< April 26	April 28 >

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DotSUB[edit]

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

I don't believe this company meets notability requirements. All the sources I could find were trivial mentions, a few user reviews, and what appear to be self-published profiles on sites like Crunchbase. I could find no in-depth, independent coverage. Squeakachu (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Technology. Squeakachu (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CastJared (talk) 03:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Support deletion. Insufficient sources to meet the notability criteria for companies per NCORP. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verisart[edit]

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

Not seeing notability, using Forbes contributor pieces, PR pieces and funding announcements. Appears PROMO. And everything crypto isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I just cleaned up all the crypto blogs. What remains is a farrago of art blogs and press release reprints. The one RS is Bloomberg. Fails WP:NCORP, as well as appearing to be just spam - David Gerard (talk) 12:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The page has been edited several times since the first day. Does the page still appear spammy to you? I think the first attempt was spammy with all those partnerships I included, so I deleted them. I thought it was good to have them, but at least I know what to avoid in the future. Thanks.Bmjc98 (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The page has been updated several times since it was created. Some questionable sources were removed and replaced with something new by another editor. Please, have a look at the page before deciding to remove it. Thank you. Bmjc98 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you remove the usual company announcements (funding), the press releases, the niche publications, and the minor mentions, only one source is left, Bloomberg. Lamona (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with arguments already made. The coverage cited is routine in nature. NCORP provides a high standard for companies, and I do not think the available coverage in or out of the article meets the criteria. It is of insufficient depth to warrant inclusion. While the improvements made by Bmjc98 are appreciated, no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Even the coverage in sources that look promising such as Bloomberg contain only a trivial mention of the subject. Such trivial coverage is not significant. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Tekken characters. ✗plicit 23:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Phoenix (Tekken)[edit]

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

Just like what happen to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jun Kazama. Most of it are just routine trailer coverage. Most of them are trivial, talking about his hair on Tekken 8 and its announcement. This source can be also unhelpful [1] while this one is quite useful [2]. Meanwhile, this source [3] is a passing mention at the end "I hope Paul Phoenix is a central character in the next series, Tekken 8." Others are mostly build up listicles. Thus, Failing WP:GNG since its not enough. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Weak keep This is unusual for me, but this character appears notable from the sources in the article. However, it is weak because there is just barely enough. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I re-analyzed the sources, and realized that I counted some obviously bad ones. Weak merge, but I'm open to having my mind changed. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I could simply not find a single piece of WP:SIGCOV anywhere, even in old gaming magazines. Mostly they are just a small snarky mention of "heh, tall hairdo". It's not indicative of standalone notability of any sort. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Tekken characters. This one is particularly aggravating. Paul has been in the games since day one but all anyone talks about is his hair. Any serious coverage of him found is from nonviable sources, while any legit site that has a headline about his Tekken 8 gameplay has barely a paragraph dedicated to it. It almost seems like a copout to vote for merging yet another fighting character, but there's really no other choice here. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Paul Phoenix is another character that should have the coverage, but doesn't seem to. But I'm over these AFDs, so I'm going to refrain from !voting, unless it's a keep for me, but I just can't find much reason to keep this one. I'll look a little more to see if I can find anything, because there has to be something. Just wow. MoonJet (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pardee Homes[edit]

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

Per Notability (organizations and companies). The article reads like Spam. Rdavid~enwiki created this article in Dec 2005, and has no other contribution on Wikipedia. Pardee Homes in Los Angeles was owned by Weyerhaeuser in Washington state. (https://www.weyerhaeuser.com/blog/design-trends-2014-part-2/) It was sold to another firm ca.2015 and changed its name. Pardee is a semi-common name of various businesses, and one is not related to another. I am not able to verify this particular Pardee Homes still exists. Google searches bring up Pardee listings, but no way to tell how old those listings are, or if they are even related to this one. — Maile (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, California, and Nevada. AllyD (talk) 06:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mainly advertising sources for the company. I note, however, that there are 2 pretty detailed obits for George Pardee Jr. so someone might want to put forth an article for him. It would include the building business. Lamona (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Support deletion. This company does not meet the notability standard set out in NCORP. There is some excellent coverage of the company in this book. I am absolutely open to considering a change in !vote if someone can find multiple examples of sourcing as good as the two pages of coverage within this book. However most of everything else I found were trivial mentions of developments made by the company in real estate magazines. These do not constitute the in-depth significant coverage required for companies. There is good coverage of the company's founder, such as the LA Times article within the existing sourcing. This article only covers the founder in detail, rather than the company. The founder may well be notable, however his company does not inherit his notability. Turning to the quality of the article, I am usually against using "it's spammy" as an argument for deletion because an article can always be cleaned up. However not only can no editing overcome a lack of notability, I really do not see a substantial amount of text that is worth re-writing or salvageable. The entire article reads like a company profile or website. Even if notability is established, I would prefer to see the article draftified or even started all over again. As it stands, nowhere near fit for main. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Top YouTube Channel Subscribers in Mainland China[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced list of web content on a potentially fluctuating criterion. Lists of things by current popularity status are not the kind of content Wikipedia should be curating, as a rule, because it's subject to frequent change and thus not easily maintainable for accuracy -- and that goes double for when the content isn't even supported by any legitimate reliable sources to properly verify that the information is even accurate in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and China. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This is a list of useless information. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a great example of an inappropriate cross-categorization. Clearly fails WP:LISTN. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete YouTube's been blocked in China since 2009, so these numbers are absolutely useless without any mainland numbers to speak of. Nate • (chatter) 23:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since 2009 YouTube has been inaccessible from mainland China. However, YouTube can still be accessed from Hong Kong, Macau, the Shanghai Free-Trade Zone, specific hotels, and by using a VPN.

