< October 25	October 27 >

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!} 21:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rojas Talent Group[edit]

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

I can't find enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I previously PRODed this, a collection of interviews, routine announcements, and blogs fails WP:NCORP. VickKiang (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Companies. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly did not satisfy the notability requirement for companies. References provided in the article are routine coverage that did not establish any notability. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, does not pass WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article falling well short of WP:GNG Dexxtrall (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH --Devoke water 15:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of mayors of Summit, New Jersey. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Dickson (mayor)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:POLITICIAN, Ellen Dickson served as mayor for a small town in New Jersey.Sources do not expand on her after this. As per WP:BEFORE I looked around and I can't find anything else about her moving up into higher office or otherwise passing WP:BIO.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
The Star-Ledger	Appears to be an independent local paper	Appears to be an independent local paper	Notes that Dickson won a mayor race	✔ Yes
The Star-Ledger	Same article as the first one	Same article as the first one	Same article as the first one	? Unknown
Patch.com	Appears to be but it was hard to gather that from the website	~ This could be reliable it was hard to tell based on the website. But the article is authored by a real person.	Notes that Dickson is sworn in as mayor.	~ Partial
The Star-Ledger	Appears to be an independent local paper	Appears to be an independent local paper	~ Talks about the three people running for mayor but it's just a short bio of each of the people running	~ Partial
TAPintoSummit	It appear to be independent but I could find material to support it. The about us page gives a 404 error	~ It looks like a local newspaper but I can't really tell. The about us section leads to a 404 error	Transcript of a speech Dickson gave	✘ No
Patch.com	Appears to be but it was hard to gather that from the website	~ This could be reliable it was hard to tell based on the website. But the article is authored by a real person.	Talks about the mayor that came after her	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed recurring star ledger source I accidentally cited twice, which is listed as reaching notability.

Found better source for 2015 election.

transcript of farewell speech published by the city is relevant to what she did in office.

also added a NY times article mentioning her 2015 election, an NPR source talking about her handling of hurricane sandy and PBS source talking about the closing of the Merck plant. Also added a publication from Union County about her work to revitalize city parks.

Scu ba (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I should also mention my rational for notability being that

1) Summit is a city, not a small town

2) Dickson and her two elections is representative of the shift of the city away from a republican stronghold to a democratic stronghold. Her actions helped in this process, namly the mishandling of Hurricane sandy and the go ahead with the sale of the Merck plant

Scu ba (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Scu ba, I didn't know there was a difference between a Town and a City in New Jersey, in California there's no difference, kind of neat to learn something new everyday. So if you look at the Source assessment table I included you can see my rationale for why the sources didn't pass for establishing notability. In WP:POLITICIAN it says that "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability". If Dickson had run for a high office at the state or federal level she would be notable. If there was significant coverage of her as per WP:GNG then we could use that policy to establish notability, but in the source assessment table we see that the sources wouldn't pass WP:GNG. I also did look for other sources that could support keeping this article. It's a required part of the deletion process, and I couldn't find anything that wasn't already there or would count as significant coverage.

As for your new sources and her speech

New York Times

The article is about the town not Dickson, she has two short sentences saying she likes living in the town that she's the mayor of.

WNYC

Coverage is about the power being out in her town and that if it doesn't come back on she's going to her Vermont house.

Union County Website

This only mentions that she was at the opening of a park. She isn't the focus of the press release.

Dickson Speech

This wasn't an article about the speech or an analysis of it. It's just the speech and we can't use primary sources to establish notability. Doesn't mean they can't be used or aren't important See WP:PRIMARY

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What im having trouble understanding is that you yourself said The Star-Ledger passes WP:GNG notability. If we have a source that makes her notable, and then smaller sources that flesh out what she did, why doesn't the article as a whole pass notability? Should I remove everything that isn't mentioned in the star-ledger source? Sorry for the confusion. Scu ba (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok you haven't done anything wrong. So if you look at the subject notability guidelines for people it says that there needs to be multiple sources that pass not just one. It's presumed that people are notable if there is significant coverage from multiple published secondary sources that are reliable and independent of each other. If you're running into problems trying to find sources or get a handle of things head over to the Teahouse and ask a question over there, the editors over there are really good at helping new people figure out the ropes and they're honestly really nice. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so in summery, I need to find another source like the star-ledger?. There are currently 16 sources on this article. I believe that warrants notable discussion in the media.

Scu ba (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and New Jersey. Curbon7 (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Summit, New Jersey after bringing over references and other relevent info (partial merge). Djflem (talk) 07:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Redirect option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only mayor of metropolis city are notable. Contributor008 (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Seraphim Rose. Clear consensus against a standalone article, marginally higher support for this target. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphim Rose (book)[edit]

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

Book fails WP:GNG, almost no critical reception, currently appears to be out of print, no evidence of notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:11, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should probably redirect to the Seraphim Rose article, I find lots for the individual, no hits on this book. Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Oaktree b. Mccapra (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pomona College Magazine critically reviewed the book here [1], as did Orthodoxy in Dialogue here [2] and Sons of St. Joseph here [3]. The Orthodoxy in Dialogue post, now included in the article, noted that it wasn't until the book Seraphim Rose was released "that a fuller picture of Fr. Seraphim’s life was available." That adds to the notability of the book as a stand-alone Wikipedia article. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with reasons above that the book does not meet notability standards that would justify it for an article. One of those reasons given is that the book is out of print. I have not seen where that is a criterion for deleting a sourced article about a book. Notability has been established to keep the article. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep off source total but I think it could be merged with Seraphim Rose if others agree. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question per WP:NOPAGE is there any value in covering book and subject in two separate articles? It certainly seems that, even if notable, there isn't really anything to say about the book or person that does not involve the other. Jclemens (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to Question from Jclemens (talk). I read through both articles again and went to all of the links and saw little if any overlap. To answer the question, yes, there is value in having both the book and an extensive biography on Wikipedia as stand-alone articles for the following reasons, which includes that the Wiki articles are starkly different. The book article shows notability and meets guidelines for the following reasons: The book is notable in that it includes a more complete picture of Seraphim’s life that was previously unknown, which has historical significance and makes a significant contribution to a religious community and movement; the book caused controversy that is documented and notable; a Google search shows that the Seraphim Rose author is known and has written other books, including several other biographies. The Seraphim Rose Wiki book article outlines what the book is about, whereas the Wiki article details biographical content and information about Seraphim Rose's life, making them completely separate subjects. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like there are those advocating Keep and those calling for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cathy Scott. The sources listed by AuthorAuthor aren't so much about the book per se as about Seraphim Rose himself; the book is only mentioned in passing as the work that first made public his homosexuality. I haven't found any other useful sources, only blogs. I think it is more usual to redirect non-notable works to the article about the author rather than the subject, but I don't object to redirecting the page to Seraphim Rose instead, if it helps to establish a consensus. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the book's author Cathy Scott. I concur with Sojourner in the earth that if the consensus is not for keep then it should be redirected to the book's author. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. So we have some editors advocating a Redirect/Merge to Seraphim Rose and those who would prefer a Redirect to Cathy Scott.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. IMHO both targets of Cathy Scott and Seraphim Rose are fine, and I'll be okay with whichever more popular option. However, I oppose keep as most of the current refs discuss primarily Seraphim Rose himself, but does not discuss the book significantly to meet WP:SIGCOV IMO. VickKiang (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is to Keep.

I don't know why this many editors showed to discuss an article on Lane sharing but you're welcome to participate in other AFDs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lane sharing[edit]

