< May 05	May 07 >

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 00:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Commercial School, Obiangwu[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Sources in the article are primary, database. BEFORE showed database and primary, some ROUTINE news, nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 12:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:07, 15 April 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 14:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see it passing only 4 out of 10 factors. Bearian (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources found do not satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH as they only cover the school trivially Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:51, 6 May 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 Withdrawn nomination and no support for deletion so I'm closing this one a bit early. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

King (Tekken)[edit]

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

Just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Williams (Tekken), their popularity doesn't mean they are automatically notabale. Most of the new sources on google were about his routine trailer coverage for his inclusion in Tekken 8. The only usable source is this [1], and nothing else. Zero WP:SIGCOV. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge In its current form, the article is indisputably non-notable and there is a sensible merge target available. No sources seem to exist to establish his notability. A half dozen trivial mentions in lists do not result in a notable character. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The other characters in this series have their own articles. Abstrakt (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Most of those characters are being merged and deleted as well. Blitzfan51 (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those have been merged into a list. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think some searching is in order for King. The problem is that "King" is word that can refer to various things. Even if you add the word "wrestling" (his fighting style) in searches, other things pop up. I heard you were going to be AFD'ing him eventually, and I've been looking for some sources on and off since. In the event I'm not able to save King from AFD, maybe I'll take the Sarah Bryant route, and restore the article should I find the coverage later on. MoonJet (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than restoring articles and ignoring AfD results, please expand the character within the list, then start a split discussion when you believe it is too large to remain part of the list. People may very well agree to split it off, but we don't want it to go to the level of WP:IDHT regarding recreating articles against consensus. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...You do realize you could've just added Tekken to your searches, right? Then again, it would still be hard considering there's apparently a whopping 4 Kings in this series. Anyway, so far I found a Den of Geek list and articles from The Loadout, Dot Esports and Mic in my WP:BEFORE search, so go crazy. PantheonRadiance (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I've added that to searches and still get results of plenty of other things. Technically, there's only two Kings, King and Armor King. However, both King and Armor King have had two different people assuming the identity.

As for the sources, I don't think the ones you've provided will hold much weight for this AFD. In fact, one of the reasons this was AFD'ed in the first place was that GlatorNator couldn't find much, besides routine Tekken 8 announcements. I have been trying to look for more sources though. MoonJet (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and Comment by searching King+Tekken+Lucha I found a paper by an Assistant Professor at the University of Arizona here that discusses his design and what elements of it signify, and a book reference here which while not able to be previewed in full does offer more info. King/Armor King definitely seem to have some degree of notability, and what I would suggest is to instead of merging this combine the characters into one article due to the degree of overlap in regards to reception.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great finds. I'm not sure if King and Armor King should share an article though. They are clearly different characters, and there's already two Kings and two Armor Kings as it is. That said, I now think King is a keep due to the coverage found. MoonJet (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an obvious no brainer because King is an old Tekken character that has been present in most of the games. Also the fact that his article is available in 10 different languages already. The user GlatorNator has promoted articles such as Mr. X (Resident Evil) to good article status even though that character's article is only available in the English language. It is obvious that King as a character is far more notable based on Wikipedia standards Rahammz (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, sometimes notability isn't guaranteed just because a character is recognizable and well known, and English wikipedia relies on third party reception discussing a character to demonstrate notability. You and I may know Mitsurugi from Soulcalibur for example, but he doesn't have an article because little to no actual discussion about him has occurred.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then look what happen to Anna Williams and Paul Phoenix, those are popular. Anyway, I'm gonna Withdraw this nomination for KFM finding papers. Great job. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being quick to withdraw is actually significantly worse than leaving it up. If for whatever reason the article isn't actually notable, a withdrawn AfD makes it far less likely to ever get questioned, since it creates the heavy assumption that it is. I still think there is some serious room for doubt here, as it seems most people's arguments are "well duh, it's a popular character".

Unless the article's notability is absolutely, positively, and clearly proven with major sources, withdraws should not happen. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should be fine to withdraw in this case, the AfD efforts should be better used towards subjects that are clearly non-notable, instead of dragging this out.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Alright. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 15:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple articles here are about him that would help meet any SIGCOV concerns: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22King%22+%22Tekken%22+news&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwixpvXsxvD-AhV-MlkFHeJPANcQ0pQJegQICRAB&biw=1920&bih=947&dpr=1 KatoKungLee (talk) 19:51, 12 May 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 Pokémon Scarlet and Violet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Scarlet and Violet: The Hidden Treasure of Area Zero[edit]

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

Redirect was objected to on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This article doesn't say much more than what's already in the relevant section in the Pokemon Scarlet and Violet article. WP:NOPAGE says "Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page" ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Frankly, I think this is a clear candidate for a merge discussion rather than an AfD given that it is crazy to imagine it being deleted. However, it seems like an instance of WP:TOOSOON. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: There's not really much to merge here, hence why I went for an AFD. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assume that a merge discussion technically includes redirects sans merging if the article is not something that merits outright deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: for now, this is TOOSOON. The article gives no information that is not covered in the main game article (the lede just being an extrapolation of the copied over development section). The article has already been redirected multiple times. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument on its own, but comparing a DLC that has been out for three years to a DLC still in development is not a fair comparison. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I'm not opposed to it being separate, even at this stage, but it needs to have more substance than this. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:TOOSOON. Blitzfan51 19:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: While i'm not opposed to a separate page on the DLC, it hasn't even come out yet, and all the info we have on it is included in the main games page, so as of right now, a separate page is unnecessary LordEnma8 (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify and redirect: It's too soon to have articles on DLC that hasn't released yet. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 22:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as it's TOOSOON for a full article. That said, an AfD seems silly, as this will likely be recreated without controversy in time.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 13:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I went for an AfD is because a merge discussion didn't seem appropriate since there isn't much to merge and there isn't exactly something I can do to propose it be merged. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

for right now merge into Pokémon Scarlet and Violet. Since it's the dlc of that game, if it's noticeable enough or starts to take up a lot of space on that page once it releases, then we can split it off

LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now, it is too soon and not much content. Fulmard (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:TOOSOON. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:40, 13 May 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. and move to 2023 Henryetta Killings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse McFadden[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Jax 0677 (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Oklahoma. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The person is not notable, but mass killing as an event may be, with not only widespread media coverage but also proposed legal reforms in Oklahoma. Even in the United States, where mass shootings happen twice a day, this one appears to stand out. Refactoring to the event may be warranted. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I am open to a page about the event. What title do you propose? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply - "2023 Oklahoma mass shooting", "Henryetta mass shooting" come to my mind first. "McFadden family murders," taking a cue from Category:Familicides. Open to suggestions from editors more imaginative than me. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  It's being called the Henryetta Tragedy on the News on 6/News9's website, and Henryetta Homicides is the tag on fox23's website. I don't think calling it a family murder or familicide is appropriate because 2 of the victims were not related to McFadden in any way. Alienbite (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- "Henryetta mass shooting" would fit in the the non-diffusing subcategory of Category:Mass shootings in the United States & Category:Mass shootings in Oklahoma as well. I haven't seen any journalistic ordinal ranking, and of course I'm avoiding synthesis and original research territory on my part. kencf0618 (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  "Henryetta mass shooting" works best, as this is the third mass shooting in Oklahoma in 2023 (two in Oklahoma City which don't have Wikipedia pages). • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Do any of the WP:RS call it a mass shooting? I understand it technically qualifies, but the reporting I'm seeing calls them murders. Under WP:COMMONNAME shouldn't we lean towards what reporting calls it? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The press is also calling them killings, and while this is a mass murder-suicide, a strict reading of WP:MURDERS suggests the murders label is premature, at least until a coroner's inquest completes. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Hello, I happened upon this discussion tonight and decided to mention this. Whatever else this event was, it is likely a familicide, which is when someone kills multiple members of their own family in a short period of time. The wiki article on familicide says: the murderer kills family members or loved ones rather than anonymous people, and lists dozens of examples. Most of the related articles have a title that is just the name of the killer. Others are named 'XYZ family murders/killing'. hth, Jane 207.38.138.211 (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage and the murder of six people can never be described as "non-notable". -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. (Full disclosure: I curated the article.) These investigations are very complicated. By way of rough comparison, in the 2022 University of Idaho killings the four victims were autopsied four days later, and the findings released nine days later; we're only a week into this thing. I don't know what resources Oklahoma has vis-à-vis Idaho, but this'll take a while. Furthermore this incident has ramifications that'll take a while to unfold. There will be investigations. An Amber Alert was issued hours before the subjects' bodies were discovered. How and why was it issued? Registered sex offenders are heavily sanctioned (not least socially) and supervised; why was the 9mm not discovered? Heck, for that matter when was the last time a registered sex offender committed a mass murder‽ kencf0618 (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/Move to 2023 Henryetta Killings: per WP:CRIMINAL I don't think McFadden meets our notability guidelines because his only claim to notability is criming. However, all of this information can be covered (and a biography section for McFadden may be included in the renamed article per WP:CRIMINAL; we can even redirect his name to the subsection with his biography). I think this route is best inline with policy and preserves the information in the article. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Make that 2023 Henryetta killings (lower case per MoS), and that seems to be the best title for now. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move per TulsaPoliticsFan. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move per TulsaPoliticsFan to 2023 Henryetta killings and refactor. Crime appears to pass WP:NCRIME, but little depth of biographical coverage for perpetrator. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 10 May 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.

This nomination was by User:Clement robinson369 (please sign nominations in the future and a fuller deletion rationale would be welcome.) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HyperVM[edit]

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

Notability, Lack of sources

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Skynxnex (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not seeing WP:SIGCOV even among the more blog-like tech sources DFlhb (talk) 09:41, 8 May 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 existence of multiple reliable sources does not mean that an article passes WP:NOTNEWS. Noone suggesting keep has provided any other argument of why WP:NOTNEWS should not apply in this case. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Al-Sabboura bus bombing[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS one of the many instances of bombings, airstrikes or clashes during the low intensity period of Syrian war. Ecrusized (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs more sourcing and writing, but there are numerous sources talking about the attack. Jebiguess (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Meets WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS is a concern, but I think it has enough lasting impact to warrant an article. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QuicoleJR, what would that lasting impact be? My sense at the moment is not notable enough, compared to all the other similar incidents we don't have articles on, but if there is genuine long-term impact that would warrant an article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, I have to say, it really isn't lasting or notable. Weak delete, but if lasting effect can be found, I will go back to voting keep. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Weak Keep: Passes GNG, no need to pass SNG, sources in article from Al Jazeera, WaPo, BBC, Reuters. // Timothy :: talk 01:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTNEWS is policy, not an SNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I was thinking NEVENT as the SNG, NOTNEWS points to ROUTINE for events, and I don't think coverage in Al Jazeera, WaPo, and BBC, indicates this is a routine event. LASTING I think is probably the best arg for deleting, every counter I can think of against LASTING is OTHERSTUFFEXISTS points. If a consensus to delete builds, I'd defer to delete. // Timothy :: talk 07:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE to meet WP:EVENT. 06:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibStar (talk • contribs)
Delete. Tragic, but not a notable event. WP:NOTNEWS applies. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 17 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Durim Badalli[edit]

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

WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG require multiple good sources for an article to be kept and I couldn't find this. I firstly looked at the archived versions of the dead links presented. Both Illyria Press and Gazeta Dita mention Durim Badalli only once in the text and once more in the squad list at the bottom. This is not significant coverage. The Swiss coverage also seemed insufficient. 1815 and Le Nouvelliste were trivial mentions and Pomona is just a match report, mentioning Badalli as the scorer of the winning goal in a 4th tier amateur Swiss game. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Albania, Kosovo, and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:17, 7 May 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mark Carpenter[edit]