Even though YouTube is blocked under the Great Firewall, many Chinese media outlets, including China Central Television (CCTV), have official YouTube accounts. In spite of the ban, Alexa ranks YouTube as the 5th-most-visited website in China.(Wikipedia: YouTube Censorship In China) PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whatever the case, the numbers are unofficial and 100% unverifiable (why would we account for numbers from business travelers at hotels?)). Nate • (chatter) 03:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Um, they block youtube, so the subscriber numbers should all read zero. This is HOAX. Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This information is false considering that YouTube is blocked in China, and would not be that useful even if it wasn't. History person 2 (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Porridge episodes. ✗plicit 23:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poetic Justice (Porridge)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable episode, tagged for such since 2014. No reliable reviews found.

Previously redirected, but was reverted. Would be open to a redirect if that were the consensus, but supporting a deletion at the moment. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Telangana and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Porridge episodes. One of the most non-notable episode articles I've seen on the site. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Porridge episodes. // Timothy :: talk 19:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tasrif Khan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Not enough in-depth coverage about this person to show notability. Fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely ridiculous. On what basis is it proposed for deletion? Please, first know enough about living person then learn to decide. Since 2017 he is well known all over Bangladesh. He was in front of everyone in the 2022 edition of the World Cup in Sylhet. Wikipedia should have an article on it. Olafrozen (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Observe on আফতাবুজ্জামান, he puts deletion tag on any article for no reason and remains negative in all decisions. He has done this before. He has done this before without studying a living person.Olafrozen (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - since previous unanimous deletion, the only thing that has changed is his facial paralysis, which was reported at a low level in some places. Not seeing enough there to justify a stand-alone article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep some citations were dead, which I removed but I added a new one. He seems to have a good amount of coverage. There are more news on his band Kureghor, than him. I would not be opposed to changing the page to the band instead. Pershkoviski (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for cleaning it. However there isn't enough reliable independent source about this person. All of them are either interview (primary), presa release, passing mentions or are about his facial paralysis. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: borderline G11ish. Fails BLP, GNG and BIO. Sources in article and BEFORE only showed promo, nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 19:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

T. Tapunuu[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article and BEFORE (Tapunuu and T Tapunu'u) showed nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Sources in article is database records (1 ref + el). WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 04:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted under G11‎ . (non-admin closure) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Brittain Davenport[edit]

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

Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debra Davenport. I'm still not seeing enough detailed independent coverage to pass WP:GNG. The award mentioned at UPCEA is a regional one so does not seem to meet WP:NPROF #2 (please correct me if I'm mistaken). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Women, and Fashion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 as an unsourced promotional autobiography. It's very similar in feel to the deleted version, but not similar enough in detail for me to be comfortable performing a G4 deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Nothing more than PR puff. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matty Fenton[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable footballer that does not meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Best I can find is a passing mention in the Northwich Guardian. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 22:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails SPORTBASIC and would not even have passed the old NFOOTY.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with assessment, delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 08:52, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Rohit Shetty. ✗plicit 23:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Shetty filmography[edit]

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

Unnecessary content fork. Rohit Shetty's filmography is already listed in his WP:BLP, which isn't so very long that a separate spinoff article would be needed. As always, every actor or filmmaker does not automatically get his filmography spun off to a separate article from his base BLP as a matter of course -- that can be done for people whose main biographical articles are extremely long and need to be chunked out for size control purposes, but most film professionals just get their filmographies listed in the main article rather than requiring two separate pages, and Shetty's main article isn't long enough to need a spinoff. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rohit Shetty. Unneeded WP:CFORK. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rohit Shetty: Reasonably short filmography, there's no need for this to be split into a separate article, it's just a WP:CFORK. Ravensfire (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rohit Shetty. Unneeded WP:CFORK. // Timothy :: talk 19:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jia Na Jaye[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Article is mostly a plot summary and a search on google for both the english name and its native name (جیا نہ جائے) returned no useful results, consisting mostly of social media accounts. That being said I can't read Urdu or its alphabet so I may be missing some things. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Insight 3 (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KNDRGRTN[edit]

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

Doesn’t seem to pass WP:GNG, may be an example of WP:TOOSOON. Cornmazes (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 19:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TOOSOON and PROMO. My fave is the first ref from 1978, per the citation... If he's been a new artist for the last 40 years, he's not at GNG. No sort of extensive coverage, no charted singles, refs are PR links. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that was an error, the article is from 2018 Atlantic306 (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG; most of what I can find is self-published or not significant. There is an interview in Flaunt that might be notable ([4]) but it's all I could find and Flaunt is not on the pretty extensive list at WP:RSMUSIC. And I also laughed at the 1979 (though it's certainly a typo), but definitely seems WP:TOOSOON. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 22:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: G11ish. Fails BLP, GNG and BIO. Sources in article and BEFORE only showed promo, nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 19:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of renamed cities, towns and regions in Turkey[edit]