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

Has been tagged as uncited for over a decade Chidgk1 (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://canadamotoguide.com/2020/02/10/lane-sharing-why-its-great-and-where-were-at/ seems to imply it is the same as Lane splitting Chidgk1 (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article being unsourced is not in and of itself a rationale for deletion, if the topic is notable. Consider the precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detour where a similar article was kept. This is in fact a distinct subject from Lane splitting. See [4] which says "Advocates say the new law isn’t the same as lane splitting, which allows a motorcycle rider to go between rows of cars at regular speeds." Other sources can be found at [5] [6] [7]. Alternatively, Shared lane marking could be merged with this article, or vice versa. What's here needs to be rewritten but the subject is notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consider also [8] [9] [10] [11]. There is some confusion in sources about naming but it's clear there is a distinct topic here independent of lane splitting. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Trainsandotherthings. Notable topic and AfD is not cleanup. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An unsourced article does not mean that it should be deleted. It should be kept as the topic is meaningful. It can be improved by adding sources and cleaning up the article, but it should not be deleted. Timothytyy (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Questıon How long can an article remain completely unsourced before that becomes a reason for deletion? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I said above. That's not a reason for deletion at all, unless sources cannot be found which show notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think an article being tagged for a month as having no sources should be a reason for deletion, let alone over 10 years! Chidgk1 (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can think however you'd like. I'm telling you what policy says. You're welcome to post at the village pump if you think it should be changed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#I propose that an article being tagged for over a decade as as completely uncited should be a reason for deletion Chidgk1 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a distinct topic, and I haven't seen any proposal to merge it elsewhere.—Anita5192 (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 19:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I think we have conclusively established that sources exist that mention the topic… my question is: Do these sources discuss the topic in ways that properly establish its NOTABILITY, or do they merely establish its existence? Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Happy to keep. Whilst looking for sources I discovered a large number of reliable sources saying things like Lane splitting is when motorcycle riders drive between two lanes of traffic, traveling in the same direction, which is either stopped or moving at a slow speed. Lane splitting is also referred to as “lane sharing.”[12]. An argument could be made to combine splitting, filtering and sharing into a single page. Ironically the best name that I can think of for such a page is Lane sharing which would talk of all the different ways that traffic can share a lane. Gusfriend (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tohono Oʼodham Indian Reservation. Redirect as ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wickchoupai, Arizona[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wickchoupai, Arizona. There is no basis for the claim of a notable populated place at this location, and my BEFORE search did not return any evidence of such. –dlthewave ☎ 20:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 20:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tohono Oʼodham Indian Reservation, where this former community is (with mention there). Wickchoupai was a former village or pueblo of the Pueblo people of southern Arizona, now known as the Tohono Oʼodham. I don't believe anyone lives there now, but it was listed as a native pueblo in a 1934 Supreme Court case and had previously been the subject of some 1920s archaeological investigations. This former native site has been noted in historic (White people) documents, but the published references in the English-speaking world don't amount to much, and the Tohono O'odham are an oral people. There isn't enough to write a stand-alone article, likely due in part to Eurocentric attitudes in the early 20th Century, but redirects are cheap, and the Wikipedia reader deserves to know this place once existed. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GEOLAND, was a recognized place, see this, this.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; initial nomination was with valid grounds, not a mere "bad faith harassment".~Pog ing Juan 12:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the prior nom was bad faith harrasment by the editor directly above, and the editor was admonished for it. Their lack of understanding is problematic.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tohono Oʼodham Indian Reservation or Delete. I'm fairly certain that being mentioned in a database like FIPS does not make this locale legally recognized, for discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tunnel_Inn,_California, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wa-Will-Away Park, Indiana, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shaniko_Junction,_Oregon. I don't think #1 of WP:GEOLAND (Populated, legally recognized places) is met. We could debate FIPS over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features). [13] is a trivial mention. "non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources" of WP:GEOLAND #2 (Populated places without legal recognition) is not met. I've run in to the issue of notability surrounding Indigenous Peoples places, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astakiwi, California. In general, there is a conflict between Wikipedia's use of WP:RS and oral traditions. Cxbrx (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as there is no mention in the reservation article. No objection to a redirect if/when that article is updated to discuss this and probably dozens of others. MB 19:35, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote to redirect or delete. Cxbrx (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yampai, Arizona[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yampai, Arizona. The basis for describing this as a "populated place" is unclear, as no reliable source has been found that describes it as such. Maps show, and newspaper results confirm, that this was simply a named spot on the railroad. –dlthewave ☎ 18:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 18:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
delete There are two Delano OWI photos which clearly show this as a rail spot and not a settlement; it was just a passing siding, which is still the case. Mangoe (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - historical populated location. Lots of mentions from the 1880s through the 1990s: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of these newspaper clippings describe Yampai as a populated place, much less a legally recognized one as required by GEOLAND. They're just passing mentions that use it as a landmark; there's no in-depth coverage of the place itself that could be used to meet GNG or write an article. –dlthewave ☎ 02:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to JSTOR 40169505, "Yampai" was a name used by Antoine Leroux in an 1861 expedition to refer to the Yavapai and Hualapai people (whom he erroneously failed to distinguish). The "mistaken name lives on in Yampai Cliffs, Yampai Divide and Yampai Canyon". There is also Yampai Siding, mentioned elsewhere in the same source. Except for the railway siding these appear to be geographic features, not names of towns. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~Pog ing Juan 16:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Are these library of congress photos [14] the same place?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well its a Keep for me then. Another debate here like in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parma, Colorado. I only chime in on the AfDs that have a decent claim to notability.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence this meets GEOLAND. I do not believe the photographs prove it ever was a populated place. The information about them is not from a reliable source - it was provided by the photographer. I searched and found that the abandoned gas station is located at 35°29′07″N 113°33′46″W / 35.485259°N 113.562815°W / 35.485259; -113.562815 which puts it in Truxton, Arizona, around 20 miles west of Yampai. Incredible, the Truxton article has a photograph of the sign when it still had all its letters. Milowent, you should reconsider your position. If you look at a satellite image of the Yampai location, you will see there is nothing there, certainly not the building in those photographs. This is a link to the photo of the sign at the LOC, it was taken about 10 years earlier by the same photographer. She knew the location was Truxton then. MB 05:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you sorted out that the Bell Gas photo is incorrectly labeled. But we do have this one [15] of the rail station titled "Yampai, Arizona. Going through the town". Maybe Jack Delano inaccurately described it. As has this book "We'd passed from one small town to another: Ashfork to Seligman, on through Yampai, Truxton, Peach Springs, Valentine ...."[16]. At the level of coverage we've found, I am in favor of keeping this one, and realize some editors have a different general view of such entries.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yampai was a named place along the railroad. The photo shows a sign, the railroad likely stopped there. But rail stations are not inherently notable and there is no evidence this was a populated place that meets GEOLAND either. MB 19:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, since there is no reliable source to support the statement that this is a populated place. Mentions of it as a location by newspapers do not support this assertion. Trying to claim that there was a populated place there on the basis of editors' interpretation of photographs is original research, and the fact that structures like a "railway company tool house"[17] are there does not support the assertion that it's a populated place either. Hut 8.5 09:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interpreting photographs to be clear. I just see those sources I cited calling it a town. Maybe they are big fat liars. Realistically they are probably using the term pretty loosely.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention of "town" on the page you linked to is the caption of this photograph. Jack Delano was a photographer and not a reliable source for this type of information, and it sounds like his train briefly stopped there so it's not like he had much to go on anyway. I am amazed at just how much people are willing to scrape barrels in order to keep articles about dubious "populated places" like this, for any other topic you'd be laughed at for claiming this one photo caption is "a decent claim to notability". Hut 8.5 12:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least one other mention of it as a "town", slim though it may be, as I stated above: "As has this book "We'd passed from one small town to another: Ashfork to Seligman, on through Yampai, Truxton, Peach Springs, Valentine ...."[18]." All I'm saying is that there are sources calling it a town, and wikipedia editors who say those sources are bad. I'm not losing sleep over it, I don't see a huge benefit to deleting the article. I realize policy may favor it.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indubitable proof, the September 24, 1924 comic of Barney Google and Spark Plug is all about the TOWN of Yampai, Arizona, anticipating our back and forth in this AFD, 98 years ago. The short guy wants to check out good old Yampai, and the big guy insists there's nothing there. lol. Image[19]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:51, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added a reference to the station telegrapher and his wife making "their home" at Yampai in 1918. Case closed!!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:05, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact a telegrapher lived there doesn't make it a populated place, telegraph stations were placed in the middle of nowhere (especially next to rural train stations because the telegraph often followed the line). The book doesn't explicitly state that Yampai is a town, merely that somebody passed through it. And that comic isn't a reliable source about Arizona geography. Bear in mind that WP:GEOLAND only gives near-automatic notability to legally recognised populated places, even if Yampai was a populated place without legal recognition it doesn't qualify for this. GEOLAND says that populated places without legal recognition need to pass the GNG, which these sources clearly don't do. Hut 8.5 08:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe you don't accept a 1924 comic as proof of Yampai's notability (yes I'm kidding!). The telegrapher and his wife made "their home" in Yampai. I've proven it was a populated place at one point. I've proven sources say it was a town. But I cannot combat the clear bias of Wikipedians against the glorious past of Yampai!!!! So it goes, I've done some work on railroad line articles where at times this stuff can be better covered, see, e.g., San Francisco and San Joaquin Valley Railroad. Interestingly (at least to me), Yampai seems to have been in the news most often due to train derailments and other accidents. It is also a place where train enthusiasts seem to like to see trains go by.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that somebody and his wife lived there once doesn't make it a populated place, especially since he worked at the station. Hut 8.5 17:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Idunnox3 (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of football seasons involving Brymbo teams[edit]

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

I came across this article while cleaning up after the deletion of List of football seasons involving Coedpoeth and Minera teams at a recent AfD. List of football seasons involving Brymbo teams suffers from the same (probably worse) problem, it is a lengthy table of football results of several village teams in a district league in Wales. This seems to contravene WP:NOT and should really be consigned to a fan website (actually it has been taken from a football fan website).Time for it to go? Sionk (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons as last one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per consensus at related AFD. Giant Snowman 18:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else and indeed per everyone else the last time. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear WP:NOT Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not the type of lists that should be on Wikipedia. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,WP:NOT. Alex-h (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 15:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fred Feldman (philosopher)[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sal2100 (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. After combing through multiple search engines, per WP:BEFORE, no WP:RS-compliant significant coverage that would satisfy notability guidelines was found. Sal2100 (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Nomination withdrawn, based on the arguments and citations presented below. Sal2100 (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, People, Philosophy, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. Sal2100 (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: About a dozen publication with over 100 cites and numerous awards. Could be an WP:NPROF pass. Curbon7 (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not making a judgement on the papers/potential for "substantial contribution" but the awards seem to almost entirely be local awards, not ones that would count as highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 21:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. Curbon7 (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet at WP:AUTHOR and WP:NPROF based on the multiple books he has written have been reviewed by reliable sources stretching over decades, impact on the academic community. (Here's the seven that were first, there are more, in searches/easiest to share. If there's some reason these reviews wouldn't meet those requirements, please ping me so I can learn):

Skynxnex (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep based on obvious length of career and productivity. BD2412 T 02:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks to clearly meet WP:PROF by citations, with GS top works 815,485,447,331,268 (all single authored) [20]. Some of these are books, which won't get that many citations without getting multiple reviews, so I'd be very surprised in WP:AUTHOR were not met too. Could the nominator explain why they believed PROF & AUTHOR were not met? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are reviews at [21], [22], [23], [24] and many others. Looks like an easy pass of WP:AUTHOR. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 and WP:AUTHOR as detailed above. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article does need some work and, hopefully, additional sources but I see the consensus here is that the sources that can be found lead to the subject passing GNG. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Florin Andronescu[edit]