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

Résumé-like biography of an academic and filmmaker, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for academics or fimmakers. This has a decidedly advertorialized writing tone, and is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with not a shred of real WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him in real media shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN — the key to getting a Wikipedia article is not to write it in a résumé-like tone that resembles the subject writing about himself, but to show that he's been a subject of coverage and analysis by third parties. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Does not meet notability based on lack of citations. he also doesn't have many academic citations in Google Scholar.Hkkingg (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanispamcruftisement. The books listed under "Selected Works" were all self-published and have not been significant or influential in any documentable way. The 48 Laws of Happiness has a review on Kirkus, but it's Kirkus Indie, which doesn't count. This would be a case where WP:AUTHOR is more indicative than WP:PROF (i.e., low citation counts would be beside the point), but WP:AUTHOR isn't met either. And the prose needs to die in a fire. XOR'easter (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person. Fails WP:GNG.Seaweed (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The heavily promotional writing could plausibly be cleaned up, but without reliably-published reviews of his books we have no pass of WP:AUTHOR, nor any evidence of other notability criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and meets neither WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NAUTHOR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and because it's just too soon. His only award had been that of a "40 under 40" type. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 17:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:42, 13 May 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Impropriety[edit]

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

This is a WP:DICTDEF, which is not acceptable as an article, even when framed as a disambiguation. UtherSRG (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we recently also resolve this in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Improper? --Joy (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed we did. I couldn't remember what that AFD was or I would have included it in my rationale. Thank you. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or expand into a WP:DABCONCEPT article on the subject. At least one rationale for deleting "Improper" was that it was an adjective merely modifying various nouns. "Impropriety" is a noun, and a thing in itself, which can refer to several things in itself, meaning it is ambiguous. BD2412 T 18:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per BD2412. The concept of impropriety exists as its own topic, though I could be convinced of a suitable redirect target. Misconduct seems like the obvious one, but that article seems to be about a legal concept. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion and past discussions. We have kept Chaos, Seny, Sisu, and many other articles that are nouns of ideas. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 12 May 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KidzDunya[edit]

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

Non-notable company that fails WP:GNG. BookishReader (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable (as of yet). desmay (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Not your siblings' deletionist (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:45, 13 May 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. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient, and there isn't a strong case being made for a redirect. Star Mississippi 03:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Jackson (politician)[edit]

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

Looking through the sources, this is, at best BLP1E, and at worst spam for a non notable micro nation. Common name, but still not seeing this meeting notability standards for BLPs. Courcelles (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United Kingdom, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable person. He is on metro, MyLondon, pagina/12 and LaNacion, all high-traffic and trustworthy sources. Should lean away from micronations though — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicroSupporter (talk • contribs) 18:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Croatia, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this going to be another micronation-related flamewar? :) --Joy (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly hope not. I got here off an RFPP request to unprotect redirects created as a result of AFDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Republic of Verdis and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verdis (2nd nomination). A certain user does seem interested in making sure this topic has an article in one form or the other, though. Courcelles (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm all for micronations, but not only is he non-notable, the micro nation itself is non-notable. These sources do not look good. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Croatia–Serbia border dispute#Liberland_and_other_claims which is the only thing that he is known for. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why on Earth is this fantasy silliness worthy of even being mentioned on an article about a real world subject, though? Courcelles (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He's already mentioned at the suggested target so I'm not necessarily asking for more coverage on him than what is already on the project. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Nwhyte (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with MicroSupporter appears to be notable based on the sources. I have edited the article to address NPOV issues. Jack4576 (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The individual is notable and is on two of Argentina's largest news networks. As for 2023 sources, he is on myLondon and Metro, both of which are extremely notable in England. Joshuawoods1982 (talk) 12:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: More micronation cruft. Clearly non-notable figure. Coverage is primarily about the micronation itself, with the subject only having passing mentions. Curbon7 (talk) 12:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You realise that almost each one of the references mention the guy in the title of the article? MicroSupporter (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Analyzing each of the eight sources currently in the article: (1) his profile on the fake government website, (2) passing mention, primarily about the micronation, (3) interview which provides no significant coverage about him, (4) Passing mention, primarily about the micronation, (5) Despite what the subheading suggests, the article barely even provides a passing mention of him, (6) Metro is an unreliable source, (7) Not bad, but still primarily about the micronation with only a couple biographical details, (8) Entirely about the micronation, subject barely even receives a passing mention. Curbon7 (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing your analysis as WP:BIAS and WP:GASLIGHT due to your namecalling of the mans website (1). As for (2), there is a section on him. (3) has a section on him titled "Señorito presidente", (6) the article should be considered reliable as it is part of the news section of Metro. The rest you have described relatively accurately from what I can see. MicroSupporter (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strident commentary aside, (1) is a WP:PRIMARY source usable only within the narrow confines of WP:ABOUTSELF but not suitable for satisfying WP:NBASIC, and (2) clearly does not satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Even if the Metro were a suitable source for BLPs (it isn't) that would still only be one source. You need to show significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources to justify retaining this article. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator and the source analysis by Curbon7, there is at most one rather questionable source here that potentially demonstrates notability, insufficient to pass WP:NBASIC or WP:NPOL, both of which require multiple substantial pieces of coverage. Everything else is primary sources, passing mentions, or stuff that has no business being around a BLP, like the WP:METRO. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 12:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This chap is only interesting in the wider (and still not very interesting) context of micronations and the Croatia-Serbia dispute. His publicity stunt has no real-world consequences and we do not need a Wikipedia page about him.
Nwhyte (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete more or less per source analysis by Curbon7. To be clear weak choice between deleting and redirecting, this clearly should not be retained. It's possible I missed something since my serbo-croation searches were aided by machine translation, but I don't see that as particularly likely nor is this a topic where offline sources with SIGCOV are likely to be available. As is a redirect could probably be justified; the problem is that the mention on the border dispute page is probably UNDUE, and so we'd just be kicking the can down the road to an inevitable RFD which would end up taking even more time to reach the same result. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 03:00, 13 May 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Lotz[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman, only WP:ROUTINE coverage Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage and lack of adequate sources. A search in Google did not result in anything useful either.Pershkoviski (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only significant coverage I found is a profile of the subject in this newspaper, being listed among others. Not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth sources fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:47, 13 May 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Judd[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, no WP:SIGCOV. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only found trivial mentions of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:49, 13 May 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. There are good-faith and grounded arguments for both keep and delete, and I do not find either side especially compelling (in numbers or in strength), nor do many submissions fall to be discounted for lack of policy basis. AFD has been open for a month and I do not think a further relist will achieve anything. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina Bodrug-Lungu[edit]

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

Serious concerns about the subject’s notability have been raised at the article’s DYK nomination page. In essence, there is no real evidence that this individual passes WP:PROF. Those defending the nomination have made no case that she fulfills any of the criteria. They have pointed to her affiliation with an obscure NGO that seems to have only her as an employee; have mentioned “pioneering” work without any citations in support of the claim; and have pointed to some panel bios, press releases and boilerplate press quotes. None of this is remotely convincing. Where is the notability, as objectively defined by the relevant policy? — Biruitorul ^Talk 17:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Moldova. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not seeing a citation profile that suggests notability through NPROF C1, and her appointments do not meet any other NPROF criteria. The media coverage of her is trivial or non-independent, so she does not meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm confused by the claim in the other discussion that she doesn't have coverage in Moldovan and related media. Because...she does. Here's some examples:

Floresu, Monica (November 21, 2007). "Cât inegalitate este între femei şi bărbaţi în Moldova" [How much inequality there is between women and men in Moldova]. BBC Romanian (in Romanian). Retrieved April 17, 2023.
Kischko, Irmgard (August 21, 2012). ""Die Sowjet-Mentalität muss aus unseren Köpfen"" ["The Soviet mentality must get out of our heads"]. Kurier (in German). Retrieved April 17, 2023.
Barbarosie, Liliana; Cantir, Alexandru (November 25, 2010). "Impotriva violenței și a discriminării femeii în societate" [Against violence and discrimination against women in society]. Radio Europa Liberă Moldova (in Romanian). Retrieved April 17, 2023.
"Valentina Bodrug-Lungu: Women have fewer chances in elections based on mixed system". IPN News Agency. November 27, 2017. Retrieved April 17, 2023.
"Valentina Bodrug Lungu, expertă gender, într-un interviu cu Ambasadorul UK la Chișinău" [Valentina Bodrug Lungu, gender expert, in an interview with the UK Ambassador in Chisinau]. Agora (in Romanian). March 5, 2021. Retrieved April 17, 2023.
"Carieră performantă dedicată educației pentru echitate de gen și șanse egale" [High-performance career dedicated to education for gender equity and equal opportunities]. Moldova State University (in Romanian). February 24, 2021. Retrieved April 17, 2023.

She also received a medal called the Glory of Labor. I don't know the importance of that or not, so someone more knowledgeable about Moldovan awards will need to inform us on that one. Silver seren^C 22:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last source can be dismissed on WP:PSTS grounds, the university being her employer. As for the rest, media quotes recycling a possibly baseless description of her as an “expert” and revolving around her leadership of a phantom NGO cannot substitute for legitimate evidence of notability, as defined by WP:PROF. It is not enough to simply affirm that someone is an expert, this quality must be demonstrated via impartial sources, which must deal with the subject herself, not simply parrot her views. — Biruitorul ^Talk 22:32, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we should be judging her using WP:PROF when it's clear her work is more focused on political and governmental outreach rather than academic publications. Also, it sounds like you're using a personal claim about her NGO and coverage of her that isn't backed up with any evidence. It sounds like no source coverage would be enough for you because you'd deem them non-impartial by the mere fact that they covered her and her work. Silver seren^C 22:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the coverage of her political and governmental outreach? I mean, I see her quoted with opinions on this and that topic, in a very small number of independent sources, but none actually mentions the impact of her activities, nor credits her with any political influence. Dahn (talk) 03:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source #1 is a routine quote/primary interview from her -- does not count towards GNG (if this was sufficient almost every single sportsman we deleted the last year would be easily refunded). #2 is her commentary as part of a panel -- does not count towards GNG as there is no SIGCOV of her. #3 is an interview with her with very little secondary coverage -- does not count towards GNG. #4 is repeating things she said with zero secondary analysis by the author -- no GNG. #5 is another interview with no secondary coverage -- no GNG. #6 is obviously out as her employer. So she definitely does not meet GNG, the only option left is NPROF C7. However, C7 requires the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. We would need quite a bit more than six quotations to get there. JoelleJay (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Her being the subject expert for a variety of international media, along with being a subject expert on a variety of UN related media that I didn't showcase here going back 20 years, absolutely meets the requirements of C7. Silver seren^C 03:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources above by User:Silver seren give me the impression that she's having a real world impact as an expert, influencing media etc. Also here she is the author of Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women Shadow Reports several times, which (if I udnerstand correctly) are used to influence policy: https://sdgs.un.org/panelists/valentina-bodrug-lungu-46235 So I think the academic notability threshold is relevant and met. I suppose someone could counter argue that making the news a lot and writing UN reports doesn't demonstrate actual impact, it's difficult to link outputs to impact, but I think we can logically conclude that someone who is quoted by BBC and other news and the UN as an expert is notable enough for wikipedia. CT55555(talk) 02:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
C7 explicitly says a A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. It doesn't matter how prestigious the outlet quoting someone is (and of course someone who participates on UN committees will be quoted by the UN...my fellow postdoc did a stint there and is quoted several times as an expert in special reports). Being a coauthor of a report also doesn't mean anything without her being attributed (by someone completely separate from any institutions involved) specifically as a major factor in changing a particular policy. JoelleJay (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable as an academic, no depth of coverage as a public figure. This article lowers the bar of notability beyond any level I've seen. Dahn (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Updated the post on the Women in Red talk page that previously referred to the DYK Lajmmoore (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added the Order of Work Glory which is for "outstanding achievements in an individual's field of work, esteemed public activity during their career, and great contributions to the development of the Moldovan cultural, scientific, socio-economic, sporting and public spheres.", from SilverSeren's source above: seems to support notability. PamD 08:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that argument is that around 100 people a year are given this award (in a country with a couple million people). They include retired village schoolteachers, middle school principals, high school teachers, middle school psychologists, doctors and engineers (completely random ones, that is), kindergarten directors, village mayors, choir directors and the like.
- So no, her possession of this medal really doesn’t add to a claim of notability. — Biruitorul ^Talk 08:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)::[reply]

By that token, we should absolutely have an article on fellow recipient Alexandru Schițco, who manages the agricultural co-operative in Fălești. Dahn (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have found significant coverage in the Moldovan press, both in Romanian and Russian. See for example [2], [3], [4]. These are far more than just passing remarks as they present her opinions and background in some detail.--Ipigott (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the second link, I tend to believe that your argument would be strengthened by leaving out reference to a propaganda arm of the Kremlin operating inside a Russian puppet state. — Biruitorul ^Talk 09:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ipigott: It's actually quite the opposite: these new sources are not just of dubious quality, but her opinion on this and that subject being vented there, or anywhere, is not an indication of her notability -- an article that would have her as the focus, that would include the independent opinions of others describing her as important -- that is what counts as notability, and this is explicit stated in the guideline (which notes that non-notable academics do not become notable for simply being interviewed). Moreover: WP:NOTNEWS. Dahn (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This scholar's work directly or indirectly has resulted in recognition and NGO appointments. The Order of Work Glory award, although derided above, is more than what most academics achieve. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What “recognition” and what “NGO appointments” are you speaking of, and how do these translate into notability?
- As to that silly award, I suppose you are technically correct that most academics worldwide do not get a little medal from the government of Moldova, but perhaps you can understand why an award given to no less than 72 university professors (in a country not exactly bursting with them), and one given to, among other people, “Nicolai Dragan, president of the Pobeda Collective Farm, Gagauzia”, does nothing to bolster a claim of notability. — Biruitorul ^Talk 15:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  If Molvova has 18 universities (assuming List of universities in Moldova is correct, and if a university tends to have about 250 professors (just my estimate) then we would estimate there to be 4,500 professors in the country. Let's not consider turnover, 4,500 is today's estimate, not the all time number, just to be conservative. So 72 of 4,5000 means 1.6% got the award. I don't think this suggest it is given out easily. I'd use the 72 number to argue the opposite, only a small fraction of professors have ever got the award, assuming my estimates are reasonable. CT55555(talk) 15:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point is that this type of award can be mentioned once notability is otherwise established; it does not by itself establish or add to notability.
    