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

There is only one source (Index Anatolicus, also called NişanyanMap). It is not RS, and the article is improperly referenced. Much of the content is not also found on that site. Many of the unsourced names are just ancient names, so it gives the wrong impression that these names were changed by a century-old state all at once. I suggest a WP:TNT. Moreover, I would prefer a category of some sort, because this list is not exhaustive and is still very long. Or the scope of the article could be redetermined, so that it would be major settlements instead of all kinds of places. Aintabli (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Aintabli (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TNT The topic is interesting (especially given the renamings occuring in the Atatürk era), but the current incarnation is way too cluttered. Turkey has some of the most ancient traces of permanent habitation, literally every town is bound to have been renamed a bunch of times. And the article provides no historical context. Something like Place name changes in Turkey is more relevant, while at the same time presenting information (including lists) with historical context rather than a raw list.

Another option for the article would be to shift the way it is presented, into something like List of former place names in Turkey - in this way, the focus is less on the renaming and more on the historical names, which can be developed on as a way to structure the list, while still being helpful.

Even then, having a category for places in Turkey that were renamed (by whom?) is incredibly vague, and doesn't connect them very much historically (it could have been the Romans just like it could have been Atatürk). A category for places renamed by modern Turkey would work better, as there is a historical connection. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I wanted this to be a keep as a good CLN/AOAL, so I was going to ref entries in List of renamed cities, towns and regions in Turkey#Adana Province section as an example. With the exception of the map (doubtful RS) I couldn't find refs for most of the content. Trying to improve this convinced me this needs TNT. // Timothy :: talk 19:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Might as well be named "list of cities in Turkey" as essentially all populated places in this ancient land have been renamed over the centuries, and not just in the republican era. As such this is a pretty indiscriminate and meaningless mess. --GGT (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nikesh Singh Sidhu[edit]

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

Stats stub with no evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. This Football Association of Singapore article is the best that I could find and it merely lists him as an unused sub. A Singaporean source search yielded mostly database sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; only match reports and database entries are available online. Jogurney (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karol Stricker[edit]

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

There is a thin claim of notability, but there are no sources to back any of this up, with nothing found in the article or in a Google search to support a claim. An obituary supports some of the details of her life and family, but nothing about her career. Nor is she meaningfully integrated into the rest of the encyclopedia, with the only mention being an unsourced name check at China painting. Alansohn (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, New Jersey, and New York. Alansohn (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cannot find notability via google search, jstor search, or google books search. Just being featured in a couple of magazines does not meet the requirements of notability for artists. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found the table of contents for the January 1994 and February 1994 issues of Ceramics Monthly, but don't see Stricker mentioned. I'm unable to identify The Lighthouse Review, partly because my searches are swamped by reviews of The Lighthouse (2019 film). pburka (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding anything for this artist, and her obit is brief and does not provide facts about her art. Lamona (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aspirus MedEvac[edit]

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

Howdy! I believe I've followed the instructions right. I found Aspirus MedEvac through the Homepage tasks. It was put in that lineup on account of the advertising language it contains, tagged since August '22, but when looking through it, I got the impression that without that language, there really wouldn't be much of an article. A majority of the sources look to be from the company itself, with little other coverage from anything that isn't local news reporting on a new helicopter/service area or a general directory listing, so it doesn't seem notable under WP:NCORP. It doesn't help that the majority of the article's content seems to be the work of a single-purpose account, who supplied all of the photos, most of the body text, and also saved it from being PROD'ed for promotional content and non-notability in 2018 (though judging by the edit summary, they didn't quite seem to understand why that tag was placed).

I tried to PROD it for the same reasons as above, but since that route's closed, I'm bringing it here. I understand completely that I could be off-base, given my short time here, but I'd at least like to see if anyone else thinks the same way.

Thanks! ~Judy _{(job requests)} 16:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ~Judy _{(job requests)} 16:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks like you did everything right, welcome to AfD! Aspirus appears to be a health provider group operating in Wisconsin. The provider group seems questionably notable (there's some coverage, though it appears mostly routine, e.g. [5], [6]), but there's not an independent page for it on Wikipedia currently (only Aspirus Medford Hospital, one of the hospitals they operate) and this page seems exclusively focused on the MedEvac subsidiary. The MedEvac business itself appears not to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. All the coverage I could find was in local newspapers, specifically the Wausau Daily Herald ([7], [8], [9], [10]). The first article there ("Man thanks emergency crews for saving his life", 07 Oct 2012) is the only one which isn't a passing mention or routine coverage of a press release, and I can't verify the independence of the piece, which has very promotional language. I don't see enough to support notability. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 22:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Garden-variety medical evacuation provider of no encyclopedic notability. I did clean up some of the very careless writing, which was rife with missing conjunctions, MOS:POSTABBR and MOS:SECTIONCAPS deficiencies, and vanity capitalization. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmin Omar[edit]

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

Vanity article created by subject's spouse. Doesn't meet notability as most refs are non-notable interviews. Nswix (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Egypt. Nswix (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete I think it is WP:LOWPROFILE, no real notability and poor significant coverage, also the article looks like WP:MASK and written in a way that exaggerates the importance of her activities. -- Ibrahim.ID ✪ 18:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO. This is G11 content but AfD is a better forum, since I suspect recreations will need CSD'd. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 05:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Themes of Christianity in hip hop and rap music[edit]