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

Article is in bad shape and most of the sources are in Romanian, so it's hard to gauge how notable this entrepreneur/businessman is. The Romanian article doesn't help. - Mooonswimmer 14:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My suspicion is that the subject is notable. I agree it is difficult to read Romanian sources, but it isn't impossible. This one seems like quite an extensive article on him. This one seems to be a bit sychophantic but might be more independent than it first appears. JMWt (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG [25] [26] [27] [28] The forbes articles appear to be by staff writers and not forbes contributors, so they contribute to notability. W 42 17:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know how correct it is to comment here, but in my opinion I tried to include only notable newspapers (they are in Romanian because I couldn't find others).--Samanthajjo (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Samanthajjo, this is a discussion where editors are trying to determine whether Florin Andronescu is notable according to Wikipedia's standards for inclusion and you are welcome to participate. There is a guide to deletion that may answer more of your questions. W42 19:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hello Winner 42, I will familiarize myself with these policies in more detail. Thank you for always being available and responsive.--Samanthajjo (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pass WP:SIGCOV, only independent and notable sources from the press are mentioned.--Samanthajjo (talk) 09:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daoud Boularaoui[edit]

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

This is one of the weirdest articles I've seen in some time. I don't know where to start. So, it seems "Daoud Boularaoui" (or maybe its "Boularaoui Daoud": the article and the infobox conflict) coached soccer for some obscure teams in Algeria (although oddly it uses the infobox for NFL (American football) players).

It was created back in 2017 by this single-purpose account with the content "- He USE A MODERN STYLE OF TRAINING WITH A GOOD METHOD WHICH MAKE PLAYERS LIKE FOOTBALL AND GIVE THEM THE NEW IDEAS ABOUT MODERN FOOTBALL. - ALSO IMPROVE THE INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE SKILLS. - GOOD COMMUNICATION WITH PLAYERS .GOOD PSYCHOLOGICAL MANNER" referencing his facebook page and example.com, both unreliable sources. It seems all the teams he's played for and coached do not have articles, except for Al Batin FC, although according to our article for it he never actually coached there. Apparently his "career highlights" are "Experience in conditioning training / French method" ... lol.

I've looked on google for "Daoud Boularaoui" and didn't find anything besides wiki mirrors (except for this one thing, saying "Daoud BOULARAOUI: I want to know all the people who bear the name Boularaoui." and that he was born in 1978.) Additionally, I searched for what the article says is his Arabic (I think its Arabic) name "بالعربية : داود بولعراوي" on google and didn't find anything through that either. This article fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTSBASIC, WP:NOT, and every other biographical article criteria we have here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Algeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not want to delete biographies just because the subject matter is non-English, but we have nothing here either in English or any other language. Wikipedia has a quality control system which depends on fact checking and we have no sources to verify any of the claims here. I see in Wikidata Daoud Boularaoui (Q39074279) that Google established a search ID for this person but even in Google there is little to examine. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Clearly promotional. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, he was sanctioned for 6mths for something [29]. Limited it to either French sources or .dz websites for Algeria, [[0=&lang=fr]], something a university. That's about all I see, very far from GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything in French or Arabic language searches that indicate this football manager is the subject of significantn coverage in reliable sources. He definitely exists, and has managed clubs in Algeria and Oman, but it looks like a comprehensive failure of WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, A promotional article with no sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find anything that suggests notability. --Devoke water 15:47, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 San José Tornado and Thunderstorms[edit]

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

The topic of this article does not appear to be notable. I am only able to open one of the sources, which only refers to it as a "possible low-intensity tornado." There is no mention of major damage or casualties. The prose of the article pretty much just amounts to "a tornado happened." WP:NOTNEWS may apply. Media coverage of minor tornadoes is WP:ROUTINE. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Cuba. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - not notable at all. No casualties, no major damage and a very weak tornado.greyzxq ^talk 19:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per reasons by nominator (TornadoLGS) and Greyzxq. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tornado is so minor, it wouldn’t even warrant a section at Tornadoes of 2022 or a mention at Weather of 2022. As there is nowhere this tornado should be mentioned on Wikipedia, there is no WP:ATD, hence delete. 100.12.169.218 (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per reasons by nominator (TornadoLGS), Greyzxq and 100.12.169.218. The tornado is so minor that no other articles link to it, and it does not carry any significance as the damage is little. Almost no information can be found on this storm.Timothytyy (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NWeather "The vast majority of tornadoes do not qualify for a stand-alone article, however, tornadoes that some might consider "notable" tornadoes of an outbreak can be given a subsection in an outbreak's article." This is tornado is not notable and there is no outbreak article for it. RandomInfinity17 (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per reasons by TornadoLGS (the nominator), Greyzxq, and RandomInfinity17. Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per all of the above. The tornado being weak and harmless, and thus run-of-the-mill, especially qualifies this one as being not notable.TH1980 (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per all above. This article is legit 1 sentence long and is making something on a not notable tornado. Hurricane Chandler (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Bert Cochran[edit]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sal2100 (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. After scouring through multiple search engines, per WP:BEFORE, no WP:RS-compliant significant coverage of the subject was found. Sal2100 (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

- Nomination withdrawn: Based on the valid arguments presented below, closing as speedy keep. Sal2100 (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, People, Michigan, and United States of America. Sal2100 (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. Curbon7 (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at the very worst, draftify. The subject suffers from having been active decades before the internet age and died before there would have been obituaries online. However, he co-founded a significant US political party and led a large split of "Cochranites". A search in Google books shows a plentiful supply of coverage in dozens of books which shows his influence was significant. Of course, this article needs better sourcing, hopefully the original author can help with this. Sionk (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are hundreds of academic articles accessible through the Wikipedia Library that reference Bert Cochran and/or his work. Easily meets notability standards. That said, the article needs citations. --SouthernNights (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any policy-based reason to delete. The article needs specific citations but the references/sources in the article already meet WP:AUTHOR and probably WP:GNG as well. Even a pretty simple google search on his quoted name brings up multiple multiple reviews ([30] [31] [32] [33] [34]) of his works and is mentioned often in published books and literature (one example [35]). Skynxnex (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If nothing else, there appear to be large numbers of reliably published book reviews for his books on JSTOR, giving him a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leonie Schaller[edit]

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

The talk page claimed in 2006 that Schaller meets the notability guideline but did not provide any proof of such, and my own Google searches have found that at maximum, she is mentioned in passing by reliable sources. Article stands unreferenced and though she remotely might pass the GNG or WP:MUSIC, she doesn't pass SIGCOV. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Women, and Germany. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need sources and having almost nothing. Due diligence has been done to try to find anything. I checked also. Fails WP:GNG of course and special inclusion criteria that I can think to apply. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wasn't able to find anything in the way of sourcing. She seems to have played in some ensembles, but we don't even have enough for verifiability. Jahaza (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment However, the nomination erroneously suggests that an article can pass WP:GNG but not WP:SIGCOV, which is not the case as SIGCOV is a part 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."Jahaza (talk) 03:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patie M Guns FC[edit]

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

PROD by User:Sam Sailor rationale was Local football club that fails WP:NTEAM.

NTEAM is itself linked closely to WP:GNG which requires multiple reliable and independent sources showing significant, direct coverage of the subject. If this is to be treated as an organisation, then it fails WP:NORG, in particular WP:ORGDEPTH. Furthermore looks to fail WP:V as the only source cited is a Facebook page which is not WP:RS and does not contain any significant facts about this club. The article is essentially unsourced and has been since 2016. Nothing in my WP:BEFORE suggests that this article can be verified. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search term: Young Stars Football Academy RSA: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Both under their previous name Young Stars Football Academy RSA and under the current, the very few mentions of the club found unfortunately do not amount to anything remotely satisfying GNG. Delete under WP:DEL-REASON #8. Sam Sailor 19:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created for a soccer team locally in my area with the same coach that coached the previous team Young Stars Football Academy. The name changed, because their sponsorship changed. I am managing the page on behalf of the coach for the soccer team Neduko (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to add all the matches with Images to prove they have played already as well to prove this soccer team exists? Neduko (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you could provide independent news sources discussing this club in detail then that would make it notable. I don't doubt that the team exists but it clearly isn't notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - merely existing does not get a team a WP article, the team needs to be notable and this one isn't -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as they don't meet WP:GNG and clear attempt to use Wikipedia as a promotional tool as per I am managing the page on behalf of the coach for the soccer team. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshiva Gedola of Bridgeport[edit]

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

Only one sentence actually about the yeshiva; rest is fluffy un-footnoted stuff about another institution run by the same congregation. Orange Mike | Talk 18:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Judaism, and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability; I found only one (fairly routine) news article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more substance to the history page. The institution is state registered and accredited. Several hundred students have passed through and some are successful leaders in their industries, etc. The article is notable. RS543 (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain, in terms of Wikipedia's notability standards how this organization is notable? We aren't interested in why you think it's important; that has no relevance here. Please illustrate specifically using reliable independent sources how this organization meets either WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Thanks, RS543. 174.212.208.18 (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The two articles in The Jewish Ledger (2008 here and 2014 here) provide some level of coverage, but these are typical pieces written in local Jewish newspapers and not the in-depth coverage in independent reliable and verifiable sources needed to establish notability. I couldn't find anything else in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bangladeshi Film Artists[edit]

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

List of Bangladeshi Film Artists

This page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for stand-alone lists. It was created in article space, then moved to draft space by User:Hey man im josh, then declined twice by User:S0091 and User:TheWikiholic. It was then moved back to article space. Moving it back to draft space again would be move-warring.