    For example, the current Prime Minister of Moldova was given the award some years ago. Should that be mentioned in his biography? I suppose. Does it add one iota to his notability? No, because the award is also freely handed out to the most ordinary, routine citizens, people very far away from any hint of notability. People like “Mihail Baban, retiree, ex-director of the middle school in Arionești village” (population 1300). — Biruitorul ^Talk 16:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're arguing that the award must be insignificant because people you don't recognize received it. There's no reason to assume that a middle school director couldn't be notable: we have more than 250 biographies of American school principals. You also note that the current PM received the award, which only seems to support the idea that it is, in fact, a significant award. pburka (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - One, notable people have received the award, I don’t dispute that. But they’re only a small fraction of the total recipients.
      
      Two, may I remind you of WP:BURDEN? In fact, let’s try something. I’ve made a list of ten recent recipients (recent, meaning coverage will be online), of whom, I must admit, I’ve never heard. If you can make a reasonable demonstration that even one of them is notable (I won’t be very stringent), I’ll immediately withdraw this nomination, because that would truly mean any recipient is notable.

Vasile Plăcintă, chief inspector at the Chișinău Customs Point
Galina Filipova, head of the Department of social aid and family protection, Taraclia District Council
Nicolai Odajiu, veteran worker, Chircăiești village
Ludmila Mîndru, head nurse at the Cancer Institute
Tamara Codrean, head of the MedFamily Medical Center
Andrei Meșina, locksmith and repairer at the Ionel Clothing Factory
Iraida Cușnir, doctor at the Călărași District Council
Tatiana Gutium, head of the City Maternity Hospital nr. 2
Elena Adomniței, teacher at the Zorile village middle school
Nina Rusu, secretary at the Strășeni District Council. — Biruitorul ^Talk 17:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- - Even in a small country, a national award is a national award. As for appointments and other NGO roles, among others, she is an organizing partner of the Women's Major Group. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - But national awards are themselves not inherent indications of notability. At most, they correlate with it — a recipient of the Order of the Republic is likelier to be notable, but it’s not guaranteed.
      
      How exactly does the Women's Major Group link satisfy WP:PSTS? Yes, it attests she’s on the board of an NGO — but it’s the NGO itself doing the attesting. A circular feedback loop at its finest. — Biruitorul ^Talk 17:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I noted on the DYK nomination page, 121 Google Scholar citations over a 20-year span does not meet the notability threshold for an academic, not by a long shot. Turgidson (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citation counts are contextual. Articles on political science topics by authors from Moldova and Romania are cited less than 1.2 times per article Lens.org search. Articles in gender studies even less than that. Articles from social science fields are less cited than Medicine and Technology; likewise articles written in any language other than English are likely to be under-cited. Given the context, the author citation profile is respectable. Furthermore, her works are cited outside the academic literature--including GMF, UN World Food, UN FAO book. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then where is Bodrug-Lungu's contextual citation by Romanian-speaking academic sources? Dahn (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of establishing academic notability, author origin has no bearing on whether one's research is considered impactful within a field. NPROF says For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed. Major disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, history, political science, or their significant subdisciplines (e.g., particle physics, algebraic geometry, medieval history, fluid mechanics, Drosophila genetics are valid examples). "Being a Moldovan academic" is not a major subfield. JoelleJay (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient recognition over time to meet WP:ANYBIO, criteria #2 from her UN work alone,[5] without even mentioning her work with the EU and policy at the national level.Gale A552062928,Gale A667871008 [6], [7][8],[9],[10] Her notability should not be judged as an academic, but rather as a policy expert, which clearly is demonstrated by her involvement at both the national and international level, as shown by numerous sources. SusunW (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources would have to show more than "involvement" in policies, they would have to include statements specifically about her contribution and contextual importance, and substantial coverage of her as a public person. This has not shown to be the case, no matter how many passing mentions are piled on here to fluff up the entry. Dahn (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being in a UN program or working group does not make someone notable. Nor does being a member of a governmental subcommittee. Tens of thousands of people regularly take part in such UN conferences/stakeholder platforms/partnerships (the SDGS UN profile you link is for an upcoming virtual "expert group meeting" for stakeholders with voluntary commitments to SDG Goal 5; Bodrug-Lungu is one of 50+ attendees. 3 other EGMs are being held in just the next month alone, which you can register for if you have a partnership account). ANYBIO #2 says Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians. We are orders of magnitude from that threshold (do we even have lay sources that describe her work, as opposed to just quoting her?). Passing mentions and brief quotes as an expert are routine for academics, especially in fields that intersect with policy/IR, and apart from a small number of invited lecture series the prestige of the venue is totally irrelevant. This is also true of being a panelist at various international fora. The other sources you cite are press announcements from orgs Bodrug-Lungu belongs to (e.g. OSCE, PGE), her name in lists of discussion participants, or quotes from her as an attendee at a forum, none of which count towards notability. If we are not judging based on NPROF, she must meet GNG, and she absolutely does not have multiple pieces of SIGCOV in SIRS. JoelleJay (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also note how the entry is being promoted because of a supposed gender bias against Moldovan women, when Bodrug is in fact specialized in discussing said claim, and is exclusively quoted for that (self-referential) claim. We are not talking about someone like Diana Dumitru, also a woman, also a Moldovan, and also an associate professor, whose notability is instantly discernible from imposing and varied scholarship, also in humanities, that has been published and widely quoted by independent venues. (A similar case could be made about Moldovan scholar Svetlana Suveică, on whom we do not have an article.) Now that is notability for a scholar from Moldova, not what is being introduced here as an astounding new benchmark. Dahn (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Or take Mihaela Miroiu from neighboring Romania — not so much our lackluster article, but a cursory Google search, will reveal immediate notability, without having to invent new standards.
- Standards such as “she shares a medal with ‘Vasile Strîmbeanu, mayor of Limbenii Vechi village’, ‘Andrei Munteanu, head of the „Miorița” Recreation Camp, Ivancea village’, ‘Oleg Ciocoi, vice director of the Society of Hunters and Fishermen of the Republic of Moldova’, or ‘Dumitru Gornostal, mechanic at Railroad car station nr. 294, Răuțel Station’”.
- By the way, did anyone have any luck finding sources on at least one of these guys? I’m sure the Moldovan Internet is positively abuzz with in-depth coverage of these village mayors, camp directors, hunting association vice directors and especially railway mechanics. — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Biruitorul, it is totally out of pocket to belittle living people to score points on Wikipedia. Please find a less disparaging way to make your point. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - My issue is not with these fine people, but with the AfD participants who claimed, in all seriousness, that their receipt of a medal made them notable.
    But yes, I’ve made my point. Still, permit me to close with four more (no names this time): driver, mechanic, bricklayer, carpenter. The very image of notability! — Biruitorul ^Talk 08:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point is that awards and honours are a contributing factor to notability e.g. the British OBE doesn't guarantee notability, but is a contributor to a case for it
    
    Lajmmoore (talk) 09:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - We are in agreement to the extent that once notability is otherwise established, awards can be mentioned. — Biruitorul ^Talk 10:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      For me, I read the guidance that they are a contributing factor to notability but (as you say) not proof by themselves. There is a difference. Lajmmoore (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about Suveică? She is cited 193 times in Google Scholar, far less than Miroiu with her 1.6k citations and closer to the subject of this AfD.

By the way, out of curiosity I looked into some of the persons mentioned above. Strîmbeanu and Gornostal are not notable, and Andrei Munteanu has such a common name that it is hard to even find sources referring to him. Ciocoi though, is a different case. Several Moldovan newspapers mention him. Not that I can already tell he is notable though. Super Ψ Dro 19:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He became society president in the meantime too. Impressive. On a serious vein, there may be scope for an article on hunting in Moldova; Ciocoi, with a handful of press quotes and maybe a protest to his name, is far from meeting the notability standards, medal or not. — Biruitorul ^Talk 20:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Super Dromaeosaurus -- not sure about Suveică's notability, but certainly surer than I am about Bodrug's. Dahn (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my opinion this is not an article of a seemingly non-notable figure at first glance, but arguments here have convinced me. Considering though that this is a living person, she may receive further coverage from reliable sources in the future. She appears to have had some relevant functions. So an article about her shouldn't be discarded forever. Though it might take years or decades for her to become notable, if she ever does. It is more likely that she will not. Super Ψ Dro 19:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- there's a lot to consider with the discussion above, but I still think there are grounds for her inclusion:

WP:PROF-1b says "pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea" - so I would suggest that pioneering the teaching of gender studies does support this. See the initial paragraph in the UN Women article here (not the interview body) & a similar introduction from Agora here (which Internews Europe supports the reliability of. (sources I started the article with)
WP:PROF-7 "impact outside academia in their academic capacity" including syllabi redevelopment as published by the journal Studia Universitatis Moldaviae (Seria Ştiinţe ale Educaţiei) 39.9 (2010): 246-246 here (a source I started the article with)

