline for organizations (ORGCRIT).

|- style="background:#f8f9fa;"

Created with templates ((ORGCRIT assess table)) and ((ORGCRIT assess))
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Catà Figuls, Josep (7 June 2023). "[Uno de los mayores bancos de camas de hotel es español y está en venta https://elpais.com/economia/negocios/2023-06-07/uno-de-los-mayores-bancos-de-camas-de-hotel-es-espanol-y-esta-en-venta.html]". El País.	Source is independent from the subject.	El País is a reliable newspaper.	The coverage is significant and discusses the organization history and the potential sale of the company in depth.	This is a secondary source reporting on the organization.	(( ORGCRIT assess )) \|- style="background:#f8f9fa;"	Salces Acebes, Laura (5 June 2014). "[Hotelbeds, supermercado de habitaciones de hotel https://cincodias.elpais.com/cincodias/2014/06/04/empresas/1401910383_630565.html]". El País - Cinco Días. Retrieved 11 June 2023.	Source is independent from the subject.	Cinco Días is a reliable source, is the economic newspaper of El País.	The coverage is significant, discussing the company's operations.	This is a secondary source reporting on the organization.	\|- style="background:#f8f9fa;"	Walsh, Dominic (25 April 2016). "[Private equity heads the queue for 1bn Hotelbeds https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/private-equity-heads-the-queue-for-1bn-hotelbeds-2d2nfnw92]". The Times.	Source is independent from the subject.	The Times is a reliable newspaper.	The coverage is significant, discussing financial aspects of the organization amidst the purchase of it by private equity firms.	This is a secondary source reporting on the organization.	\|- style="background:#f8f9fa;"	Salces Acebes, Laura (28 April 2016). "[Cinven compra Hotelbeds por 1.165 millones https://cincodias.elpais.com/cincodias/2016/04/28/empresas/1461844701_261765.html]". El País - Cinco Días.	Source is independent from the subject.	Cinco Días is a reliable source, is the economic newspaper of El País.	The coverage is significant, discussing financial aspects of the purchase of the organization, both for the private equity purchasing it and for Spain.	This is a secondary source reporting on the organization.	\|- style="background:#f8f9fa;"	Abril, Inés (2019-04-14). "[Los dueños de Hotelbeds endeudan la compañía para pagarse un dividendo de 490 millones https://www.expansion.com/empresas/transporte/2019/04/14/5cb357bbca4741a02b8b45a6.html]". Expansión.	Source is independent from the subject.	Expansión is a reliable economic newspaper.	The coverage is significant, discussing in detail the financial aspects of the dividend payout to its shareholders and how it is going to affect its future.	This is a secondary source reporting on the organization.	\|- style="background:#f8f9fa;"	"[Hotelbeds, el mayor supermercado de camas de hoteles https://cincodias.elpais.com/cincodias/2017/04/24/companias/1493036262_768532.html]". El País - Cinco Días. 25 April 2017.	Source is independent from the subject.	Cinco Días is a reliable source, is the economic newspaper of El País.	The coverage is significant and entirely about the organization and its purchase of two competitors.	This is a secondary source reporting on the organization.	\|- style="background:#f8f9fa;"	Marco, Agustín (2020-04-02). "[Cinven rescata la española Hotelbeds, el mayor banco mundial de camas, con 400 M https://www.elconfidencial.com/empresas/2020-04-02/cinven-rescata-hotelbeds-banco-camas_2529768/]". El Confidencial.	Source is independent from the subject.	El Confidencial is a reliable newspaper.	The coverage is significant, discussing financial situation of the organization and financial support received.	This is a secondary source reporting on the organization.	\|- style="background:#f8f9fa;"	Abril, Inés (18 December 2020). "[Cinven, EQT y CPPIB negocian inyectar 175 millones a Hotelbeds https://cincodias.elpais.com/cincodias/2020/12/18/companias/1608322845_711275.html]”. El País - Cinco Días.	Source is independent from the subject.	Reorg is a reliable source.	The coverage is significant, discussing further financial support for the organization.	This is a secondary source reporting on the organization.	\|- style="background:#f8f9fa;"	Arroyo, Rebeca (2021-05-05). "[Nicolas Huss Succeeds Joan Vilà at Hotelbeds https://www.expansion.com/empresas/transporte/2021/05/05/609160d0e5fdeac70f8b4601.html]". Expansión.	Source is independent from the subject.	Expansión is a reliable economic newspaper.	The coverage is significant, discussing changes in the highest-level organization's leadership.	This is a secondary source reporting on the organization.

Travel&tourism-es (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits have been a serious attempt to address both the issues which have been raised, promotional tone and lack of evidence of notability. In my opinion, the article is no longer at all promotional, so that problem has gone. As for the referencing, the following references have been added since the last time I checked the article: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]. Some of those do give much more substantial coverage of Hotelbeds than the earlier references, but there's the question whether they are enough. I would like to have one or more other independent opinions on that. I am therefore withdrawing my "delete" but I am not quite ready to add a "keep". Pinging @Fancy Refrigerator, Oaktree b, and XOR'easter: in case any of them would like to reconsider the article, since it is significantly different from how it was when they last reviewed it. JBW (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep El Pais seems ok, the rest are of lesser quality, but I think together it's just enough. I'll modify my !vote above. Oaktree b (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, sources are now of much better quality. I don’t see any other major issues with the article. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 23:55, 11 June 2023 (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.