Because of its length, it isn't likely to serve an encyclopedic purpose for the reader, and will be out of date unless it is constantly maintained by tweaking. Its purpose for other editors is better served by Categories, since these are maintained by the gnomes who categorize articles. Spot-checking of the entries shows that the persons in the list are all in one or more categories of Bangladeshi film artists, broken down by century, gender, and whether actor or director. So, as a stand-alone list article, it is useful neither to readers nor to editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Lists of people, Film, and Bangladesh. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Normally I offer the opinion that Lists and Categories may have a peaceful coexistence, but this list is better served by a category because of its enormous number of list members. This is unmaintainable. Mine is a pragmatic !vote for deletion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Artists" appears to mean actors, from a random sampling, and we already have List of Bangladeshi actors, which is correctly ordered by last name, not first as in this list. That list might also be worthy of deletion as well. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete

"Artists" appears to mean both actors and actresses. I also create a List of Bangladeshi actresses.

In the Bengali Wikipedia, there are three lists, One for the actors, another for the actress, and the last one for both.

I think there should be three lists in the English Wikipedia.

Please check this article, if you think that I make the mistake, then please reply to me.

Thank You,

Purnendu Bhowmik Shuvro Purnendu Bhowmik Shuvro (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In English, "actors" can refer to both men and women, and List of Bangladeshi actors has both. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Coolperson177 (message | about me) 00:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Dozen Doughnut Company[edit]

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

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.thrillist.com/eat/seattle/best-donuts-seattle	value not understood	value not understood	One of 11 items in this local listicle, with a two-sentence blurb	✘ No
https://seattle.eater.com/maps/best-seattle-doughnut-shops-donut	value not understood	value not understood	One of 17 items in this local listicle, with a two-sentence blurb	✘ No
https://www.sunset.com/travel/northwest/hole-y-grail	value not understood	value not understood	One of 4 items in this local listicle, with one paragraph largely quoting the owner	✘ No
https://www.thestranger.com/stranger-suggests/2022/08/15/77733594/happy-115th-birthday-to-pike-place-heres-a-doughnut	value not understood	value not understood	Local alt paper briefly shares that among the Market's anniversary events, 115 people can get a free donut	✘ No
https://www.thrillist.com/venue/drink/seattle/bar/daily-dozen-doughnut-co	value not understood	value not understood	One-sentence generic business listing that any store has on this site to post their website and location.	✘ No
https://www.seattlepi.com/lifestyle/food/slideshow/Seattle-s-best-doughnuts-127951.php	value not understood	value not understood	One of 10 items in this local listicle, with a single sentence	✘ No
https://www.seattlepi.com/lifestyle/food/article/most-iconic-seattle-food-bites-and-drinks-16701911.php	value not understood	value not understood	One of 26 items in this local listicle, with a single sentence	✘ No
https://seattle.eater.com/maps/best-doughnut-shops-seattle-takeout-delivery	value not understood	value not understood	One of 13 items in this local listicle, with a single sentence	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

I've been here. Their donuts are good. But there's not significant coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. It's one of many donut stores in Seattle (and the world), and they aren't notable here because local outlets churn out their "daily dozen" lists of places to buy food in the city with brief listings of stores and restaurant counters. Wikipedia's not just a compilation of listicle entries, and more dedicated and in-depth coverage is needed to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 15:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Washington. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat)^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I watch Seattle articles. The Pike Place Market is one of the most visited tourist attractions in the world, and almost everyone who goes there sees this weird donut booth. I asked a friend who said that this donut place has been there since the 60s; I cannot find a source, but in any case, this is place is old and positioned as a spectacle for a lot of tourists. I am satisfied with the 8 cited sources here talking about location, the donut machine they use, and how people like the donuts. There are lots of other places nearby selling baked goods and donuts - this one has the media attention and the others do not. The reviews are organic and not paid promotion. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This is absurdity. The Pike Place Market has scores of stores and restaurants, and they do not individually inherit its notability. There can be a List of businesses at the Pike Place Market, but there's not an automatic need for pages on each one. Reywas92^Talk 17:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm not creating entries for each business at Pike Place Market. I'm only creating entries for the notable ones... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I agree with Reywas - most of the businesses at the Pike Place Market do not merit articles. This one does though, because the sources cover it and not other shops. The sources do not say this, but this particular donut shop occupies some of the most valuable real estate in the market and in Seattle, and it is a fair candidate for being the most recognizable donut shop in the world. It does not surprise me to see that this particular donut shop gets media attention when others do not. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). Sufficient secondary coverage, in my opinion. I'm getting tired of having to defend my work to this particular editor, who I've now asked to slow down with deletion nominations. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequately sourced, cited as one of "Seattle's best doughnuts" by a notable newspaper and mentioned in numerous books on Seattle. The article could do with a bit more info on the history and background if possible, and perhaps cutting back a little on some of the reception quotes, but I think the subject is acceptable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "Mention" is not significant coverage, and this does not pass GNG or NORG. These very short sources indicate there are at least a bakers' dozen of best donuts in Seattle, and that doesn't make them all notable. Reywas92^Talk 17:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wouldn't find it unusual if all of the "best donuts in large city X" had notability to become articles. Spurious. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in a discussion about the donut culture/landscape in the city, not each and every business on their own. Oaktree b (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one is suggesting "each and every business" needs an article. But notable businesses qualify for one. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could perhaps be a one paragraph thing in the Marketplace's article, rest is trivial. Oaktree b (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Expanded lede, description, and history sections. Added SIGCOV from Seattle Gay News about owner Barbara Elza's dispute with the Pike Place Market Preservation and Development Authority (2009–2012) over her decision to display a rainbow flag at Daily Doughnuts during Pride Month (and eventually deciding not to take it down). SGN refers to other coverage in The Stranger newspaper which might be worth chasing down at some point, but in any case, this is an interesting part of the company history which helps to get it over the line in terms of coverage of the organization vs. "just" the product. To improve further, I would follow Dr. Blofeld's advice and look at further expansion of the history section and pare down some of the lengthy, exuberant quotes in the reviews section. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your improvements to the article. I agree, the Reception section could use a bit of trimming. I had to include what I could find quickly, after the article was nominated unnecessarily. I'll likely get around to promoting to Good article status in the near future. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has enough SIGCOV from independent RSs, thus I'd say it passes the golden rule DecafPotato (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ProShare[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Has been tagged as promotional and with notability concerns since 2017. Seven of the eight inline references are the company's website. I have not looked at all of the links tacked on at the end, but of the two I did, both were passing mentions. A contributor to this article, a single purpose account with no WP:COI declaration has also created Draft:Janet Cooper, a highly promotional AfC about the founder of this organisation, which I have declined. Greenman (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Greenman (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with above, thinly veiled promotion, ineffective. No sources other than their website. Oaktree b (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking third party coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is promotional, and the content has no importance at all. Citations rely on a single source, and the format/content does not meet the guidelines for a proper page. Timothytyy (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kali Bahadur Sahakri[edit]

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

former district president of Nepali Congress but not elected to any government office or legislative body; fails WP:NPOLITICIAN and no significant coverage; fails WP:GNG. ~ Yeti Dai (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Nepal. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat)^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless Nepali sources are found to show a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As nominator said. Contributor008 (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, failing WP:NPOL. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sources available to support notability.DIVINE (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 delete. ✗plicit 14:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kundo Phooler Mala[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was just deleted at AfD [36]. Article has been re-created almost verbatim, using italics in the title. SALT would probably apply. Oaktree b (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat)^talk _contribs (he/they) 15:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable show and only non notable peoples worked on it. I think that it is a non notable show or a local show created by small production house. Contributor008 (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contributor008 what do you mean non-notable people acted in it? Bharat Kaul, Shankar Chakraborty and Rukma Roy are quite famous, how clueless can you be? Adibens (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that non peoples worked in it. Like Leena Gangophadayay, Saibal Banerjee worked in it by directing, writing and working. Contributor008 (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please be WP:CIVIL and not call people "clueless". Uhai (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG: very little secondary, independent, and reliable coverage. Uhai (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in the last AfD, I expressed a view that WP:SIGCOV may exist for a show that had aired over 200 times, but despite a more thorough search this time around, including in translated Hindi, I cannot find sources that would assert this as a notable show. I can't even verify the episode count claim either and it doesn't even seem like this has a wiki article in its native language (which surely you would expect to be done first, ordinarily). All I can see is that the show did WP:EXIST, and that's about it. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After doing some research I can say it's not enought to pass WP:GNG Idunnox3 (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ludford, Shropshire. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rocks Green[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable housing development. Fails GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ludlow: The Ludlow article already contained some material on the town's Sainsbury's store, also at Rocks Green, so I have blended the information on the housing development and its design award there. I don't see enough to justify a distinct article, but a redirect seems a reasonable WP:ATD. AllyD (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ludford, Shropshire may also be a better target as its in that parish and Ludlow BUA seems to exclude Rocks Green. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is an OS settlement (as "Rockgreen"[37]) so may qualify as legally recognized but that may only apply to census areas. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to Ludford, Shropshire. That can provide as an incubator for Rocks Green for now. There is not enough currently as it is to justify a distinct article, as AllyD said, although I am not sure if that will remain the case forever. Probably forever, but who knows. A merge/redirect avoids any issues on that question here, though. It fits into the Ludford article nicely. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 16:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rajan Singh (NCP)[edit]

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

Unelected politician, per WP:POLITICIAN TheWikiholic (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject has not held any office that would confer an automatic pass of WP:NPOL, and is not sourced even remotely close to well enough to claim that he would pass WP:GNG instead. Bearcat (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable political person Is there not a single news reference to prove that it is notable WP:RS, fail WP:GNG. Lionfox0909 (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Not notable and unelected politician. Contributor008 (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete low-level party functionary. All coverage appears to be regarding a single event and has not been sustained. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Kumar Yadav[edit]