Also, thanks to the discussion above, I think this is further supported by the BBC feature here & the introduction from Kurier here. I think the medal is a contributing factor to notability too. Her role with the Women's Major Group contributes to notability too. I'd missed this initially, but it was founded at the 1992 Earth Summit. There's this this publication where her expertise is described as "s a significant contribution in the draw up and promotion of essential documents related to gender equality in Moldova. Actively involved in creating and building capacity within the national mechanism on gender equality in Moldova, she was a member of the Governmental Committee on Gender Equality (2006 – 2008); head of the Presidential Committee on Women and Family Issues (1999-2000); member on the board of Karat Coalition, a network of women’s NGOs from CEE/CIS countries."(p.224) Looking at where her researched is discussed, it most often discussed in terms of her research into domestic violence here in a thesis, here in terms of conjugal rape, here in terms of influencing Israeli pedagoggy.
I also think that her case is interesting to debate as her notability intersects across policy, research and advocacy, so doesn't neatly fit into WP guidelines. In combination I think this makes a positive case for inclusion. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so now you cite as evidence of notability some marginal praise of her in a PhD thesis that had her as the adviser? Dahn (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is a secondary source in a PhD dissertation and I don't see a guideline that precludes its inclusion. I see that you're implying that it must be biased, but I don't think that claim is automatic. Supervisees often discuss the work of their supervisors - sometimes critically, sometimes not, but just because this isn't critical doesn't mean its inclusion is warrented. Lajmmoore (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." Dahn (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I read that description too - but this reference isn't referring to the primary data in the thesis, but the assessment of a secondary source. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is even more useless. Dahn (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the absurdity, the Israeli thesis, for which Bodrug served as adviser, cites Bodrug’s own doctoral thesis! [11] — Biruitorul ^Talk 14:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read the guideline as different - that you can't use a PhD as a primary source - but you can use it as a secondary one. Lajmmoore (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The UN is not an independent source on Bodrug-Lungu as she belongs to several UN organizations and collaborates directly with UN Women. The Agora interview only calls her a "gender expert", which is, again, extremely routine for academics. And anyway, NPROF C1b states: Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question. Where are the necessary numerous academic publications discussing both the significance of promoting gender education in Moldova and her role in it?
NPROF C7: Criterion 7 may also be satisfied if the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study. Nowhere have we established that her academic work is widely regarded as significant within academia. A colleague of hers writing a nice letter about her in her university's education journal, on behalf of the department she belongs to, is not an independent assessment of her academic impact. Additionally, that source only notes she "contributed to the conceptualization of "education for family life" in Moldovan secondary schools"; it doesn't say anything about any syllabi being implemented (which is irrelevant to NPROF C7 anyway).
Praise by organizations about their own members is never independent; hyping the quality/impact of their members' work is literally what they do and thus is not suggestive of notability. A one-sentence self-submitted blurb in the "About Us" section of one of the UN's SDG processes is not suggestive of notability. Bodrug-Lungu's own doctoral student discussing her research in their dissertation is obviously not independent appraisal of her academic contributions; it is not even an academic source as it is not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Two sentences discussing one's research in an academic article is exactly what a citation is in the humanities; the existence of citations to someone is not evidence of academic notability unless the number is well above the average for the field. JoelleJay (talk) 21:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding citations: What is the field and what is the average--and what is the source of that average? -- Jaireeodell (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No one has commented since the relist, giving it one more shot.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per above. CastJared (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first time you added a "strong" in your stance without adequately explaining why. There is a lengthy discussion above, so please refer to one of the guidelines if you really think it deserves a "strong" delete. Timothytyy (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand the nature of the discussion so far, I believe. Going down the Google Scholar list, I see a broad base of publications over a range of social, psychological and educational areas, quite a few not in English. The scope of the material in the article doesn't really reflect that range. In my judgement, having this article helps rather than hinders Wikipedia's mission. I say this as someone who works on Wikidata on topics and authors for scholarly papers, rather than someone who applies citation metrics. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your argument? Are you saying that, because she has published on a broad range of topics, she meets NPROF? Because that reasoning is explicitly prohibited in NPROF. JoelleJay (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incredibly weak citation record. Other coverage is unexceptional and does not indicate notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:16, 17 May 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. Recent precedent, which I am bound to apply, is that sports notability guidelines no longer provide evidence of notability where WP:GNG is met. Arguments on the basis of WP:NBAD as such must be given reduced weight, and the two WP:JVs either side of the relist must be given very little weight. After almost a month on AFD a relist is also not appropriate.

As with all my deletion decisions, I have considered this carefully before closing and will not reconsider the decision based on discussions on my talk page. If you wish to challenge this decision please proceed directly to WP:DRV; I waive all requirements to consult or discuss with me prior to doing so. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patiphat Chalardchaleam[edit]

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

PROD objected, reason was there were some achievements. However the achievements does not even pass NBAD; fails GNG and BASIC too. No coverage about him found. Timothytyy (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Thailand. Timothytyy (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep medalist at Sudirman Cup, the topmost grade 1 bwf level mixed team tournament, equivalent with individual world championships. zoglophie 04:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I don't agree a player which did not a play a single match in the Sudirman Cup would guarantee notability. The subject only has trivial mentions in all sources, so SIGCOV still not seen. I also don't agree that a participant of a team Grade 1 championship would have notability, which is based on sources, according to WP:ROUTINE and SIGCOV. Except you can find a source which provides significant coverage for the subject. Being an individual world champion is just so different from being one of the enormous squad of a non-finalist team. Timothytyy (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his achievement higher than NBAD. BWF World Tour is a Grade 2 of badminton tournaments, while Sudirman Cup is a Grade 1 of badminton tournament. Stvbastian (talk) 10:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator @Zoglophie Stvbastian I suggest you two read WP:N carefully. SNG does not supercede GNG, i.e. articles that pass NBAD/players with achievements does not guarentee itself an article. The subject has absolutely zero coverage, so I don't understand why a SIGCOV failing article deserve a strong keep. Timothytyy (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

trivial mention in some secondary sources, primary sources, can also be used to "support" notability. We can extract the content from multiple secondary sources as evidence of notability. Stvbastian (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stvbastian According to WP:PRIMARY, primary sources can NOT support notability. According to WP:SIGCOV, only sources that provides coverage about the subject directly and in detail can contribute to notability. Quote from SIGCOV: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." It does not need to be the main topic of the source material, but it cannot be a trivial mention. Timothytyy (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass GNG #3. Stvbastian (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is only one of the five criteria of the definition of GNG "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.", I don't understand why you omitted all the other criteria. Do you mean that a reliable source published independently providing few or no coverage of the subject contributes to notability? Timothytyy (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup.. we can collect multiple secondary sources that mentioned about that person as evidence of notability. As long as the sources are reliable and if the person we consider notable in badminton per their achievements and ranking, we can create a standing alone article about that person. Stvbastian (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GNG says Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone is right. Any guidelines to prove your statement, Stvbastian? Or did you just make it up out of nowhere? Timothytyy (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(1, 2, 3) those articles sufficient to satisfied GNG. Stvbastian (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Florentyna (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No one has commented since the first relisting, trying one more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per above. CastJared (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain your stance in terms of SIGCOV? Timothytyy (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This needed more notability. CastJared (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Also I notice that you voted a lot of "strong keep/delete per above"s in AFDs that met the previous consensus, so I doubt if those were your own judgements and if you read the articles carefully yourself. Timothytyy (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and more importantly WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, which gives us no discretion to keep when no significant coverage can be found. BilledMammal (talk) 04:20, 16 May 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. Entirely discounting a single non-explained keep vote, this is numerically balanced. However, neither keep !vote covers how GNG is ultimately met (as is required with the sporting SNGs). Nosebagbear (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kittipon Kittikul[edit]

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

PROD objected, reason was there were some achievements. However the achievements does not even pass NBAD; fails GNG and BASIC too. No coverage about him found. Timothytyy (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Thailand. Timothytyy (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2000 Swedish Open Grand Prix champion, three time in total medalled at the Southeast Asian Games. zoglophie 04:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Achievement -> notability? Check GNG please. Timothytyy (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pass NBAD. won IBF World Grand Prix title 2000 Swedish Open. Stvbastian (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NBAD -> notability? Quote from NBAD's page: The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline. and meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Failing GNG means no notability, NBAD is just for reference if an article likely has coverage. Timothytyy (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Florentyna (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - failed to find anything that would meet WP:SPORTBASIC, WP:GNG or WP:BIO when searching in Thai (กิตติพนธ์ กิติกุล). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: According to new sports notability guidelines, there must be SIGCOV demonstrated, not just claims of notability. Relisting to see if Keep supporters can provide these sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for any additional comments here...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Keeps haven't brought up any sourcing to back it up. Timothytyy is correct--sport achievements don't confer notability. SWinxy (talk) 19:58, 11 May 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. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bismillah Chowk[edit]

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

No indication that this is a government recognized place/union council. Routine mentions in newspapers, fails WP:GNG. BookishReader (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Added 3 new references to this article. Fixed the existing archived reference already there.

Passes WP:NPLACE now,... which states..."Cities and villages are generally kept, regardless of size, as long as their existence is verified through a reliable source".

WP:GEOLAND says..."Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable"....Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm WP:NPLACE doesn't say the thing that you quoted. I think there used to be something similar at WP:PLACEOUTCOMES but that was changed quite a while ago. –dlthewave ☎ 15:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to be a Chowrangi or crossroads. It does not appear to be officially recognized, and the two newspaper sources are passing mentions which neither support the "residential neighborhood" claim nor establish GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 15:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous and old description was wrong, I have made the corrections and made it much more specific now. It's a Chowrangi or crossroads within the residential neighbourhood of Saeedabad, Karachi in Baldia Town. Thanks for pointing it out, gave me a chance to correct some mistakes on this article. Notability is supported by the 3 newspaper references now. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source Analysis:

KARACHI: Colleges in Baldia reflect govt apathy - Passing mention of a school that's near (not at) Bismillah Chowk.
KARACHI: Rainwater submerges many roads - Named in a list of places that experienced flooding of roads in 2007.
Illegal occupation: Encroachments removed from Baldia Town - Again mentioned in a list of places.
Welcome to Baldia Town - Correct me if I'm wrong but this source doesn't mention Bismillah Chowk at all.

Unfortunately I don't see anything here that comes close to establishing significant coverage, even after sources were added and the article was corrected to describe this as a square/intersection. –dlthewave ☎ 02:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Thank you. BookishReader (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails GNG per the above source eval. // Timothy :: talk 20:30, 15 May 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 23:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bandini 750 sport siluro[edit]

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

Non-notable old vehicle. There are not nearly enough references to make this worth an article. Also nominating:

Bandini 750 sport internazionale

QuicoleJR (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Transportation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:01, 6 May 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khatm-e-Nabuwat Chowk[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. BookishReader (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be a Chowrangi or named intersection/square. Sources are mere passing mentions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are many squares with this name in the country and none is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry. All these are religiously motivated names of places having other names previously in prejudice against a religious minority. Muneebll (talk) 13:09, 8 May 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 23:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American Widescreen Museum[edit]

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

Only source is to IMDB which is not considered reliable per WP:IMDB. Not clear the topic passes WP:GNG or WP:ORG. 4meter4 (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was only able to find a single scholarly source that describes the museum/website itself, which I included in the article. I don't think there's enough secondary/tertiary coverage to keep the article in Wikipedia, however there are many scholarly and popular works that use the museum website as a source for information, particularly of Cinerama technical specifications. I think it should remain in Wikidata as a heavily cited resource. Clifflandis (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - It seems that the website's creator, Martin Hart, died in 2020. The website has not been updated since 2015. Clifflandis (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 12:32, 12 May 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Spontas[edit]

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

Notability criteria have changed since this got accepted through AfC. Most importantly, WP:SPORTBASIC states that such articles must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. The best that I can find are Athlitika Press and Taxidromos24, both of which contain no WP:SIGCOV and are derived from Facebook. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to have no WP:SIGCOV. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 22:15, 10 May 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 23:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kirklees, Calderdale[edit]

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

I'm unsure what do do with this article. There doesn't appear to be sufficient evidence there ever was a village by the name Kirklees even though A Vision of Britain says it was a village in Clifton chapelry the map link shows the location actually to be Castle Hill south of Huddersfield rather than the location of the priory. There was a DMV at the location of the priory but it isn't specified as being named "Kirklees" in contract to say Gilby. There is discussion on merging at Talk:Kirklees Priory#Proposed merge of Kirklees, Calderdale into Kirklees Priory after Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 25#Kirklees, Kirklees. Given the lack of useful history the article has and the fact the title may cause more confusion than what its worth it may just be better to just delete this article and the Kirklees, Kirklees redirect. On the other hand it may be useful to the small number of people who know the priory site is in Calderdale. If there is more evidence that a village by this name ever existed then I'd reconsider deleting/merging this but there doesn't appear to be much and maybe mainly confusion. Redirecting to Kirklees Priory (where most of the content of the article already is) or Kirklees Hall may make sense if we decide we should merge but not delete. @Peter James, Uanfala, A7V2, and Jay: who participated in the RFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have just updated the merge discussion after comparing the two articles. I'm fine with deletion too. Jay 💬 18:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Kirklees, Kirklees, so good they named it twice, said nobody. This is a confusing situation made even more so by the presence of the modern district, which makes it particularly challenging to research whether this settlement ever existed. The content is duplicated in Kirklees Priory and I can't see a reason for this poorly-sourced article to remain. Flip Format (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the AFD is closed as delete then the Kirklees, Kirklees redirect will automatically be deleted under G8. If its closed as redirect/merge then I'd consider sending it to RFD again in another few months as the risk of confusion would be higher if the locality article doesn't exist anymore as a separate article and the fact it never contained any useful content. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this AFD is closed as delete then I guess most of the links can be pointed to the priory and perhaps the hatnote at Kirklees can be updated to go to the priory. There is a settlement called Kirklees in Greater Manchester but that doesn't have an article here yet. Both 19th century maps of the coordinates given at VOB and at the actual location do not show anywhere called just "Kirklees" but interestingly both locations are near a Castle Hill. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also note Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/02/Category:Kirklees, West Yorkshire which was closed in 2016 with consensus to move to "Kirklees, Calderdale" but it might also be worth starting another CFD to see if it should be deleted as well. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:37, 13 May 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aghavrin Cottage[edit]

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

Non-notable early 20th century private home. No indication that subject building meets WP:GNG (only coverage in the article and elsewhere are trivial passing mentions in directory and land registration records). A Google search returns barely 200 results (mostly this article/mirrors/links). Also no indication that subject meets WP:NBUILDING (unlike the neighbouring Admiral's Folly, Aghavrin, it is *not* in the Record of Protected Structures for County Cork. And, unlike the neighbouring Aghavrin House, it hasn't even been surveyed under the NIAH regime for even *potential* future protection). It's just a fairly regular rural house, not dissimilar to dozens/hundreds of others in the immediate area. Or many millions globally. Local interest only. And barely that... Guliolopez (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A strange Wikipedia entry indeed, fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 08:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Looks like it was created by an editor who created many articles for everything in their locality. Spleodrach (talk)

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. Consensus that GEOLAND is met Nosebagbear (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dibrova, Sievierodonetsk Raion, Luhansk Oblast[edit]

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

Was deprodded without improvement or rationale, was a contested draft without improvement. No indication this is a legally recognized place, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The village is listed here which means it is a legally recognized place. I do not have time to look for sources demonstrating GNG though. Since it was on the frontline for some time, the sources likely exist.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a separate, recognised settlement, so meets WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp meets WP:GEOLAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:52, 13 May 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. I'm going to close given the current state of consensus in this AfD. I did go and take a look at the discussion @Thryduulf: started and not seeing anything in it to date that would indicate how this (as a category) could be cleared up in notability terms, I need to go with the current AfD consensus.