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

What appears to be someone's personal essay, that is pretty much entirely WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Note that only one of the sources being used as inline citations even remotely talks about the topic, the rest being either just song lyrics or sources on specific parts of the topic (i.e. entirely on rap or entirely on Christianity) that are being used to WP:SYNTH together statements. While I highly suspect the topic is a notable one, any article on it would have to be rewritten from scratch, and this article that is entirely one person's original research should not stay in the article space. The article was PRODed a year ago by another user for the same concerns of original research, but was deproded due to it being a non-controversial deletion, so I am bringing it to AFD for discussion. Rorshacma (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Christianity. Rorshacma (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There seems to be a surprising amount of literature on the subject. So a worthwhile article could almost certainly be written. But this looks indeed like complete WP:OR. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TNT, the topic has actual literature covering it, but this essay in its current form is mostly WP:OR. I'm genuinely sad for the person who spent their time and effort writing it, and I think it would be worth being saved somewhere - just not necessarily on Wikipedia. I hope they'll be able to familiarize themselves with how Wikipedia articles are usually written and become a great contributor! Chaotic Enby (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a personal essay, but a singular output for Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of San Francisco/Oral and Written Communication Section 17 (Fall 2016). Trawdarula submitted this as a student, and has not edited since.. — Maile (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 23:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WorldSkills[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/WorldSkills (2nd nomination)

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

This article is for a non-notable organization and is an advertisement. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The previous AfD was when the article had slightly different name-spacing; the discussion can be found here. AllyD (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that the references are now enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 07:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. – Joe (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United States, Brussels[edit]

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

This article dosen't meet the requirements of WP:ORG 1keyhole (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of this article is a diplomatic mission between two major countries. It has 5 million search results[11]. The person who requested deletion should prove the subject of this article is less important than any items listed in ((Diplomatic missions of the United States)). Also, Category:Diplomatic missions in Brussels has a bunch of preexisting articles. There are no reasons to treat the U.S. embassy article differently. (Please also see similar discussions in Talk:Embassy of the United States, Brasília and Talk:Embassy of the United States, Stockholm) LightningNThunder (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is there to prevent someone from keeping an article without showing how important/notable an article is. In my case, I have shown that my article is equally or more important than those preexisting articles, which have shown the prior consensus on the importance of such articles. Unfortunately, my article is the only one tagged as not important/notable. This is discrimination. After I explained why I think it important, who tagged it should prove why my article is considered as not important/not notable. However, rather than discussing the importance case by case, you threw WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at me as a new editor. This is double standard and bullying a new editor. LightningNThunder (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I gotta go. Please feel free to do whatever you Wikipedia policemen/judges want to do and enjoy doing so to other newcomers in the future. You guys really did a great job! LightningNThunder (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For those enjoying deleting: here is one more: User:LightningNThunder. Enjoy clicking "delete"! LightningNThunder (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a doubled standard or attempt to bully a new editor These are case by case by basis but it's based on a level notebility. 1keyhole (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then WP:BOLD to delete all of those articles in Category:Diplomatic missions in Brasília, Category:Diplomatic missions in Brussels and ((Diplomatic missions of the United States)), or prove how they are more important. If you don't, this page will be there forever to show what your (and a few folks') double standard is. LightningNThunder (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a double standard nor bullying. There is no race to delete all pages. You just can't assume something else similar is notable. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"You just can't assume something else similar is notable" -- @LibStar: Please stop misleading people. I am not saying Embassy of the United States, Brussels is notable and should be kept just because it is similar to Taipei Representative Office in Brussels and Permanent Mission of Armenia to NATO, instead, my argument is that Embassy of the United States, Brussels is equally or even more important than those two (want me to prove it? Simply see how many Google search results there are - both have less than 1 million results). It doesn't make sense if you only mark Embassy of the United States, Brussels as not important and try to delete it. If you do so, it is a double standard. LightningNThunder (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOOGLEHITS. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar:: You guys are really like the theologians in the Middle Ages - both very good at citing doctrines/rules and evading the actual question. You don't know how to answer my question (i.e. why you treat Embassy of the United States, Brussels differently and don't dare to touch other articles in Category:Diplomatic missions in Brussels, i.e. double standard), so you now say Google results don't count. Nice move. That being said, I actually don't have to rely on Google search results to prove why Embassy of the United States, Brussels is more important than Permanent Mission of Armenia to NATO (showed the search results simply for convenience) because this is a common sense. If you insist on saying Armenia is more important than the U.S., then I think I really should shut up. LightningNThunder (talk) 02:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never said " If you insist on saying Armenia is more important than the U.S.". Please don't put words in my mouth. Also a reminder to be WP:CIVIL rather than asking someone to shut up. LibStar (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you agree that the U.S. is more important (or at least equally important) than Armenia, then you
you wouldn't have to nitpick & question about the Google search results (we really don't need the numbers to prove a common sense) by throwing a WP:GOOGLEHITS, which made me unhappy - I do apologize for some words in my response, and

you wouldn't have to tag Embassy of the United States, Brussels as low importance and try to delete it. Instead, you may want to keep it just like Taipei Representative Office in Brussels and Permanent Mission of Armenia to NATO.