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

Unelected politician, per WP:POLITICIAN TheWikiholic (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject has not held any office that would confer an automatic pass of WP:NPOL, and is not sourced even remotely close to well enough to claim that he would pass WP:GNG instead. Bearcat (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable political person Is there not a single news reference to prove that it is notable, fail WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionfox0909 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As nominator said. Contributor008 (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unelected to any position, failing WP:NPOL. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Parrish Muhoberac[edit]

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

Sole source on page is about a different artist's album and only mentions that Muhoberac plays on the album. Found no additional coverage. QuietHere (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Australia, and United States of America. QuietHere (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Seems like a standard session musician. Can't find any source for the ARIA claim. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Could not find any indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE, Fails WP:MUSICBIO, can't find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Muhoberac[edit]

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

One source is from the synthesizer company Moog Music and definitely not a reliable source, the other is an interview with the artist's daughter which doesn't even mention him by name. Found no reliable coverage. QuietHere (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. QuietHere (talk) 10:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third source added which only mentions Muhoberac by name once, still doesn't cover notability. QuietHere (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I suggest the nominator has not done WP:BEFORE. I've just done a quarter of an hour on the article and added 7 citations. I'll put some more time into the article, but he's clearly a well-known musician and that is supported by reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the new sources you've added are about other artists and only mention Muhoberac by name, just like the third source. The Roland source has the same fault as the Moog. You added a Discogs page which is no good (see WP:RSDISCOGS), a Facebook link which is a video interview (see WP:INTERVIEW), and jpgr.co.uk which appears to be a Beatles fansite. Thus far you haven't added any sources that would help clear notability. There's no keep here yet, most certainly not a strong one. And I did say the words "Found no reliable coverage" in my nomination in direct reference to my WP:BEFORE search so your suggestion is incorrect. QuietHere (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To summarise, what we're looking for here is WP:SIGCOV and you have provided none so far. Let us never forget the words "addresses the topic directly and in detail". QuietHere (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added 28 citations since you nominated the page about 6 hours ago. These are of various sorts, including the New York Times, St Louis Dispatch, Blabbermouth, Atwood Magazine, LA Times, the Library of Congress, &c. If you have concerns about any of them, you can of course tag them or otherwise raise the matter on the article's Talk page. However, clearly there is extensive reliable source coverage that can inform an article.

But you're right that most of these are just mentions of Muhoberac. I have added them to support claims made in the article, as required by WP:V. However, I have also added some more in depth, longer coverage. There is the Galaxy Mag piece, there is the video interview hosted on Facebook, and there is the Roland interview. (The Roland interview is not a newspaper or magazine, but I think it is unhelpful to characterise it as wholly unreliable. It is from a series of interviews with musicians.) I am continuing to add more citations. The problem I am finding is that there are so many references to Muhoberac in various reliable sources (e.g. 231 hits on a Google News search) that it takes time to work through them all to find the more in depth ones.

I note WP:BAND #2 is "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." Muhoberac has performed on numerous charting albums, including huge albums like Taylor Swift's Red, Faith Hill's Cry and Alanis Morisette's Under Rug Swept. But he was just a session guy on those. However, Muhoberac did co-write a song that made #16 in the UK and another that made #54, and writing a hit has been interpreted as satisfying that criterion before, and he also satisfies WP:COMPOSER #1. Muhoberac has had a significant role in other ensembles, notably as musical director for Seal, but also in Was (Not Was) and My Chemical Romance. WP:BANDMEMBER proposes a redirect if someone is a member of a notable group, but if someone is a member of several notable groups, we often give them their own article as no one redirect makes sense.

I will continue to work on the article. Bondegezou (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you've managed to add ten more references to this page but they still all fall under the same categorisation I explained above. There is no depth to any of these sources and you're stretching real thin to claim otherwise. Otherwise, BAND 2 is off the table since, as you said, he was just a session player on those so they aren't his charting hits. COMPOSER 1 is something but let me emphasise the "may be notable" that appears in that section and every other on the NMUSIC page. If this is the best that can be found then, as I said, it's stretching thin and I'm not convinced. QuietHere (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bondegezou And one more thing to clear up because my edit summaries weren't clear enough: that umusic.ca link is to the website for Universal Music Canada, the artist's record label (see the prose mention of I'm Leaving You on Florence K's page) and the URL has the words "press releases" in it. That's why I tagged that page as unreliable.

And also let me say clearly that verifiability is not at issue here. You found plenty of sources with this man's name in them showing he worked on all those albums. Those are clear statements of fact and I'm not disputing them. But verifiability is not the same as notability. You can pile on as many sources as you want but WP:LOTSOFSOURCES don't solve the actual issue this AfD is covering. QuietHere (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources are trivial, unsure if the two off-line ones quoted are lengthy or about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear what you mean by the two off-line ones quoted...? I'm still adding to the article, but the longer sources so far are [38] and [39], both interviews with Muhoberac. Bondegezou (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OH, there are two newspapers quoted in the article, that don't appear to have online links, so they only exist in paper format.Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. There are >2 newspapers without online links now added (as I have access to a newspaper database). None of them are in depth about Muhoberac, but they support specific parts of the article. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch article is significant because it identifies Muhoberac as Seal's musical director. There are AfD precedents for recognising that significant members of a solo artist's band satisfy WP:NMUSIC (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Del Palmer (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Taubenfeld for comparison). Bondegezou (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - musical director for Seal, and a major collaborator of Jon Hassell's? He's clearly well-known within and without the music industry - Alison ^talk 19:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Over 250 references to "Jamie Muhoberac" alone from Wikipedia articles, most of which aren't in-linking (yet) - Alison ^talk 19:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this gets kept then I recommend someone go to https://edwardbetts.com/find_link/ and add all of those. QuietHere (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And to your vote explanation, saying "clearly notable" doesn't constitute a complete argument so you're gonna need more details here. The main issue is regarding SIGCOV; do you think all the sources that have been added constitute that (which I've already disputed above)? Or is there something else specific you have in mind? QuietHere (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable with enough sources to keep building on this. Nominator needed to do due diligence WP:BEFORE. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about the sources Bondegezou added, I've already discussed those thoroughly above. They do not constitute notability for this artist, and I did see all of that in my before search and ignored them because of that, hence "Found no reliable coverage" in my initial proposal. QuietHere (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cornel Wilczek[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Non-medaling weightlifter appears to fail WP:NOLYMPICS. I haven't found reliable sources other than databases. Nythar (💬-🎃) 09:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Australia. Nythar (💬-🎃) 09:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. I looked for sources but could not find anything besides lifter profiles. Only one source included within the article but nothing significant done by this individual. Fails WP:BASIC. RealPharmer3 (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aria Yousefi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and Iran. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Likely to be Iranian sources out there but I can't find any. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's surprising to nominate the article for deletion without reading the clear Wikipedia guideline for the notability of football players, as given here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability

Aria Yousefi played mulitiple times for professional football club Sepahan in Iran Football Pro League, and he clearly fulfils the 1st criteria of Football Players Notability. Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 13:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koorosh1234: That notability guidance has been superseded by WP:NSPORTS. This player does not have enough coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant coverage if you look up the Farsi spelling of his name آریا یوسفی, such as the articles here and here.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those sources appear to have in-depth significant coverage that meets WP:GNG. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The links offered above are two sentences in transactional news and the search results for "Aria Yousefi news", which, predictably, return 17 articles from "Aria News Agency" containing the term "Yousefi". The ones that actually mention Aria Yousefi are a routine match recap and five signing announcements regurgitated from the same press release. Not SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Koorosh1234 and Ortizesp. young player with ongoing career in one of best Iranian clubs. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's not enough significant coverage to prove GNG. We have a lot of non-policy based arguments here. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Young, ongoing career... Not relevant. There is no evidence that Yousefi meets GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC and that's the fundamental issue here. Nobody is disputing that the player is professional and that they have potential to be notable in the future. It goes without saying that, should there be a substantial increase in coverage about this footballer, the article can be created again. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments to keep are substantially stronger; nobody has rebutted the challenge to the sources provided, and meeting NSPORTS isn't enough. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Shoushtari[edit]

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

Doesn't have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Iran. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Likely to be Iranian sources out there but I can't find any. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's surprising to nominate the article for deletion without reading the clear Wikipedia guideline for the notability of football players, as given here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability

Hassan Shoushtari played mulitiple times for professional football club Sepahan in Iran Football Pro League, and he clearly fulfils the 1st criteria of Football Players Notability. Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 13:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you missed the notice on that page that says "The player section of this notability guidance has been superseded by WP:Notability (sports), and is included below for information only as a record of the previous guidance that the Footy project came up with."