Should a later discussion consensus come through that would have significant bearing on this, please let me know and I can re-review at that point. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

01207[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines – no sources listed in the article (or anywhere else) indicate that this particular code is so notable as to have a separate encyclopaedia entry. See also this very informative discussion that ended in deleting of a very similar article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and England. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is nothing special about this area code whatsoever. Looking at the remainder of Category:Area codes in the United Kingdom I'm not convinced many of the others are useful either. 020 is a special case, and 01708 has some claim because its exchange was the last of a very notable type, and ended up in a museum about which we have an article, but otherwise it's a sorry category. If we keep 01207, we're opening the door to a very large number of almost-identical stubs-with-maps all referenced to primary telecom documents, and none of any general interest. Elemimele (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact about 01708 that you mentioned could well be merged into Strowger switch, because the 01708 article is about an element of the UK numbering scheme and not about telephony devices. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. We have a List of dialling codes in the United Kingdom and that suffices for the vast, vast majority of cases, with the possible exception of 020, which could be more suitably titled Telephone numbers in London as it largely deals with historic elements. This article cites no sources other than a government list of area codes that exist, and asserts no notability. Flip Format (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Merge with Stanley, County Durham. Not enough notability to justify a separate article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
01207 is also, e.g., a postcode in a number of countries, and so I'd rather have such ambiguous redirects deleted. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:16, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like I've mistype, my bad. I meant to say merge (or at least incorporate some of the information on the article to Stanley) Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a systematic discussion. As I feared following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/01489 the other articles about area codes have been prodded/AfDed with no attempt to discuss them as a set and gain consensus on what does and does not confer notability, get input from subject experts on what sources we should be looking for, what search terms to use (googling strings of numbers is not a remotely reliable way to find them), where information about codes that aren't individually notable should be merged. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now started that discussion, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications#Dialling codes in the United Kingdom. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 7 May 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. Consensus to keep Nosebagbear (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Doel[edit]

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

Doel seems notable exclusively for the book that Helene Hanff wrote about him, 84, Charing Cross Road. I couldn't find any independent coverage of him, and what little I did find is about Hanff primarily (e.g. [12]) or about the book or film.

I couldn't find an archival of the Petersfield Post article mentioned in the cited sources; the other sources cited are Hanff's obituary in The Telegraph and various self-published websites. Nothing indicating Doel has independent notability from the book.

Propose redirecting to 84, Charing Cross Road. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doel is the subject of a book, a TV show, a play that was performed in the West End and on Broadway, two radio adaptations and a movie, in which Anthony Hopkins played Doel. The book and the movie are considered cult classics. Cullen328 (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look @Cullen328. Do you have sources showing they meet GNG here? I was unable to find good sources, and I'd be happy to use them to expand and improve the article. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 23:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An entire book substantially about a person is an excellent source, as are its critical reviews, and the reviews of the various adaptations. Cullen328 (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the book itself is significant, reliable, and independent. I'm not convinced reviews of the book are by default (perhaps if they did independent research on the subject, not if they're just covering the book). Adaptations and their derivative coverage I would actively argue against; beyond the issue with reviews, adaptations are generally dramatizations not subject to the same standards as non-fiction. We don't have an article on John Laroche, but if we did, we surely would not be sourcing content from reviews of Adaptation (film).

Ultimately this strikes me as someone who isn't notable outside of feature journalism coverage from a single source (it's essentially WP:BIO1E with the added issue that there's not even a second source to pull verifiable content from). It feels insufficient for building an independent article on them. I'd be happy to be shown wrong here though. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 05:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I’m with Cullen on this. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is part of English and American social history. Wededd (talk) 14:27, 8 May 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 Ashaway, Rhode Island. ✗plicit 23:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel, Rhode Island[edit]

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

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kierieian, Rhode Island and my inability to find any coverage of this supposed village, this appears to be fictional. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Rhode Island. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hopkinton, Rhode Island. This location does show up in GNIS and USGS National Map. There are also a few mentions of the lcoation, such as in this biography and this registration of churches (Also I'm not sure what Gr. means here). Admittedly there are not enough sources to prove the claims in the article. Its creator and largest contributor by far, P. Pearl-Lee C. Spears-Harris, haven't been active since 2014, so it's unlikely that they can provide any source for the article now. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second link in your third sentence refers to a place in Pennsylvania. It's just coincidental that Rhode Island immediately follows Pennsylvania in that alphabetical list, so that "Bethel Rhode Island" is a hit in the search. Deor (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I found that exact source before nominating and realized it was a coincidence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I made a mistake when citing the page, but if you type in "Bethel, Rhode Island" in the searchbar, and click on the term "Bethel, Town of Hopkinton, RI, USA", it will take you to a place in RI, near Ashaway. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, probably a hoax. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources indicate that this may be (or have been) a real place, but these are passing mentions and there's no official recognition to establish notability under NPLACE. –dlthewave ☎ 16:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ashaway, Rhode Island. Bethel did exist, apparently as a neighborhood in Ashaway: [13] [14] [15] There's certainly not enough to make it worth having an independent article, so redirecting to Ashaway (with a sentence or two there) would be best. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is true. The village of Ashaway included three named millseats with small factory villages in the 1870s--Bethel, Laureldale,and Oakland, all located on the Ashaway River in Hopkinton, Rhode Island. Refer to Beers 1870 Atlas of Rhode Island. Temperance Valley (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ashaway, Rhode Island. as for above, and due to the fact it is located inside of it makes it seem like a part of ashaway and the fact that most residents dont even consider themselves a part of it makes it unnoticeable LuxembourgBoy42 (talk) 03:47, 9 May 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 23:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Love (musician)[edit]

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

Inadequately referenced article with significant problems. This was first proposed for splitting over four years ago, because it conflates two different musicians who merely happened to have the same name -- but that split discussion from 2018 is somehow still open and unresolved in 2023 (thus suggesting low traffic and visibility), and a draft article about the American musician (which was basically just a straight copy-paste of all the "really about the American guy" stuff from this article, without adding any new content or sourcing about him besides what's already here) was rejected at AFC in 2019 for not adequately sourcing passage of WP:NMUSIC at all, and has never been resubmitted at all since.
But if you split off everything that appears to be about the Dillinger Escape Plan guy, then the Man Without Hat doesn't clearly pass NMUSIC either, because his role is referenced almost entirely to Facebook posts and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of the band as a whole -- but NMUSIC specifies that band members don't automatically get their own standalone biographies as separate topics from the band if they can't be shown to pass WP:GNG as individuals.
Given how little else of substance there actually is here, in fact, it's quite likely that the mistaken conflation of the American and Canadian musicians (thus seemingly fulfilling NMUSIC #6, "a musician who has been in two or more independently notable bands") was the intended basis for notability in the first place, but that clearly isn't applicable at all if they're not even the same person. And even if one James Love or the other can be salvaged with better support for notability than this, the conflation of two people made such a mess that it would probably be better to start over from scratch anyway. Bearcat (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Canada, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 13:39, 29 April 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 14:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the cited sources were promotional contents, trivial mentions or contained no mentions of the subject. Found no significant coverage to pass WP:GNG。 Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Several people really messed this up over the years. There are two James Love's, one who was in Men Without Hats and a totally different guy who was in Dillinger Escape Plan. Neither one is notable outside of his respective band. The guy in M.W.H. was a late nostalgia tour sideman 30 years after that band's glory days; the guy in D.E.P. has a more distinct history with that band but still without independent notability. During its entire existence since being created in 2016, this article has described the two guys as if they are the same person, which is downright embarrassing for Wikipedia. This all means that there is no place to send a redirect because it would cause confusion over whether a user is seeking the M.W.H. guy or the D.E.P. guy. This calls for pure deletion both for notability reasons and as a good old WP:TNT. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:56, 11 May 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 05:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Zanjeer[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. Sources found are fansites and PR pieces. He's tall, yes, but that's not enough upon which to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only foun trivial mentions or promotional pieces about the subject. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 05:06, 12 May 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 nominator and no !votes to the contrary. XOR'easter (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure) ‎[reply]

Aziz Choudry[edit]

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

~~BLP lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New Zealand. MrsSnoozyTurtle 12:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I vividly remember the New Zealand security agency case. It generated years of media coverage. Given that was in the late 90s and early 2000s, it’s well possible that little to nothing of this material is online any longer. But it does mean that in-depth coverage does exist. Schwede 66 17:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schwede66. I added a more detail account of why he was a household name in New Zealand. I've also added a couple of obituaries which give substantial detail on his life to the article.-gadfium 19:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His many books and their many reviews (some of which I added to the article) give a pass of WP:AUTHOR beyond the WP:GNG pass already demonstrated. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A ProQuest search makes it clear that a break-in to his house generated quite the fuss in late 90s. This secluded event may not generate notability on its own, but combined with his published works and their citations it's enough to make the subject notable. Merko (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:57, 7 May 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy English Boarding High School[edit]

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

I could not find any sources that would help with this unsourced school article. Does not seem to pass WP:NORG as my searches yielded nothing better than social media and directory listings like Nepal YP. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom as it's not notable.DIV IN E 07:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uncited and fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:48, 13 May 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Family Convent Sr. Secondary School, Khurai[edit]

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

I can't find any sources that meet the requirements of WP:ORGDEPTH or even WP:GNG. All I can find are the usual database profiles like Justdial, the school's own website and the school's own social media. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 6 May 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 back to Pentax. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asahi Optical[edit]

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

Another undiscussed SPLIT, of information which is covered in target by COI/UPE editor (see that editor's talk page). Should be restored redirect - but simply doing so is no longer an option. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change into a redirect again —I have still the hope that we can convince User:Opcouk to keep this article as a redirect (or block the account if Opcouk continues with reverting us). The page has some incoming links thus a redir would be useful. --Cyfal (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asahi Optical does not exist. The correct name is "Asahi Optical Co." which later became "Asahi Optical Co. Ltd".

The article name "Asahi Optical" must be renamed to the correct name"Asahi Optical Co."