If you agree with me, then the discussion is essentially closed. You can either:
delete my article, but at the same time, treat other embassy articles (i.e. delete them) the same way (i.e., avoid double standard) unless you prove some of them are more important than Embassy of the United States, Brussels, or

keep my article.

I will respect your choice regardless which one it is. LightningNThunder (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Belgium, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Embassies are not inherently notable, they need to meet GNG. This one does not get significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: see my comment at 18:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC). LightningNThunder (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Belgium–United States relations under Resident diplomatic missions. The one source is already in the bilateral relations article.2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:1485:9663:50E3:704C (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Don't be shy to log in. Wish it was not someone who pretended to be a stranger to weigh in. LightningNThunder (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please try to keep this WP:CIVIL. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Embasies are all notable as are all important missions as are a showing of international relations, just because you dont think its notible doesnt meet threshold for removal Popeter45 (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the Wikipedia policy that says embassies are all notable? LibStar (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

were is the policy they must all be removed? And yes as principal they are all notable Popeter45 (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references from the corresponding article in the Dutch Wikipedia. Embassies are not automatically notable, but they often are, particularly when they are in an historic building or use heavy-handed security measures that are covered in reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep it looks like their is enough significant coverage in Belgian media to keep, but I understand the other editors concerns. @Popeter45 I don't think "yes as principal all embassies are notable" is a wikipedia guideline and we should try to restrict are arguments to establish notability under GNG. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of this article is a diplomatic mission between two major countries and has adequate coverage. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOFEAT#2 ...notable as a result of... historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. And coverage exists to support it. Lightburst (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced, contains information outside of the scope of Belgium–United States relations (for instance, the move to a new building), no given reason to delete. While the article's writer definitely fails WP:CIVIL, that isn't a reason to dismiss their core argument, which is that no reason has been given for "doesn't meet WP:ORG" despite existence of sources. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources to pass WP:GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the added sources do enough to establish notability, and there appears to be further coverage of the street closure issues (e.g. [12]) and the move, mostly in Dutch news sources. I disagree with the suggestion that all government buildings or embassies are automatically notable and I disagree with the WP:OSE arguments, but I think this building has enough coverage to pass. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 23:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Embassies aren't inherently notable, WP:GNG hasn't been met. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources for each embassies in multiple countries are notable. WP:GNG has met. No need to say, "What about other embassies in Brussels". CastJared (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ducky catamarans[edit]

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

Looks quite promotional, Google search found no evidence of notability. Only source is the company website. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 15:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 15:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Transportation, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any RS either. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What other sources should there be if we are talking about a specific product? Ducky19r (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Product reviews in a national newspaper, a critical review of the company's products, an extensive company history published by a third-party, a documentary film about the company. Something to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that national newspapers are called to publish product reviews of various companies? Maybe you meant specialized magazines? I think I won't reveal the secret that articles about products in magazines are often written in cooperation with the manufacturer. By what criteria will you determine whether an article is advertising? In fact, any mention of the products of a particular brand is indirect advertising. So how is the Hobby Cat article different from many other products on the Wiki? I can agree with the fact that the article could have an inappropriate appearance, and I was just working on its design and it did not yet have a final appearance. I'm not a confident Wiki user, and I've been experimenting with the design. In this case, it is worth simply pointing out what was inappropriate. Ducky19r (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You surprise me. Although, maybe it was me who wrongly imagined the essence of the Wiki as an encyclopedia. Ducky19r (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They do yes, we have product reviews all the time from newspapers. There is nothing showing this company has gained the level of notability needed for Wikipedia. See the article about Coca-Cola or Volvo Penta for the examples of coverage needed for companies here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to create an article about catamarans like this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobie_Cat Ducky19r (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That could probably be deleted as well to be honest, it also looks promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You surprise me. Although, maybe it was me who wrongly imagined the essence of the Wiki as an encyclopedia. Ducky19r (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have notability standards, a small company making boats in Ukraine might be notable, but we need sources talking it about it at length. Simply existing as a corporate enterprise doesn't make them notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This PROMO, we aren't here to help you sell your product. I can't find any references other than to Duck boats. Could even speedy delete this. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't see the other links because I didn't have time to finish the article. And this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobie_Cat and many other brands you help sell? Or only the chosen ones?

In general, I am here as a person for whom these catamarans are a hobby and a part of life. I thought that Wiki is a kind of "people's encyclopedia" where you can learn about the issue that interests you and that my information contribution will also be useful. Although it seems that few people are interested in this here. Strange and sad. Ducky19r (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is to be kept you would need to strip out the promotional language, and prove that the company is notable. Neither of those seem forthcoming. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If you removed the egregious WP:PROMO then there wouldn't be anything left. Company is non-notable besides. --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: once again, a number of users have decided that this company is 'clearly non-notable' without even making a cursory attempt to research sources in relevant languages. This is bad practice, and it hurts Wikipedia. If you are going to do this, why even bother participating in AfD? For your convenience, here is the relevant coverage of Ducky catamarans I was able to find in Ukrainian and Russian.