They have to meet WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant coverage searching his name in Farsi, حسن شوشتری, such as 1, 2, 3, and there's more on his Persian Wiki page.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @GiantSnowman at their request for when sources are found. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping - I'm inclined to agree with JoelleJay that the sources are insufficient (based on Google Translate). Giant Snowman 12:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources offered above are a routine injury report, an "interview" entirely composed of his own quotes/"Shushtri said..." (no interviewer-contributed content whatsoever), and 15 search results containing "Hassan" and "Shushtri" somewhere in their articles. The ones actually on the subject are: bare quotes from him about his injury sourced to a "fan report", a couple pieces derived from the injury report press release, and at least four nearly-identical signing announcements "citing the public relations of Foulad Mobarakeh Sepahan Club". No SIGCOV, independent or otherwise. JoelleJay (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Ortizesp and Koorosh1234. Player with ongoing career who has played In fully pro Iran top flight. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you personally feel pure interviews, routine reports, and press releases ought to count toward notability doesn't overrule the consensus¹²³⁴ that those items do not contribute to GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. JoelleJay provides good analysis of the sources. They aren't significant enough to meet GNG. We have the usual non-policy based arguments for keep but nothing significant to demonstrate he's notable. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There appears to be consensus that the current sourcing is sufficient to establish notability. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Becher[edit]

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

Not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and United States of America. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - young professional player with ongoing career, and certainly there is coverage out there, such as this and this and this (all from a very quick Google search). Giant Snowman 21:07, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I made this page because he made his professional debut and I have added some reliable sources. Freefalling660 (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please note it's significant coverage and not the professional debut that makes someone notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. It does look as though he's notable. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and has a lack of sigcov. NEsoccerjournal - paywalled which makes it difficult to tell if it's sigcov. Theprovince.com - a whole two paragraphs in a transfer story and a mention in a match report. Dougal18 (talk) 13:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think being named Atlantic 10 Conference Men's Soccer Player of the Year would pass WP:NCOLLATH, which states (emphasis added): College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who: 1. Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport) BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- This (p2) from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch is probably SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I also found Simon Becher Drafted by Vancouver at 16th Overall from Arch City Media which may count as SIGCOV. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly passes GNG per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Dougal18 that the article appears to fail WP:GNG. The article from The Province on his signing is much more about the Whitecaps scouting/drafting process than it is about Becher. The Post-Dispatch article isn't really in-depth and cover collegiate athletics. The NE Soccer Journal and Arch City Media pieces are fairly routine signing announcements. I suspect SIGCOV will be available if his career continues on the same trajectory, but for now it's WP:TOOSOON. Jogurney (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per GiantSnowman, Freefalling660, and Ortiesp. I also found 5 and 6 among many many more sources. Young player with ongoing career in fully pro Major League Soccer team and has already scored for them. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'd say the all the sources listed above, when combined, are enough for a weak GNG pass. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First round draft pick and professional at MLS level. In addition to sources by GiantSnowman there is this Baltimore Sun piece from last week. Has significant coverage and we can expect additional coverage for this active professional player. --Mvqr (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Kelly (athlete)[edit]

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

I PRODded this, and Guliolopez found some more sources and de-PRODded, which I'm grateful for, because I think that, as edited, this does merit a full discussion. But what it comes down to is: Three sources give between two and three different names for this person, depending how you count it. They are all very very common names in Ireland (in fact, my great-great-uncle was also a John/Sean Kelly). All Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable, and there's just no way to write a verifiable article on someone named either Jim Kelly or John Kelly and/or Sean Kelly when we have very little other information on him. Notability-wise, this is an WP:NOLYMPIC fail, and a GNG fail for the same reasons it's a V fail. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ireland. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I saw this on Lugnut's page on my watchlist.) The subject is non-medaling and the added sources are just more database sources. Nythar (💬-🎃) 08:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Also saw this through Lugnuts) Although the subject is non-medaling the main issue here as the nominator says is verifiability and since this cannot be met the article will fail GNG. Paulpat99 (talk) 09:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. (Or perhaps, as a stretch-ATD, redirect to Ireland at the 1924 Summer Olympics). As noted in my de-PROD, it wasn't clear whether the confusion over the subject's name was the cause (or the effect) of the sourcing/SIGCOV issue. Having gone hunting subsequently, I couldn't find much in the way of sources to establish the facts either way. And, while I've added what I could find to the article, its not enough to establish independent notability. In terms of WP:GNG, the only biographical source is this one. Which isn't enough on its own. And the other sources are incidental and don't meet WP:BASIC. As already noted, WP:NOLYMPICS is not met. (Subject reached the semi-finals of the 3000m steeplechase in 1924, but didn't qualify for the final and didn't medal.) While I don't think this was clear-cut enough for a procedural delete, after undertaking my own relatively extensive WP:BEFORE checks, I don't think I can advocate a keep. Not as a standalone article. The only ATD-compromise I can consider is a possible redirect to Ireland at the 1924 Summer Olympics. Guliolopez (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no clear consensus on the scope of this list, but nor is there a consensus to remove this content. Suggest either continuing this conversation editorially, or renominating at a time where you think participation would provide consensus. Star Mississippi 02:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States tornadoes from April to June 1954[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A list of minor to very minor, very common events. Lists of major tornado outbreaks, with deaths or massive damage, are a good topic for lists. But there is no reason why this collection of minimal events would be any more notable than a list of car crashes, house fires, ... See e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightning strikes of 2022 for a similar list of recorded but minor events being deleted recently. Fram (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Science, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about similar lists such as this one? These kinds of lists cover many years and also incorporate numerous minor events. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They probably need the same treatment (merging, deleting, pruning...?), no need to have entries like "A brief tornado touched down in a field, causing no damage" or "A brief tornado was spotted in an open field by a trained spotter with no damage being observed." anywhere. But those will have to wait for another discussion. Fram (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They seem to be listing insignificant ones that did very little damage. If all the minor ones were removed, would there be enough of the major ones to fill an article? Is this article different than Tornadoes of 1954? Are either of them valid? Category:Tornadoes in the United States has other articles like this one. Dream Focus 02:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment April to June is too short. I was going to do something like 250 tornadoes listed on one page and other tornadoes listed on another page. I haven't gotten around to it yet though. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 14:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: AfD is not cleanup, though it sometimes has that effect. We are not discussing thge scope of the list but the existence. The list per se covers notable events and is thus not indiscriminate. However discussions need to be had on the article talk page about the scope and the inclusion criteria 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are actually discussing deletion: if both the title and the contents are problematic, then we are no longer in cleanup territory. You state "the list per se covers notable events", but the list combines a few probably notable ones indiscriminately with loads of non notable ones, and the date scope is completely random. We already have Tornadoes of 1954, changing the scope and inclusion criteria of this list would essentially create a duplicate. Fram (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Our views differ. I'm content with that. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could at least try to argue what would be in here which doesn´t belong in the general 1954 tornadoes article already, perhaps? If you can´t or won´t indicate how this list, after your supposed cleanup, would differ from the other one, then your vote is rather meaningless. Fram (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are many similar lists, see Category:Lists of tornadoes in the United States by time. Seems kind of random to pick on just one of those lists. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this list during new page patrol, nothing random about it. And your argument is pure WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Fram (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, would you like to delete everything in that category I just mentioned, or not? If so, then I think that deserves more serious caution than just deleting this one list. On the other hand, if you think this one list is different from all the other stuff in that category, then I’m curious why. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I haven't looked at the others, I have no opinion, and will not try to form one when this AfD is already more than one week old. The existence of other articles has no bearing on this AfD, or vice versa. I would like to delete this article, no more, no less. Do you have any reason why this article needs to be kept? Fram (talk) 08:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the tornadoes discussed at Tornadoes of 1954 can usefully be organized into a list, lists are often a useful alternative way of presenting information. This particular list obviously needs some work, as it does not include a lot of notable tornadoes within the list’s scope, but that’s not a good reason to delete. I would also be inclined to re-name this list so that it covers the entire year, just like Tornadoes of 1954 does, and it’s a bit confusing why they don’t both cover the same time period. But that’s a re-naming issue rather than a deletion issue. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So basically creating a duplicate of the existing Tornadoes of 1954 article, okay... If you have to rename and rescope an article, and remove most of its contents, just to duplicate an existing article (but putting the same information into a table instead of pure prose), then simply deleting the article is the much better solution. Fram (talk) 11:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, there would not and should not be any duplicate. Tornadoes of 1954 is not a list, and it has a very different format from the list now up for deletion. Two alternative ways of presenting information can be useful, and the type of information about each tornado is different too. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking here about an article which at the moment covers 5 days, with none of the tornadoes exceeding F2. Even if you presented the info from Tornadoes in 1954 in list format, not a single entry from the page up for deletion would probably make the list. So you would need a new name and completely new contents, but still want to keep this page because... well, no idea why, to be contrarian? Fram (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to be contrarian. 😊 Some lists require every listed item to meet notability requirements, but some lists don’t. The latter type of list may require that every entry in the list *fails* the notability criteria. This list here is of another variety: complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. So this list *could* get quite long, in which case I’d support breaking it up by month (as is done now). Just because these currently-listed tornadoes didn’t kill anyone doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be listed. Some people might find it interesting or useful to compare these lists for different years, to see how tornado patterns change over time, because of global warming or whatever. Or someone might like to see what geographic areas require precautions even if no one’s been killed yet. Etc, etc. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so that moves it to WP:ILIKEIT / WP:ITSUSEFUL. Which can be said about any list someone can come up with basically. If people want to discern how ronado patterns change over time, they would do better to download a database from a reliable source, not trawl to page after page of monthly lists on Wikipedia. There were 550 tornadoes in the US in 1954 alone... Fram (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there are always big advantages to using reliable sources instead of Wikipedia. In the present situation, I think the editors who made these tornado lists probably bit off more than they could chew, hence the incompleteness. There is a way of telling which tornadoes are most worth our attention, see Tornado#Tornado_rating_scales. I would not object to inclusion criteria that omit the smallest tornadoes. But, again, that would not require deleting the list. Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you place the inclusion criteria at a fairly reasonable "F3 or above" (still 46 tornadoes for the US in 1954), you wouldn't be left with anything from this article, so yes, that would require deleting the list... Fram (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

F2 tornadoes cause “considerable damage”. I would be fine with omitting only F0 and F1 tornadoes. I’d also be fine with keeping F0 and F1 because this scale seems more related to the effect on humans than the strength of the tornado. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...which would mean keeping the current list, which is already lengthy for 5 days, filled with very minor incidents of no notability whatsoever. "A list of minor to very minor, very common events.", as evidenced by the yearly number of them, and the lack of much damage. Even the F2s usually have only damage comparable to a severe house fire, which is an everyday occurrence which is probably noted in some database as well, but is not of further consequence and not worthy of inclusion on an encyclopedia. Fram (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