Why does anyone protest or object to the correction??? Opcouk (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. // Timothy :: talk 20:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - redirect here is the best way to my mind. --BoraVoro (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Doesn't qualifies to be standalone articles. Redirect is best course. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:31, 17 May 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 DYSS-TV. ✗plicit 11:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYCL-TV[edit]

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

Television station lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Perhaps a redirect to GMA Network might be an WP:ATD? MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect if you like. 49.145.110.148 (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to DYSS-TV since DYCL is a repeater of DYSS. 2001:4454:32C:1B00:49B3:91D6:4D:D0B7 (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to originator DYSS-TV. No independent coverage about the relay station. SBKSPP (talk) 05:42, 13 May 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 00:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Effectiveness (disambiguation)[edit]

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

This page is not a disambiguation page that lists articles that might otherwise be titled "Effectiveness". It consists of WP:Partial title matches, and "a disambiguation page is not a search index". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as particularly useful. On the one hand, it's veering into being a dictionary definition. But on the other hand, it can't turn into a proper disambiguation page because there are simply too many instances of this very common word. Whichever way it turns, it doesn't quite work as a WP list. Elemimele (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest recategorizing as a set-index article per WP:SIA, rather than keeping it as a disambiguation page. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cielquiparle: It couldn't be recategorised as an SIA at this title: is there another page title? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Maybe Effectiveness (types)? Cielquiparle (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the entries simply represent various subtopics or facets of the topic Effectiveness. But many others don't, instead reflecting other, unrelated, uses of the term, like Effective interest rate or Effective temperature. These are partial matches, but for at least some of them, the dab term "effective" can be used without the accompanying noun, making it appropriate for disambiguation. It will be difficult to disentangle all these groups though. – Uanfala (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it might make sense to delete the entire section under "Effective" (adjective). Cielquiparle (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2023-03 ✍️ create ← 2016-12 ✗ deleted

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:DABNOT a disambiguation page is not a list of long descriptions or dictionary definitions. A disambiguation page is not a search index. — Maile (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's full of partial matches and variations on the word: "effectivity", "effect", "effective". Ironically, it's not effective at all. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY 128.6.36.94 (talk) 20:56, 7 May 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. ✗plicit 11:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hoy (Lake Constance)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Zero sources since late 2019, BEFORE check yielded nothing of use. Nothing has changed since the 2006 AfD, which ended in delete. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Europe, Germany, and Islands. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalent: Editor in question has added one ref, and while it is rather marginal, it does seem to suggest notability may exist even if it has not demonstrated. I also feel that a private island created as a swimming oasis by the rich is downright interesting, precisely the sort of thing I love to find on en.wiki. I did a little BEFORE of my own, but this is rather difficult because the name is also an island in Scotland and most of the references we would expect to find would be in German. Perhaps a cross-post to de.wiki might prove useful, and I'm inclined to argue KEEP in the short term especially as the editor appears engaged. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sources out there, but searches in English get swamped by hits for the Scottish island of the same name which is famous for its popular climbing stack. Searching in German is more fruitful and I've begun by adding 3 media sources that show the island continues to feature in local and regional news. I would say its notability stems not just from its unusual origins as an artificial bathing island and its appeal as a tourist attraction that can be reached on foot at low water, but the fact that it is the smallest island in Lake Constance. Anyway, I've made a start on the references and will add more as I come across them. Bermicourt (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:18, 6 May 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 11:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fundo Mhura[edit]

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

Unsourced article about non-notable amateur boxer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [16] he seems to have gone to the criminal side of things. Plenty of coverage in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In that case, does the article meet WP:CRIM in that the crime is unusual enough to be noteworthy? Does that mean that WP:TNT should apply and we start over, with an article not about an amateur boxer, but about a crime/perpetrator? Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:18, 6 May 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 Dan Dare. The Mekon was not nominated here and should have its own AfD discussion. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Treens[edit]

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

My WP:BEFORE is not seeing much here, but there is a single academic citation (a passing mention). Just in case I am missing something, I am going with AfD here instead of the PROD, but my overall thinking is right now that we can merge the single referenced sentence to Dan Dare and redirect the ret of this, well, WP:FANCRUFT, there. (If anyone tries to rescue this, good luck, and The Mekon is no better). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For The Mekon there is at least https://books.google.com/books?id=lvaKDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA179. TompaDompa (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Treens (Dan Dare) and redirect to Dan Dare. Meanwhile, treens should be an R from plural to treen, the primary topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Treens (Dan Dare) and redirect to The Mekon. Page is fancruft, and the Treens themselves are generic laser-fodder. They're only really notable as the Mekon's minions or for getting massacred by Dan and chums. The Mekon page is a mess but considering the character's profile in the UK at least has more chance of becoming robust, though it's been far too long since I've read Dan Dare for me to take the plunge on it any time soon. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 05:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move and redirect per above and also redirect the Mekon. Redirects are cheap. Dronebogus (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus I've actually taken a stab at improving the Mekon, so you may want to check that article and reconsider that part of your comment above, perhaps? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! The Mekon is still very much go-to in the British media as a nickname for anyone bald, intelligent and evil, which is impressive when he's barely been in any new material for best part of thirty years and it's probably twice that since he was in anything anyone read... I wonder if any of the fictional stuff from the Treens article could be patched across? It's not cited, not even primary, but from my very limited recollection seems accurate. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BoomboxTestarossa Just a sidenote that there is one more page in the cited source that could be used to expand The Mekon article, but I was unable to access it. There is a tiny chance there is stuff about Treens there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (both) to Dan Dare. I don't think unsourced material should be merged; if someone wishes they can write referenced sections for these subjects in the target article. // Timothy :: talk 18:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the Mekon page as it stands is sourced impressively, just lacking in fictional information which can be patched in by an expert at a later date if the suggestion to port the material from the Treens page is verboten. Sources for that side of things definitely exist, it's just waiting for someone to summarise a couple of thousand pages of Dan Dare and the coverage in comics history books (for example, some of the sources used in the impressive Eagle article). I mean there's certainly a billion other comics articles that don't feature any national daily newspapers using them as cultural shorthand. Be mental to not have a page on the Mekon but to have one on crap like Gideon (comics). BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move and redirect per Zxcvbnm. This article doesn't have enough sources to support it as a separate article. And even after a redirect, it's not the primary topic for treen. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:49, 18 May 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 11:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SIM NJ (Society for Information Management – New Jersey Chapter)[edit]

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

Article tagged for years. Searches turned up zero in-depth coverage of this branch/chapter of the organization. Could be redirected to Society for Information Management, but that's been contested. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete State chapters like this generally don't need articles. Reywas92^Talk 20:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The parent organization article at Society for Information Management has its issues, but they might well be fixable. There's no claim of independent notability for the state chapter, either based on what's in the article or on what can be found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original BLAR-er; I've seen absolutely nothing to convince me that this, or the parent article for that matter, is notable enough to warrant an article, only a litany of WP:ITSIMPORTANT style claims. Restoring my original redirect would be possible but inferior to deletion both because of the awkward title (which is what originally brought it to my attention) and the fact that the New Jersey chapter is only mentioned in passing at the base page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:49, 9 May 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 11:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Welch (businessman)[edit]

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

After all the unreferenced promotional stuff has been removed, I believe the article does not show enough WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I believe the creator of this article as well as Blackcircles are an undisclosed paid editor. This article also had a PROD in 2018, which was deleted, don't know what happened there. Equine-man (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Equine-man (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Total GNG fail. Minimally disguised spam/copyright violation. There are actually at least five other Mike Welches in the United Kingdom with arguably better reasons for inclusion. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 5 May 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 10:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Citations are weak and OBE award may be significant, but I do not think it is enough to keep him just for that.Hkkingg (talk) 06:28, 7 May 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 Pentax 6×7. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pentax 67[edit]

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

Undiscussed SPLIT, of information which is covered in target by COI/UPE editor (see that editor's talk page). Should be restored redirect - but simply doing so is no longer an option. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Change into a redirect again —I have still the hope that we can convince User:Opcouk to keep this article as a redirect (or block the account if Opcouk continues with reverting us). The page has some incoming links thus a redir would be useful. --Cyfal (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pentax 67 is the trade mark owned by Photo-Image Ltd UK company which has revived the Asahi Pentax brand along with Asahi Pentax 6x7 and Pentax 67. Photo-Image Ltd is the copyright owner of the words "Pentax 67", "Asahi Pentax" and "Asahi Pentax 6x7". This information is pertinent and must be included in Wikipedia articles.

Pentax 6x7 article must be renamed to the correct name "Asahi Pentax 6x7".

Pentax 67 and Asahi Pentax 6x7 are not the same thing. Ask Photo-Image Ltd. Opcouk (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Based on reading through some photography articles, the 67 isn't notable enough by itself for its own article with what I've seen. And definitely not with the sourcing present on the article. Restoring the redirect and a combined article would better serve our readers at this time. Skynxnex (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have refrained from voting since I was one of the editors who attempted simply to revert this to a redirect, but User:Opcouk has now been indefinitely blocked for socking and a promotional username. So this discussion may be moot. Lithopsian (talk) 15:25, 8 May 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. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1992–93 FC Desna Chernihiv season[edit]

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

Was draftified in order to be improved. Was declined twice at AfC, by Robert McClenon and Spiderone, then moved back to mainspace, with the rationale that NSEASONS has been met. However, NSEASONS does not guarantee inclusion, as it states, "Individual season articles for top-level professional teams are highly likely to meet Wikipedia notability requirements". It does not say they automatically meet notability requirements. There is currently zero in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources so as to pass WP:GNG, despite having been tagged for issues for over a month. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seasons in which the club played in a professional league do not always require stand-alone articles. We need to ask ourselves whether this article actually adds anything of value to the encyclopaedia or whether it's just a stats article. Unfortunately, I can't see any evidence that anything notable happened in this season for it to warrant its own article. If anything did happen, it might be worth writing a sentence or two at FC Desna Chernihiv but having a stand-alone article for every Desna Chernihiv season is just absurd. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say its absurd to have articles for each season of a top-level team. Over at the American football project and I'm sure many others, its commonly done that way. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that Desna Chernihiv were a 'top-level' team. They barely escaped relegation to the third tier of Ukraine that season. I could understand if someone wanted to presume notability for Dynamo Kyiv, Shakhtar or Dnipro that season (none of them yet have stand-alone articles) but I can't see why we would extend that presumption further for a season article for a team barely second tier let alone top tier. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Chernihiv currently play in the Ukrainian Premier League? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but that has no relevance to their 1992–93 season. Desna Chernihiv has usually been a second or third tier team in their history and their current spell in the top tier is their first one. Each season should be judged on its own merits. The current Desna season might well be notable but we shouldn't then inappropriately extrapolate and say that that must mean that all Desna seasons are notable by default. In the same way, 2021–22 Sutton United F.C. season might well have a presumption of notability but it would be absurd to then say that their 2008–09 season is also notable, given that they were way lower in the English pyramid at that point. If 1992–93 FC Desna Chernihiv season can be proven to meet GNG, keep it. If not, it should be deleted. History of FC Desna Chernihiv already exists and, if something noteworthy happened this season, we can add a sentence to the history article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, having not machine-translated the sources, and not planning to machine-translate the sources, but the sources appear to be statistical pages. Statistical pages do not provide secondary coverage. They are very interesting to sports fans, but when we decided that they do not establish notability for players, that implied a decision that they also do not establish notability for teams without coverage by secondary sources such as magazines. The Heymann criterion will be finding at least one secondary source providing significant coverage, and including a summary of what the source says in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - According to the Ukrainian-language Wiki, there is a 2021 Viktor Mukha book about Desna that has some coverage of this season. However, I cannot access the book or see a preview anywhere - just sales listings like the one I linked. The only other in-depth coverage I can find of this season is from the football club itself which isn't secondary independent coverage. Perhaps there is some angle about this being the first season the club played in the newly-independent Ukrainian club football competitions, but we don't have access to any sources that demonstrate its notability. Jogurney (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have this book. The 1992–93 season is described on pages 198-201, here is their photo for example: 198, 199, 200. Dunadan Ranger (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can User:Iliochori2 provide some independent references for this season? Newspapers, book, or television programmes would be great. Heck, even a photo of such things! Can we give them time to do so? Nfitz (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I will try to provide some independent references for this season. Iliochori2 (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it should have been left in draft.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I notice you didn't ask for redraftification in your nomination. Nfitz (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are these sources enough? https://startfootball.info/fk-desna-chernigov-istoriya-kluba/ - https://val.ua/ru/82202.html - https://eho-tribun.ucoz.ru/blog/futbolnye_kluby_desna_chernigov_sssr_ukraina_fc_desna_chernigiv/2013-10-07-8 - https://www.desna.football/2000-2010/ (official Website of the club) - If you want I can look for more of them. Regards 151.37.215.139 (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are these sources enough? https://startfootball.info/fk-desna-chernigov-istoriya-kluba/ - https://val.ua/ru/82202.html - https://eho-tribun.ucoz.ru/blog/futbolnye_kluby_desna_chernigov_sssr_ukraina_fc_desna_chernigiv/2013-10-07-8 - https://www.desna.football/2000-2010/ (official Website of the club) - If you want I can look for more of them. Regards Iliochori2 (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a start, User:Iliochori2. I can't translate the first one I'm afraid, so I can't say. The second and third don't mention this particular season (though the one might help the 1993-94 article). The club website is a good source of information for the article, but sadly does not help at all for notability - even for the club, let alone a particular season. What we really need are good articles (or books, etc.) about this season. Which would presumably mostly be in Ukrainian/Russian 1992/1993 media articles. A tall order I'm afraid, especially given the political situation and changes back then. So you know of any good archive sites that might be a good place to search? Nfitz (talk) 04:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello for the moment I've found these sources https://teams.by/pervaya-liha-1992-1993-chempionat-ukrainy/table-1405/ - https://fcdesna.at.ua/index/0-4 - https://favoritmarket.com/%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C_%D0%90%D0%BB%D1%87%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA_%D0%94%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B2_1992_93-6907746.htm - http://ukranianfootball.narod.ru/1993/1992_93.html - https://www.besoccer.com/competition/table/persha_liga_ukraine/1993