AfD works on the principle of consensus, not direct democracy. So far, there can be no consensus, because only one party involved appears to have spent more than 2 seconds researching the topic at hand. I would ask those more familiar with the notability guidelines than me to take a look at the above sources and evaluate them on their own merits, rather than adding to the dogpile above. Thanks, Akakievich (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

to be fair, most users can't read Ukrainian, that's why we discuss the article in AfD, we're trying to get multiple viewpoints and from different languages if needed. Oaktree b (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs aren't acceptable, government directories aren't acceptable, a tourism website would be promotional and a hobbyist website would not qualify as a reliable source. The magazine and the local newspaper could likely be acceptable. Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd also like to add that although the user who created this article does not appear to be familiar with Wikipedia best practices, we should still try and work with them, and use their knowledge to determine whether this article meets notability guidelines. Statements like we aren't here to help you sell your product assume bad faith and are out of place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers! Akakievich (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the new sources, it's still largely PROMO and not meeting GNG. Beyond proof they exist, there isn't critical notice of the company or their products. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive. ✗plicit 23:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Shevchenkove[edit]

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

Non-notable battle. It lasted one day and was a minor skirmish in which the Russians hopelessly tried to stop the advancing Ukrainian forces. The contents can be easily integrated into 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive. Super Ψ Dro 15:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Russia, and Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 15:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive. Most of the sources in the article are used for the background section. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the "Kharkiv counteroffensive" article, non-notable battle otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive, minor skirmish as part of a larger action. Mztourist (talk) 03:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive would be the best way to document this skirmish which was part of the counteroffensive.TH1980 (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fábio Marques[edit]

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

Article about former footballer who made just one appearance in the Portuguese second division before switching to semi-pro and amateur football. There is no in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources; the best I could find is this signing announcement which touches on his youth training with Atletico Madrid, but doesn't go into detail. There is a fair amount of routine coverage like injury announcements, squad call-ups as well as coverage that isn't independent like club press releases. Overall, WP:GNG is not met. Jogurney (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sign of notability. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nomination, doesn't appear to be any special GNG noteworthy. Govvy (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - best I can find is Mais Futebol, a brief announcement Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ottley Laborde[edit]

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

Article about former footballer and police officer which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Laborde's claims to fame appear to be his appearance in The Other Final and an award he received for his service in the RMPS. He is also the VP of the Montserrat Football Association, but all of the coverage of that role is incredibly superficial. There is simply no in-depth coverage in secondary, reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 14:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Might be notable per WP:ANYBIO/1, but I agree that the lack of meaningful coverage is a problem. I don't know what the exact significance of the award is within the context of his service, so I will not express a judgement. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My read on that award was that it was for his years of service, not for some particular achievement. If that kind of award is enough for ANYBIO, then yikes hundreds of thousands of long-serving municipal workers will be eligible for articles. Jogurney (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ANYBIO.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously generic service awards given to hundreds of thousands of people do not qualify for ANYBIO. GNG is not met either. JoelleJay (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails BIO and GNG. Sources in article are brief mentions, BEFORE showed stats, mentions, but nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). // Timothy :: talk 01:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Di Gregorio[edit]

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

Likely autobiography or promotional biography by single-purpose account Jamboree86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). No independent sources cited, and none obvious in searches. Which is striking: as the house cartoonist of RFK Jr.'s antivax organisation, you would expect at least some external coverage. But no. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Comics and animation, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find any independent coverage in newspapers or on the web, so the subject does not meet WP:GNG. Also, almost all of the biographical information in this BLP is unsourced and was added by a single user. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Global Privacy Enforcement Network[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV. Effectively copy and paste job from org website. No indication of being notable. scope_creep^Talk 11:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and Internet. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep A WP:BEFORE search of Google Scholar would have yielded 357 results. Google news has over 500 results (of varying quality).

This is an OECD project, with at least 54 national members, and is described in detail in books and scholarly articles. Admittedly, the article was in some need of updating, and I've added some scholarly articles but haven't gotten to possible news articles. Substantive multi-year treatment in scholarly literature should easily demonstrate notability.

Unclear what "effectively copy and paste" means - if there is a WP:COPYVIO issue it needs to be resolved ASAP; I'll be happy to have a look if you want to provide details. Oblivy (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The number of of google search results doesn't indicate notabilty. We will look at the references, which look to be WP:PRIMARY. I know these types of org tend to have primary coverage but they're needs to be more. scope_creep^Talk 13:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Routine coverage doesn't confer notability even for an international coalition. Google searches aren't relevant significant coverage. Delete. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment The article cites numerous pieces from law reviews and other journals, written by independent experts, including:

this book on privacy[[13], co-edited by an author of several books on privacy, which devotes four paragraphs to describing GPEN. Other sections of the book mention it as well;
this article[14] (available free in pre-print here[15]) co-written by Colin Bennett, a professor at University of Victoria and author of a textbook on privacy published by Cornell University Press, which describes its founding as an "important step" towards global privacy regulation;
another article[16] written by Prof. Bennett which is entirely devoted to GPEN;
this law review article[17] which devotes approximately 3.5 pages to discussing GPEN.

These are easily (1) significant, (2) independent, (3) reliable, (4) secondary coverage. That is enough to satisfy WP:SIRS.

But there is also mass distribution news coverage. Globe and Mail devoted a few sentences in an article to its privacy sweep results, and the Guardian mentioned it as well. These are not newspaper editorials from privacy commissioners; these are articles written by independent journalists who recognized GPEN's work as notable.