F2’s cause more damage than 78% of tornadoes. They cause significant damage, whole roofs ripped off frame houses, interiors of frame homes damaged, small and medium trees uprooted. Weak structures such as garages, barns, and mobile homes completely destroyed. See Fujita_scale#Parameters. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Severe house fire". The kind of fire that completely destroys garages or mobile homes, damages interiors of frame houses, destroys roofs and buildings, and kills inhabitants. The kind of fire we don't create articles or lists for, as they are sadly all too common, even though they are life-changing, earth-shattering, for the people involved. Fram (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you quoting yourself there? Anyway, F2’s and greater are the top 22% most powerful tornadoes, and I think confining lists like this to F2’s and greater would make the lists more manageable. But it doesn’t seem absolutely necessary, so long as we have reliable sourcing. So that’s my opinion, and pretty much all I have to say. Thanks for the discussion. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram and Anythingyouwant: My thought was that this article can be expanded as time goes on. I already added several additional significant events, including intense tornadoes. Anyway, if this list is going to be delete, then why not this one as well? That list also incorporates many insignificant events. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daulet Yemberdiyev[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO with no significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Kazakhstan. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found out that User:AlibiKazken who created the page also made Russian and Kazakh pages about the same person, but for some reason didn't connect them. (Probably they just forget it). But these pages have the same information and the same lack of notability, as far as I can see. --Suitskvarts (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asal Kolaar[edit]

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

Singer and rapper, has been in a reality TV show, sung songs on films and got 10 million views on YouTube. Sourced to YouTube, blogs and passing mentions in society/TV pages. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Film, and India. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has enough notability due to popular songs sang by the artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.189.25.28 (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject is not notable enough for WP. This is clearly a promotion with regards to currently airing Bigg Boss Tamil where the subject is participating. 149.36.19.74 (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most links I see are for India Memes, rest are about as non-RS. 10 million streams doesn't mean notability here. You can reload the video over and over and easily boost numbers using a bot or a stream farm. Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chefs A' Field[edit]

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

Non-notable cooking show; no sources; may be promotional. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Television, and United States of America. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Ashby, Emily (2022-08-29). "Chefs A'Field: Kids on the Farm. TV review by Emily Ashby, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2022-10-22. Retrieved 2022-10-22.
  The review notes: "To say that Chefs A'Field is low key is an understatement (it is PBS, after all), and it isn't likely to have viewers leaping out of their chairs in excitement. But it may well inspire your kids' interest in gardening or cooking as they see how much fun the kids on the show have selecting produce and working in the kitchen. It's even better when the focus is on some of their favorite foods, like fresh strawberries served with homemade scones and whipped cream."
2. Burrell, Jackie (2010-03-18). "A la Carte: Delfina's Craig Stoll Stars on PBS Show". East Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2022-10-22. Retrieved 2022-10-22.
  The article notes: "If you’re a fan of “Chefs A’ Field,” then you already know that PBS’ Emmy-nominated series traces the farm-to-table journey of some of our favorite foods, with an assist from some of the nation’s most renowned chefs. This season has included segments on Sonoma Valley sheep farms, Portland blueberry orchards and honey that hails from Acapulco bees, as well as guest appearances by chefs such as Charles Phan of Slanted Door fame."
3. Enna, Renée (2003-02-26). "It's all about sustainability". Chicago Tribune. ProQuest 419794238. Archived from the original on 2022-10-22. Retrieved 2022-10-22 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "As sustainable farming gains a higher profile, the public television series, "Chefs A'Field," comes at an opportune time. The half-hour program travels to different regions of the country and follows the relationship between a chef and a vendor--be it farmer, cheesemaker, cattleman or fisherman--committed to artisanal products and sustainable farming. The focus is on seasonal foods; each program concludes with a visit to the chef's kitchen and a demonstration of dishes using the day's bounty."
4. Duguay, Denise (2005-07-23). "Grub Smith leads a tour of real sex in the city". Montreal Gazette. ProQuest 434215206. Archived from the original on 2022-10-22. Retrieved 2022-10-22 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: " Chefs A'Field: Culinary Adventures that Begin on the Farm takes famous chefs out of the five-star resto and sets them down in the fields across the United States, where their ingredients are grown. In today's episode, George Schenk of the American Flatbread bakery/ restaurant in Waitsfield, Vt., taps a maple tree for his Flatbread Maple Syrup Tomato Sauce, also tossing in Flatbread with Organic Sausage, Smoked Salmon & Asparagus Flatbread and Raspberry-Maple Syrup Vinaigrette. ... Filmed in 2003, the series led to the cookbook Chefs A'Field, a collection of the recipes, and the series on DVD."
5. Kremer, Lisa (2003-01-08). "'Chefs A' Field' new KCTS-TV cooking show - Cuisine: Regional cooks go to sources for great ingredients". The News Tribune. Archived from the original on 2022-10-22. Retrieved 2022-10-22.
  The article notes: "Episodes will include visiting an organic beef ranch and making Steak with Herb Butter in San Francisco; harvesting collards and making Bacchanalia Collards in Atlanta; harpooning bluefin tuna and making Seared Tuna in Boston; and visiting a farm that produces organic sheep's milk and making a Wisconsin Cheese Plate in Madison, Wis."
6. "Seattle chefs to appear on TV". The Seattle Times. 2003-01-15. Archived from the original on 2022-10-22. Retrieved 2022-10-22.
  The article notes: "Seattle chefs Tom Douglas and Johnathan Sundstrom will appear in upcoming episodes of a new national cooking series, "Chefs A' Field," airing locally on KCTS-TV (Channel 9). The 13-week series showcases regional foods from around the country and features well-known chefs interacting with the farmers and fishermen who supply them with locally grown vegetables, fruits or seafood."
7. Jung, Carolyn (2003-01-15). "Seasonal Ingredients Star in Their Own Cooking Show". Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2022-10-22. Retrieved 2022-10-22.
  The article notes: "Tune into KQED-TV 1:30 p.m. Fridays for Chefs A'Field, the first U.S. cooking program produced in high-definition television. The 13 half-hour programs each focus on a well-known restaurant, where the chef travels to the field or local waters, then returns to the kitchen to create a delectable dish. Along the way, viewers learn how environmental practices play pivotal roles in how foods taste and how nutritious they are."
8. Intner, Sheila S. (2011-01-01). "Chefs A' Field: Culinary Adventures That Begin on the Farm". Library Journal. Vol. 136, no. 1. p. 57. ISSN 0363-0277. EBSCOhost 57251356.
  The article notes: "Each episode in this captivating PBS series begins with a visit to a farm that specializes in ingredients of interest to a serious local chef who then serves as the viewer's guide to gourmet dishes that make use of those ingredients. Viewers are treated to facts about the featured foods beyond recipes and cooking methods; an interesting dish or two are highlighted in each episode."
9. "State strawberries star in PBS television series". The Salinas Californian. 2007-05-21. Archived from the original on 2022-10-23. Retrieved 2022-10-23 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Beginning this month, "Chefs A' Field" on PBS will show children visiting a California strawberry farm, then taking the berries picked to a San Francisco restaurant to learn how to prepare them."
10. Smith, Candace (2010-02-15). "Chefs A' Field: Culinary Adventures That Begin on the Farm". Booklist. Vol. 106, no. 12. p. 93. EBSCOhost 48348577.
  The article notes: "In another segment, a Las Vegas chef known for his creative seafood menu travels to Alaska to see a king salmon harvest firsthand and to talk to native fishermen. He returns to his restaurant to prepare the fresh catch. Touching on a deft mix of travel, cookery, and environmental topics, this set will appeal to various viewers, from foodies to armchair travelers."
11. Delgado, Linda (2019-07-24). "Chefs A' Field: Good Catch: Off the Hook + Into the Kitchen". WHRO-TV. Archived from the original on 2022-10-22. Retrieved 2022-10-22.
  The review notes: "Featuring a selection of America's best chefs, it's an exclusive kitchen experience that is off the hook."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chefs A' Field to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could do with a rewrite and somewhat less focus on lists of awards, but seems notable enough. 3mi1y (talk) 06:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources presented above, but does need a re-write. Oaktree b (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a shot at a rewrite. Ovinus (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 no consensus. Tthe arguments to delete are substantially stronger; DABMENTION discusses entries, and does not provide explicit guidance on entire pages consisting of non-notable individuals. However, this isn't enough to overcome the numerical tilt toward keeping, as the wording is admittedly fuzzy. I suggest a VPP discussion sorting this out before future AfDs are attempted. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Pearce[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Disambiguation pages consisting solely of non-notable individuals, in violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY which says disambiguation pages are Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones. The page was previously kept on the basis that the text at NOTDIRECTORY was out of line with community norms, but as attempts to change that text have failed such arguments are no longer appropriate.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Disambiguations. BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as Harley dab drafter), this is very silly. WP:DABMENTION is a very well-held guideline and it cannot be voided thanks to a discussion at NOT which resulted (2 hours ago) in no consensus. Surely a consensus for eliminating the guideline has to eventuate first? J947 † ^edits 06:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:POLCON, when a policy disagrees with a guideline we follow the policy. BilledMammal (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be bothered, but can someone make a VPP RfC on this? There were obviously problems that bore out in that hellish RfC in having it at WT:NOT. To void a guideline as well established as DABMENTION through a stray sentence added without consensus and upheld by a no consensus RfC chocker full with miscommunication is nonsense. Especially when the guideline was solidly upheld in a concurrent RfC. Also – it's not the normal conflict that the guidance at PAG is meant to cover for; this is a major policy oversimplifying an esoteric MOS aspect. J947 † ^edits 07:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that concurrent RfC there was support for a change, just not the specific change proposed. If you want to open another discussion on reconciling NOTDIRECTORY and DABMENTION you are welcome to do so (keeping in mind WP:FORUMSHOPPING and that forty editors !voted in the RfC at WT:NOT), but until a consensus is produced WP:POLCON instructs us to follow the policy. BilledMammal (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, borderline speedy, as these are disambiguation pages for which the disambiguated topic clearly meet WP:DABMENTION. A reader who searches for one of these names may be looking for one of the listed topics, and will be taken to the appropriate Wikipedia article containing the information that we have on that topic. BD2412 T 02:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DABMENTION isn't relevant, per WP:POLCON which tells us that WP:NOTDIRECTORY takes precedence. However, WP:DABMENTION doesn't support these articles either, as it requires that the topic is discussed within another article.