I am in the process to contact some people that they can provide more information. I am also trying to get the book of Viktor Mukha as source. Iliochori2 (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I’m not sure why this article keeps being moved back and forth from draft to main space, but currently it should not be in main space due to the lack of reliable secondary sources. Iliochori2 has stated that they are working on this, so moving the article back to a draft is best whilst they work on this. However, the article needs improvements before returning to main space. Fats40boy11 (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no sense in draftifying, since the editor who created it has been blocked for sockpuppetry.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn’t aware there was an ongoing investigation for sockpuppetry on the editor – in which the editor has been subsequently blocked – so thank you for bringing this to my attention. Fats40boy11 (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I personally can’t find any reliable secondary sources to help the article to pass WP:GNG but that isn’t to say there is any out there. Previously voting to draftify, I am changing to delete, with the editor I cited as working on it being blocked. Fats40boy11 (talk) 07:35, 17 May 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. Borderline WP:G3 and clearly not going to survive this AFD. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Albion Demiri[edit]

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

After BLP PROD was applied, sources were added but none of them work for me. In any case, sources like Transfermarkt, Soccerway and UEFA player profiles are not WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTBASIC #5 clearly states that such articles must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Nothing in my searches suggests that this youth player meets that minimum standard. A Finnish source search only yielded Pinterest. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Albania, and Finland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot find any reliable sources to support the existence of this person, much less any notability. Of the few sources cited in the article that actually work, they are about other people: Soccerway goes to "Ko Jeong-Woon"; Transfermarkt (not an RS) redirects to "Alen Kurt"; the UEFA cites just 404. Schazjmd (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More source added. I'm not sure why the links weren't working. Lolakam22 (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lolakam22, you haven't added a single useful reliable source to support notability. Schazjmd (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what do you want me to add more? Lolakam22 (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lolakam22, please don't add any more useless links. If you can find a reliable source that provides significant coverage of this person, post it here. Schazjmd (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So is my website ok or how else should i improve it? Lolakam22 (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lolakam22, no, your website is not a reliable source. When there isn't any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, there's nothing you can do to "improve" it. Schazjmd (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. I couldn't find any significant coverage of him. Dougal18 (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More source added. I'm not sure why the links weren't working. Lolakam22 (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not even able to confirm this person exists, never mind finding sufficient sourcing to pass GNG. -Ljleppan (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More source added. I'm not sure why the links weren't working. Lolakam22 (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More source added. I'm not sure why the links weren't working. Lolakam22 (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As a hoax. This is nothing more an an effort to draw views to someone's Instagram page. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also strongly suspect this to be a hoax article. I can't find a single reliable reference which demonstrates that this 15-year-old soccer player even exists, much less that he's notable and played for Everton's youth team or Albania's national team. The claimed 'individual trophies' he's supposed to have won are piped links which point to the articles about the Premier League player of the month and player of the season awards, respectively - both awards for senior players. It could be a very badly put-together article about a genuine player but in the absence of any reliable sources, it still can't remain on Wikipedia. Neiltonks (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Creator says (Redacted). Doug Weller talk 14:01, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is someone's personal EA FIFA 23 player (the 'picture' is an Android camera screen picture). Nate • (chatter) 14:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Obvious hoax. Creator could do with a block, too. — Czello ^(music) 14:10, 9 May 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 Bajaj Group#Bajaj Group companies. Sandstein 05:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability requirements; NCORP. The likelihood of a UPE being involved is relatively high. RPSkokie (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. RPSkokie (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bajaj Group#Bajaj Group companies ATD, just another spoke of a larger conglomerate. Nate • (chatter) 14:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Agree with the redirect, it's a subsidiary of the larger Allianz corporation. Oaktree b (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Guinness Book is non-notable, the rest are press releases. Oaktree b (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Bajaj Finserv which is the parent entity that owns 74% stake in this company. Maduant (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I have added a good sources. international journal casestudy about Bajaj Allianz Growth after the privation of the company. 2nd source is Harvard Report, 3rd IJSR Report, 4th Researchandmarket Global Report of major players. I am sharing my last Industry Report linkAdesamSA (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on AdesamSA's sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks to the sources mentioned by AdesamSA. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two of the five citations shared by AdesamSA are from predatory journals — the Seventh Sense Research Group's International Journal of Economics and Management Studies (https://beallslist.net/) and the International Journal of Science and Research (https://journalsearches.com/journal.php?title=International%20Journal%20of%20Science%20and%20Research). The other three citations are; a case study by Ingo Walter, hosted at Harvard Business Publishing, and a commercial market research report by Research and Markets; both can be regarded as noteworthy and independent. But, the third one only has a passing mention in The Geneva Papers, which is hosted at JSTOR, along with seven other life insurance companies. The Wikipedia Library access was used to verify the aforementioned mention, which can be located on page 90. In summary, currently, the organization needs more reliable citations. As a result, there are two possible courses of action: either we agree to merge the page with Bajaj Finserv as suggested by Maduant, or we ask for an extension of the nomination process (by one more cycle) to allow the page to be further developed in accordance with WP:HEY. RPSkokie (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response You agreed that 2 sources are good enough and acc. to WP:ORG if an organisation has 2 or more sources as per the guidelines, then it is considered as notable. Still, I am sharing more research links AJM Journal, Grandviewresearch Report, marketandmarkets Report, MarketResearchReports even, if you will look for reports you can get many others. Apart from that you have not shared the reason behind writing 2 of those journals as "predatory journals". Why ijsr Report is a passing mentain, where the whole report Summary is related to the same company and it's competitor? AdesamSA (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AdesamSA There was an error in sharing the incorrect link regarding the IJSR. I have now rectified it in my comment. Please take a moment to review and explore the link to gain an understanding of the predatory characteristics associated with the IJSR. Also, you can explore the website https://beallslist.net/ to find the listing of Seventh Sense Research Group as a predatory publisher. This resource provides valuable information and helps identify publishers that exhibit predatory publishing traits. Regarding the other research links you provided in your response, I am unable to analyse them and make a judgment at this moment. Let us wait for input from others in order to form a well-informed perspective. RPSkokie (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still quite unclear as to who decides a journal is "predatory", what the implications of being "predatory" are, and whether a "predatory" journal ceases to be a reliable source. If there is a suggestion that these journals are for some reason not reliable sources, that discussion should be taken forward at WP:RSN. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bajaj Group#Bajaj Group companies. Fails GNG and ORG, routine news, stats, market research reports about companies do not show WP:N; the problems with the sources listed above has been covered by others. Even if it could squeak by GNG, it would still be an unnecessary WP:CFORK that serves no purpose other than making readers chase links. // Timothy :: talk 18:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response We will refer WP:ORG since it is a company and actually the tough criteria. You said "routine news", but I have not shared any news link, other than the Industry report of the Indian market. RPSkokie has done a healthy discussion and accepted 2 sources are as per the criteria, which means it passes WP:ORG. In few, he is not sure which is perfectly okay. I want you to please highlight the issues in the global Industry reports as I can't read it above. Let's consider 1 of them as a predatory journal still we have so many Industry Links to agree upon. If you think market reports are not helpful then kindly share what are highest standard links we need here to understand notability. AdesamSA (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bajaj Group#Bajaj Group companies WP:ATD-R WP:CHEAP Lightburst (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Timothy. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:13, 19 May 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 11:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Steinberg[edit]

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

I've added what few sources I could find. Didn't find sufficient WP:SIGCOV, so I'm nomming. DFlhb (talk) 05:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DFlhb (talk) 05:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the sources are interviews, clearly fails WP:GNG. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 06:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage and lack of adequate sources.Pershkoviski (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. WP:NBASIC. 128.6.36.94 (talk) 20:45, 7 May 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 Ice Cream Man (album). ✗plicit 11:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Ice Cream Man[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NSONG. No objection to redirecting to album if consensus exists. // Timothy :: talk 04:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:54, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ice Cream Man (album). Obviously fails WP:GNG, redirect would be more suitable than deletion. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 05:08, 6 May 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 00:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the Things I Should Have Known[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NSONG. No objection to redirecting to album if consensus exists. // Timothy :: talk 04:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:54, 6 May 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 04:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uche Blessed[edit]

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

Not seeing any good independent sources other than the single one with a brief mention. Likely a WP:COI. Rusalkii (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rusalkii (talk) 04:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT. This article has been created many times by the same person despite being declined at AFC and speedied many times. There is a COI/autobio concern, and therefore the page creator should go through AFC and establish notability in a draft first. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Software, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — fails GNG. Cases of conflict of interest or undisclosed paid editing. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT. The subject fails WP:GNG and is non-notable individual. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage and lack of adequate sources. A search in Google did not result in anything useful.Pershkoviski (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: page creator has tried to remove the AfD template many times. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:36, 8 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Merrell[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Joeykai (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has some sources but not a "significant" amount. Overall just a run of the mill minor leaguer.-- Yankees10 04:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:34, 6 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan DeCaster[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Baseball. Joeykai (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run of the mill minor leaguer. Fails WP:GNG.-- Yankees10 15:21, 12 May 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 04:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rotterdam Film Festival 2002 Main Program Short[edit]

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

Unsourced article about just the short film program at one year's individual iteration of a film festival that doesn't otherwise have any sibling articles for other years, or any parent article for the rest of the 2002 program. This isn't really demonstrating any particular reason why the short film program would be of any special notability over and above the rest of that year's festival lineup, but there's no article about the feature film selections at all -- nor is it demonstrating any reason why the 2002 short film program would be of greater notability than the 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004 or 2022 short film programs, none of which have articles either.
I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if somebody with access to 20-year-old Dutch sourcing can convert this into a properly sourced and comprehensive article about the entire 2002 Rotterdam Film Festival lineup, like the ones we have for festivals such as Venice, Berlin, Cannes and TIFF (and even for Rotterdam itself in 2021 and 2022, but not any other year yet) -- but if nobody can do that, the short film program doesn't have any special value all by itself.
In the same week this was created back in 2015, the creator did attempt the same thing for Clermont-Ferrand (where, to be fair, the short film program is the festival, unlike Rotterdam), but that got deleted within days per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clermont-Ferrand International Short Film Festival 2002 Official Competition Selection and nobody's ever tried anything similar since. Bearcat (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Netherlands. Bearcat (talk) 03:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see any relevant independent sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as suggested. Good find, Bearcat! gidonb (talk) 05:52, 9 May 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 00:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Easy to Love (Armin van Buuren and Matoma song)[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NSONG. No objection to redirect to a consensus target, but album is already a redirect and not sure redirect to artist is appropriate. // Timothy :: talk 01:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely fails all relevant notability guidelines, and I agree that there is no good redirect target. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Netherlands, and Norway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:39, 6 May 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 23:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dame Munni Irone[edit]

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

Cosmetologist to the stars isn't notable. Rest appears PROMO and sourcing is trivial mentions the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NBIO/GNG by the looks of it.-KH-1 (talk) 06:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional nonsense. What on earth does “ In 2016, Irone became the honorary minister of foreign affairs of the Indian government at the House of Lords” mean? Mccapra (talk) 16:08, 6 May 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!} 03:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kierieian, Rhode Island[edit]

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

Non-notable geostub and possible hoax Carpimaps (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems likely a hoax. If you look at the Hopkinton township on Google Maps, this supposed village shows up at the 1,000 feet level. But if you zoom in more closely, that label disappears, and there's nothing there except maybe some trees. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. This reddit thread, although definitely not reliable, show that people think it's a hoax. GNIS brings up no results, and I can't find anything else that indicates that this is a real place. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 05:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Rhode Island. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Two other creations from this user - Neufa, Connecticut and Haygarden, Rhode Island - also have zero GNIS hits and nothing relevant on Newspapers.com, and I'm inclined to label them hoaxes as well. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Didn't refresh the page this morning, so accidentally renominated it. Here was my deletion rationale: A new account edited the article to say the place is a hoax and was, of course, reverted. Still, it caught my interest enough to look into it. There *are* some obscure villages in this area, but thus far I'm not able to find any evidence at all that this place exists. There are also a Reddit and Facebook thread where locals discuss it, in which none of them seem to know about it, either. I noticed that one of the other unsourced stubs of Rhode Island villages the same user created, Bethel, Rhode Island even includes the line "Bethel is not commonly known among residents", which is... unusual. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this is a hoax, note that it shows up on Google maps and Bing maps with an arrow pointer. But if you enlarge the area, doesn't seem like anything exists near that arrow — Maile (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rhode Island resident here. Hopkinton has a number of villages: there's Hope Valley, Locustville (essentially absorbed by Hope Valley), Wyoming, Centerville/Moscow, Ashaway, Canonchet, and I haven't even listed all of them... all are easily verifiable as real places with notable histories. This supposed village, however, appears to be fiction. I note this article's author is the same as the Bethel article, which certainly merits a closer look. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just took Bethel to AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See also Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#Does Kierieian, Rhode Island exist?: nobody could find a reference for it apart from a few passing mentions that might be WP inspired. Alansplodge (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – the article now says The village is located around Rhode Island Route 216 at Ashaway Road but according to maps Route 216 is Ashaway Road, hmm. —Tamfang (talk) 18:09, 8 May 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 23:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sofía Petro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable activist. Being the daughter of Gustavo Petro, the president of Colombia, does not make her notable as it is not inherited per se. I'm also unconvinced by the keep votes in the previous AFD and the article has not improved much since that nomination. It seems pretty obvious to me she is not a notable activist, and she has gained some coverage only for being the daughter of Petro. An article on the Petro family could be created and this, redirected there. Bedivere (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Some Spanish sources were found in the previous AfD for this article [17] [18][19][20]. There are some other sources online that are debatable, but I think these sources are just enough to get it over WP:GNG. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 05:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did review those sources and I am unconvinced about Petro's individual notability. Although these do cover her, her notability is inherited from that of her father. She is not notable on her own. She may be notable later, but she definitely is not now. Bedivere (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Colombia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the strength of the CNN source in particular. Additionally, there are tags for coverage of her on major Colombian news sites – some of the individual articles are trivial, but cumulatively it speaks to notability as well. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was going to close, but wasn't sure the consensus was clear enough so thought I'd do some reading and participate directly. Between the CNN source and the others above, I think notability is fairly clear. Sure, she's getting the coverage because of her father, but that doesn't mean that the notability is being inherited - notability doesn't really care whether the sourcing should exist or not, just that it does. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:58, 14 May 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Guiyang[edit]

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

Per extensive recent consensus on these types of lists. Minimal navigational purpose given that very few of these buildings have articles and the majority are unlikely to have sufficient coverage for articles. Additionally, the topic of tall buildings in Guiyang as a whole has no significant coverage that I could find. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Lists, and China. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Guiyang is a provincial capital and a city of about 6 million people. I'm not sure what the usual criteria are for these kinds of lists but I would expect most of the city's 10 or 20 tallest buildings to each have enough RS coverage to merit their own articles. It's also not hard to find Chinese-language coverage of the general topic of tall skyscrapers in Guiyang: [21][22][23] —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is lots of precedent for this kind of article, and there are plenty of articles like this with most of the listed buildings not having articles, even in western countries. For example List of tallest buildings in Yellowknife, even though Yellowknife has a population of only 20,000. And Guiyang isn't some small city of 100,000 either. It has a population of 6 million and is a provincial capital, and a simple google in Chinese found many articles. [24][25][26][27][28]Mucube (talk • contribs) 22:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is there a link to where the extensive recent consensus can be read? Or is it just a general pattern of similar articles being deleted? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's the latter, as similar recent AfDs like Columbia, MO, Durham, NA, Little Rock, Lansing and Szczecin all ended in delete. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all pretty small cities – less than a tenth of the size of Guiyang by population. Based on the deletion discussions it seems they don't have particularly tall skyscrapers and their tallest buildings are not often discussed as a group by reliable sources. So Guiyang is not really comparable. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Mucube and WP:NLIST, and per my comments above. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists:
One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.
The sources from Guizhou Radio TV Station [zh] and The Paper found by Mucube (talk · contribs) and Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) show that the topic has been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" so passes the notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 09:14, 11 May 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 02:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Andrews (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Only minor roles, no WP:SIGCOV. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Unsourced BLP. Non notable actor with non-notable film credits. Article creator Dutchy85 is permanently blocked for copyvios. — Maile (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not many cast members from Nightmare of Eden have been lucky with articles on this website. Jennifer Lonsdale, Stephen Jenn, Eden Phillips, Barry Andrews...2A00:23C6:D88E:8901:E85E:32C9:C822:2498 (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - performing a major role in a single cult film does not make one notable. WP:NACTOR specifies multiple roles. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 12 May 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 02:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Stomberg[edit]

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

Not notable as an independent performer. Unable to find WP:SIGCOV. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article was created in 2009 as a basic copy of his website. He appears to be accomplished and respected in his field, but notability here requires independent and significant media coverage, which he has not received. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:35, 8 May 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. BD2412 T 01:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Hama attack[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS one of the many instances of bombings, airstrikes or clashes during the low intensity period of Syrian war. Ecrusized (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see this as having any sort of lasting impact on the tide of the war, 5 people and a few hundred sheep dying isn't terrible noteworthy in wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 36 is a very high number of deaths, and the unusualness for the region combined with the high death toll generates notability. Jebiguess (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 36 people killed is more than 5. We haven't seen this amount of death in this region lately. Lukasvdb99 (talk) 12:52, 22 april 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Almost a routine Hamas attack, not unlike the hundreds of others in the past and that will surely happen again. Oaktree b (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: Hamas? I believe this was an Islamic State attack. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misred Hama in the title. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PERSISTENCE seems unlikely to be met; this is a very recent event and yet a current search for "Hama attack" or "Hama massacre" turns up a lot more information on the 1982 attack and 2012 attack, as well as some information on an attack in 2022 ([29], [30]). Even searching specifically for "2023 Hama attack" turns up mostly news on a different attack that happened earlier this year ([31], [32]). May just be WP:TOOSOON since we can't predict what future coverage of this might exist. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 16:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern: I ... would tend to think an article on 30+ denying in an attack would, assuming a relatively low-bar of coverage, be sufficiently notable. But, that said, I am concerned that this article has a lot of breaking news coverage. The vast majority of sources cited are just Agence France-Presse articles, apparently at different stages of development (or, at least, I presume that's why most of them disagree with each other on the number dead, despite citing the same sources). Once we combine all of those, I think you essentially have the AFP and the BBC covering this—and the BBC never updated its number past 26.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 36 casualties is a high number. Abstrakt (talk) 04:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Policy based input would help
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources in the article easily pass GNG, no need to pass SNG. // Timothy :: talk 01:50, 6 May 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 00:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Mackeen Abdul Majid[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Only gets 1 gscholar hit. LibStar (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - not sure if the one award is enough to meet WP:PROF and he also has only one citation in Google Scholar. Hkkingg (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found no significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. The award he was given in 2009 has an article in the Malay Wiki, which stated that it was founded in 1995 and there are 1,500 total recipients. That averaged to about 56 recipients per year, which would make each recipient not really notable. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:49, 10 May 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. After much-extended time for discussion (with low participation nonetheless), there is a clear absence of a consensus to delete this article. BD2412 T 01:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

School Student Union of Norway[edit]

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

The article is sourced only by the union's website. I have no idea if the claims in the article, e.g., "the only organization of its kind in Norway", are true. I believe it fails WP:NORG, but I confess I have no idea how to do a proper WP:BEFORE for this kind of organization, especially as it's foreign. Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm guessing that this 1 is the relevant page on no.wiki if it helps anyone else JMWt (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, [33] for starters. Encyclopedia entry. Maybe not nominate subjects that are "foreign" to you? Geschichte (talk) 07:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A tertiary source such as an encyclopedia is only as good as the secondary sources that support it. The article you cite has no sources. Delete. 69.92.163.38 (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is an easy case of keep. Nationwide organization, with significant well-known role for organization the Operasjon Dagsverk annually. --Soman (talk) 20:56, 6 May 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. There is consensus that not only does the individual not pass NPOL, but that it's likely they also fail GNG. Nosebagbear (talk) 01:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Hornberger[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. This article was deleted in 2019 before being re-created sometime in 2020. As far I can tell, the same rationale that led to deletion the first time still applies to the current version: the sources are predominately primary and non-WP:RS-compliant, and those that are RS-compliant are either routine run-of-the-mill campaign coverage or lacking significant coverage of Hornberger. My WP:BEFORE search failed to produce any reliably-sourced coverage that would be sufficient for passing the notability bar.

A suggested alternative to deletion would be redirecting to 2002 United States Senate election in Virginia where he was a ballot-qualified candidate in the the general election and received a significant (for a non-major party candidate) percentage of the vote. Sal2100 (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Politicians, Libertarianism, Law, Texas, and Virginia. Sal2100 (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. References are mostly primary, but he could gain notability in the 2024 election, and should be draftified so the creator can continue to work on it. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or draftify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Provided he wins the 2024 Libertarian nomination, he would likely become notable, and thus a page would be warranted. At the moment, it is just WP:TOOSOON. JML1148 (Talk | Contribs) 05:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think coming 2nd place at the 2020 nomination ought be enough. Jack4576 (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the issues in the 2019 deletion have been fixed. Article shouldn't have been recreated until those problems where fixed. If he wins the nomination he might get enough notable sources for an article, but that won't be for another year (the draft would expire before the primary is concluded). Until then, delete the article. Scu ba (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the 2019 deletion the candidate came 2nd place at the 2020 Libertarian conference. Jack4576 (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no significant coverage of him. He is mentioned either political newsletters, or in articles where he is not the primary subject. 128.6.36.94 (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The multiple articles from Reason establish SIGCOV, generating a presumption that this subject is notable. Those articles are independent and reliable. They also include a profile and are not a passing reference.

Plus various other reasons for notability. (respectable past electoral performance, minor party candidate in a prominent state election) Jack4576 (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Achieving a result of 2nd place at the Libertarian party national convention for the party's presidential nomination I think also strongly establishes notability. Jack4576 (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

coming 2nd place is not a criterion for notability. WP:NPOL is the relevant guideline here. LibStar (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto what Libstar said. Also, see footnote #4 in WP:GNG: "...a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source." i.e. coverage in multiple articles from the same publication does not constitute SIGCOV. There needs to be non-trivial coverage in multiple WP:RS-compliant publications/media outlets, and such has not been found for Hornberger. Sal2100 (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost all the sources I found were from the Future of Freedom Foundation. Nothing to suggest WP:NPOL is met here. LibStar (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All of the cited sources were some kind of promotional, primary source, trivial mentions or unreliable. Does not seem to have enough coverage to justify a standalone article. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 05:30, 13 May 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 Naum (Ilievski). There is no article or redirect at Naum of Strumica so I'm not sure why it was proposed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Premin[edit]

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

No demonstrated notability, can't find anything from a brief search for 'Премин'. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Internet, and North Macedonia. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RteeeeKed 💬📖 00:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Naum of Strumica, who (as a metropolitan) is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Naum (Ilievski). The subject does not seem to have received much coverage. Naum of Strumica itself is a redirect to Naum (Ilievski), so might as well cut out the intermediate step. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:24, 12 May 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.