Of the Terry Pearce's, none are discussed within the article; they are only included in lists.

Of the Arthur Harley's one, the politician, could be argued to be discussed, but we can't have a disambiguation page with only one entry. BilledMammal (talk) 08:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where in WP:DABMENTION does it require more than inclusion in a list to consider the term discussed in the article? The only guidance offered there is that: "If the topic is not mentioned in the other article, that article should not be linked to in the disambiguation page, since linking to it would not help readers find information about the sought topic". This appears to indicate that mention is sufficient discussion. Similarly, WP:NOTDIRECTORY stating that this is "not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith" is not in conflict with including a name notable enough to be in the encyclopedia. There is, therefore, no conflict with the policy at all, which is after all aimed at helping readers. BD2412 T 03:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of discussed is "to present in detail for examination or consideration". If a mention was sufficient then it would need to say mentioned within another article rather than discussed within another article.

The sentence from WP:NOTDIRECTORY that you partially quoted finishes by saying just the notable ones, with a link to WP:N. It's WP:WIKILAWYERING to argue that a sentence that says "notable" (which has a standard definition on Wikipedia) and links to WP:N means anything different than meets the notability criteria. BilledMammal (talk) 04:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The clarifying portion of WP:DABMENTION does say "mentioned". Since this is the practice that has been followed for years and years, it's unlikely anything else is intended. As for the notability criteria, did you think Wikipedia articles were just full of non-notable trivia? Obviously, if things needed to be independently notable to be mentioned in a list, then we wouldn't have lists containing anything at all that was not an article. For example, we would need to remove most of the short stories in the F. Scott Fitzgerald bibliography, because they are not independently notable. BD2412 T 04:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No part of WP:DABMENTION says that a mention is sufficient; it says that links may be included if the topic is discussed, and links should not be included if the topic is mentioned. The latter doesn't clarify the former in a way that expands the links that may be included. However, per WP:POLCON WP:DABMENTION is not relevant.

The relevant sentence at WP:NOTDIRECTORY only applies to disambiguation pages. It has no relevance to lists like those at F. Scott Fitzgerald bibliography. BilledMammal (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Line 1 of WP:NOTDIRECTORY also specifically cites WP:LISTCRITERIA. A disambiguation page is obviously a list. BD2412 T 06:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DABs should not be indiscriminate directories of search results. By that logic every single name held by two or more people mentioned anywhere on wikipedia would require its own page. Are all DAB creators watchlisting every article they link from a DAB to make sure all the non-standalone entries are still discussed on their respective pages? Are they personally checking each new DAB entry to make sure they're not PROMO deletion end-run-arounds or BLPVIOs? JoelleJay (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @JoelleJay: I can't speak to all disambiguation pages, but I personally checked all of the links on Terry Pearce and Arthur Harley, and all of these links are likely to persist unless there is such a major upheaval at Wikipedia that we are no longer allowed to list verifiable Olympic athletes and coaches, verifiable competitors in other highly notable international sports competitions, or verifiable runner-up candidates in national elections. There may be disambiguation page entries that should be deleted on such a rationale, but not on these two pages in particular. BD2412 T 01:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't see how your interpretation of "discussed" would allow for deleting any DAB entry to a verifiable mention. JoelleJay (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - If something is verifiable and notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as part of a list, such as a list of Olympians representing a particular country in a particular sport, why would we not inform the reader that a person by that name (the one for whom they might be searching) can be found in that list? Probably the most common instance of these links occurs, by the way, with links to albums containing songs of the same name, which have also been around since the beginning of Wikipedia. It has always been the intent of the project to provide guidance to readers with questions like these. BD2412 T 02:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't just about subjects appearing in notable lists! Literally every trivial namedrop in any context would qualify the subject for a DAB entry if they have a common name. That turns DABs into a literal annotated search directory with, apparently, pretty much zero surveillance after an entry is added. We could easily have multiple entries on the same person, each going to a different blue link, and even if an editor discovered this we absolutely could not indicate this was the case on the DAB itself if the connection wasn't DUE on any of the pages (and per the single blue link rule). If any of the many thousands of BLPNAME-violating mentions I've removed from noble genealogy cruft happened to have been DABed, those DABs likely still exist with the same BLPNAME violation. There are also thousands of articles listing all winners of extremely minor honors--like "halls of fame" of <40,000 pop. counties, containing people with distinctions like "co-owner of the local Domino's franchise" and "principal of the local elementary school"; how are these in any way equivalent to Olympians in meriting DAB entries? JoelleJay (talk) 20:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DABMENTION resolves your concerns with the clause if it would provide value to the reader. Olympians are likely to be searched thus would provide value by having them in a disambiguation page. Your local Domino's owner or school principal would not. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it meets WP:DABMENTION. I appreciate and agree with BD2412's posts on the matter. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is just a re-litigation of the RFC at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#RFC_on_WP:NOTDIRECTORY_and_notability, which has yet to be formally closed. Would like a formal closure and decision there first. Natg 19 (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obscuring search results, and adding unnecessary complexity to curation. WP:DABMENTION only specifies when an entry without an article may be listed on a dab page. It does not stipulate having dab pages consisting only of DABMENTIONS. (Had we had a single notable Terry Pearce, I would probably not advocate deleting the dab page, but the page as it currently stands hinders navigation). No such user (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @No such user: I am curious as to how this obscures search results, when our search function is such garbage that the first set of hits that come up for an actual search for "Terry Pearce" are Brian Pearce (which mentions a "Terry Brotherstone"); Adam Pearce (which mentions a "Terry Taylor"), and Dave Pearce (which mentions a "Todd Terry"). A reader searching for someone named "Terry Pearce" is going to be very frustrated by these results, much more so than by our disambiguation page. BD2412 T 14:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BD2412: I concede that our search function is garbage (mention WMF and incompetence, anyone?) but I still don't think our job as curators is to provide workarounds for its shortcomings. By the way, I get rather useful results when I enclose the search term in quotes [40]. In this particular case, nobody seems to be forgotten, but I don't think we should maintain those pages as a matter of principle. No such user (talk) 14:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as much as I don't like it, it does meet WP:DABMENTION. echidnaLives - talk - edits 06:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All that WP:DABMENTION basically says is If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader. It does not either permit or deny dab pages such as this one. I don't think that we have a firm policy-based reason either to keep or to delete this one (and precedents are few and far between), so it boils down to editorial decision. (Personally, I think the best middle ground is to delete such dab pages, subject to common-sense and IAR exceptions). WP:DAB policy is rather silent on the issue, and only mentions Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily as a principle. In fact, WP:PRIMARYRED covers the situation when a disambiguation page lists only one existing article by that name but not really when there is zero existing articles. No such user (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right about the first point: whether a given entry passes DABMENTION is a judgement call and there's nothing in the guidelines that prescribes either keeping or deleting all such conceivable entries. However, I disagree with your second point: there's no need for the guidelines to have explicit statements about dabs consisting solely of such entries. Basic common sense should be enough here: a dab page is appropriate if it has (typically) at least two entries and if those entries are appropriate. It's irrelevant here which exact criterion has been used to judge those entries as eligible, what matters is that they are eligible. – Uanfala (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ✗plicit 01:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Turahirwa[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Rwanda. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article was well referenced with known sources both local and international hence it qualfies to be kept on Wikipedia. Tusubirap (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources. Meets the general notability guideline. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The East Africa Times and the Rwandan newspaper seem like RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project and Technology Management Foundation[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent sources found, WP:NORG fail (t · c) buidhe 02:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 02:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No secondary coverage. Does not meet the subject specific notability guideline set out in NORG MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Gray (politician)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL spongeworthy93 talk 01:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. spongeworthy93 talk 01:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Arkansas. Skynxnex (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to pass NPOL as a member of a state legislative body. pburka (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As they are a current member of House of Representatives, they pass WP:NPOL. echidnaLives - talk - edits 02:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Member of the Arkansas House of Representatives, passes WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a member of a state legislative body, it clearly passes the WP:NPOL. Fifthapril (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Incorrect application of NPOL - elected politicians for state bodies are eligible for inclusion MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NPOL states "politicians and judges who ... have been members of legislative bodies at those levels" are notable. Michelle Gray is a member of the Arkansas House of Representatives and thus is notable. Wikipedialuva (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State legislators most certainly do pass WP:NPOL #1. I'll grant that the article isn't very good as written, and isn't citing that many sources, but that's exactly why we have NPOL in the first place — it's a given that state legislators get media coverage, so even poorly done articles about state legislators are always still improvable. Notability is based on the existence of suitable WP:GNG-worthy sources, not on whether they're all already in the current version of the article or not. Bearcat (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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