Finally, none of this relies on Google search results. I only mentioned Google searches because they are required by WP:BEFORE, and because it was evident the AfD proposer didn't do such searches before proposing the article for deletion. Oblivy (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those are minor routine coverage one might expect from an international coalition, it doesn't make it a notable organisation. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect some policy-based explanation beyond a conclusory statement that this is "minor routine coverage". According to WP:ORGCRIT what is required is "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I have provided several WP:SIRS citations, including several by distinguished professors in the field of information privacy. Can you please confirm you have read the articles before adding this comment?

Comment We will look at the references some point today. For example that last reference doesn't prove organisation is notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been substantially revised since it was originally listed. It now includes citations from a book on privacy, a law review note from an accredited law school's journal devoting no less than 3.5 pages just to this organization, and multiple articles by experts in the field of information privacy. It is an OECD-sponsored multinational NGO with 59 member countries plus other members. The original listing of this article may have been done in good faith, considering the relative lack of secondary sources at the time. However, subsequent comments from User:scope_creep and [[User:User:Macktheknifeau have been conclusory and not policy-based. The original proposer User:scope_creep has twice promised to read the new sources but time has passed and they remain silent. This is not a good candidate for deletion.Oblivy (talk) 09:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I say I'm going to examine the references, then I will look at references everytime, for future reference. Lets have a look at the first two blocks.

Ref 1 [18] This is written by the group for the group and is WP:PRIMARY. It is a WP:SPS source, failing WP:ORGIND.
Ref 2 [19] This is malformed reference and its impossible to determine what page numbers are being looked at.
Ref 3 [20] This is a profile and is again WP:PRIMARY, failing WP:ORGIND.
Ref 4 [21] "Interoperability of privacy and data protection frameworks" This paper has a citation count according to Google Scholar of exactly 1. It has been cited another paper which itself is not cited.It is part of the global drive for digital privacy and as far as I can see its not linked to GPEN in any manner. It has a profile on GPEN and states it was the most popular option for privacy advocates. Its terrible reference, such a low cited paper. It another mission paper and is WP:PRIMARY.
Ref 5 [22] Fails WP:ORGIND. Company site.
Ref 6 [23] This has exactly 1 citation as well. Small profile on GPEN. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 7 [24] This is a press-release
Ref 8 [25] States FTC was founding member of GPEN. Passing mention that fails WP:SIRS
Ref 9 [26] This is WP:PRIMARY as a routine annoucement failing WP:SIRS
Ref 10 [27] This has a slighter higher citation count of 32. This has an analysis of Gpen, potentially a decent source, but the information copied from GPEN documents.
Ref 11 [28] Guardian article but it a single stat as passing mention.

Out of the 11 references, 3 fail WP:SIRS, 1 is a press-release, 1 is a passing mention, 4 fail WP:ORGIND, 1 is a dodgy reference, 1 has what looks like an analysis but is taken from primary sources. Not a single one of these pass WP:SIRS. Lets look at the references contained in the Afd.

Ref 1 [29] Behind a paywall for this very book at £159 for a hard copy. No page numbers.
Ref 2 [30] Mentions the GPEN as a OECD transnational instrument as privacy framework. Passing mention at best. Has the source and mentions it. Fails WP:SIRS
Ref 3 [31] It is the Bennet paper above with 1 citation. It is not a good reference to prove its notable. Fails WP:SIRS.
Ref 4 [32] Another with a citation count of 15.

None of the papers presented in this article have the sufficiently high citations to qualify as valid secondary sources. Everything here indicates at best that its an international coaltion but nothing proves its actually notable. The references are very poor indicating its a type organisation thats nascent. If there was three sources per WP:THREE then it might have had a chance. scope_creep^Talk 11:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Springer book is available for free in PDF form: [33]. I'll save you the effort and point out it has 22 citations. You can look at pages 38-39, and it's mentioned elsewhere in the book, but based on the above I expect you'll reject that as well. Cheers. Oblivy (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've made your point and it's now time to stop commenting on every edit made, as it will rapidly start to appear like attempting to WP:BLUDGEON the AFD with spammy comments and pings. I've made my comment and stand by it and feel that scope_creep has proven without a shadow of a doubt this organisation is non-notable with coverage that is irrelevant, insignificant, non-independent or is routine.Macktheknifeau (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would benefit from input from editors other than scope creep and Oblivy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does anybody else have comments on this? scope_creep^Talk 19:57, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As there are no other comments, and we're coming up on another 7 days, I'd ask that this be closed as either keep (my vote) or no consensus. The article has been much improved and expanded, and whatever legitimate complaints Scope Creep may have had have long-since been addressed. There is no citation-count requirement in WP:GNG_source_criteria. If you want WP:THREE:

Oblivy (talk) 09:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the first entry, these are same references that have been comprehensively reviewed and rejected above. That first paper "Children’s digital playgrounds as data assemblages: Problematics of privacy, personalization, and promotional culture" is another low-cited paper. Can you stop commenting and trying to WP:BLUDGEON the Afd. scope_creep^Talk 10:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was just providing a concise summary. I'm comfortable with my conduct in this discussion. Oblivy (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not nor is the other editor. If you make another comment, I'm going to take you up to WP:ANI. scope_creep^Talk 15:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does anybody else have comments on this? scope_creep^Talk 15:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Input from other editors is still needed…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing notability, plenty of mentions, but the sources just aren't extensive. Source explanation shows most (if not all) are either trivial mentions or primary.

Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion notability has been established with sources provided by Oblivy. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have done exactly 24 Afd's. Not only that you offer no evidence on why the article is notable, which means the closing admin to likely to ignore your !vote. It's almost as though you have been here before, even though you have only been here for four weeks. This is the second time you've offered an evidence free !vote and its starting to bother me a bit. Your behaviour is suspicious. scope_creep^Talk 18:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up that this reads like a personal attack (specifically, accusing another editor of suspicious behavior and implying they may be lying about their history on Wikipedia). Your above comment threatening another editor with an ANI report if they make further comments on this AfD reads similarly. I recommend taking a breath here; there's no need for personal attacks. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 22:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its really curious how you've turned up barely any edits this year, nor spent any time at Afd, to support an editor whose been WP:BLUDGEON right through this Afd, plus supporting an editor who had done 24 Afd's and turned up a hour later after the previous delete !vote, when the article has been untouched for about two weeks. When folk turn up like this, from past experience of editing pattern, I think of socks working as a gang. scope_creep^Talk 23:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have made exactly 101 edits in 2023. What made you come to this Afd, out of the dozens of Afd that are on the go at the moment? scope_creep^Talk 23:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you need to stop assuming everyone is involved in some weird conspiracy against you, it's not WP:CIVIL and it's not cool. What does the number of edits I've made in 2023 have to do with anything I said above? I'm a sporadic editor because of real life commitments and shifting focuses. There is no universe in which that prohibits me from participating in the project. I'm on this page the normal way people wind up in AfD discussions; I was scrolling through recent listings and this was relisted today. You might notice I also participated in several other AfDs that were listed or relisted today.

I'm not even clear what you're accusing me of. I didn't weigh in on the deletion discussion here yet (I started looking into it, but I tend to do extensive research before putting in a !vote, and I haven't had time to do my own review of all the sources thrown around yet). I simply noticed you were being harsh to other editors, and thought maybe a gentle nudge from someone who wasn't already involved in the discussion might help serve as a reality check.

You also might wanna take a closer read of WP:BLUDGEON when you get a chance, especially the section titled Everyone gets to participate in discussions. People get passionate about their arguments and comment back and forth; tensions rise even over silly things (you know, like whether or not we should have an article for this minor NGO). I don't think back and forth responding to each others points quite rises to badgering—it's kinda normal AfD tension—but I can see why it would get interpreted that way. At the same time, I definitely see someone here telling people they aren't allowed to participate. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 00:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an NGO that doesn't seem to have merited any significant independent news coverage. I've reviewed all the sources listed here and the vast majority of them are academic papers or textbooks citing research done by the organization in question. I don't believe citations and references to an organization's research are particularly useful for establishing the notability of organizations; they might be useful for establishing the prevalence of a scientific term or field of research, but I don't think an organization's research being cited indicates notability of that org any more than it would for an individual researcher. I have no doubt that GPEN exists and is doing legitimate and valuable research within its field. At the same time, a notable organization would presumably have merited some significant coverage in newspapers or web news sources, and none seems to exist here. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments @Dylnuge but I’m puzzled at the idea that an organisation which receives ongoing mentions in the academic press[34] and has been the subject of detailed scholarly coverage (per WP:THREE above) is somehow not qualified by notability because it doesn’t get popular press mentions. The bar seems to be set impossibly high here, especially in comparison to other topics of mainly academic interest.

In fact, there are popular press mentions, some of which are in the article (e.g., Guardian, Daily Mail, and two I just added yesterday from Hong Kong Free Press and The Register; the Register article is quite lengthy). In fact, I created this article a number of years ago because it was mentioned in the press and Wikipedia drew a blank. There is also website coverage, esp. discussion among privacy lawyers. Mentions generated by the privacy commissioners themselves are not wholly independent, and because of the way this AfD discussion has gone, I’ve tried to keep things as WP:RS as possible (noting there’s no absolute bar on primary sources, except for notability).

I also appreciate your comments about civility. As you note above I’m apparently asking for trouble by commenting, although I’m sure we’re all relieved talk of sockpuppet gangs seems have dissipated. At this point, I don't care. It may be I’m too close to this article, but I feel deleting it would fail to make Wikipedia better, and would almost certainly make it (perhaps slightly) poorer. Oblivy (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you're mixing up verifiability and notability. The reliability of these sources is not the primary thing being questioned. What's in question is whether this is something that belongs in an encyclopedia. GPEN is an organization, meaning the WP:NCORP guidelines on applying WP:GNG are useful here. Notability works the same regardless of whether it's of mainly academic interest; we need coverage to be significant (in depth coverage and not just passing mentions) and independent (not the organization's own press releases or publications). The myriad sources I've reviewed—including ones I found in my own investigation of this topic—seem to exclusively consist of citations and passing mentions. I do not believe that bar is met.

WP:THREE is an essay suggesting that you pick your three best indicators of notability to help other editors quickly review and establish notability. It explicitly advises against throwing more and more sources at people (and curtly; it says "I'm not willing to slog through dozens of sources to evaluate them"). Saying something holds per WP:THREE doesn't make sense (it's an essay, not a policy) and you seem to be flouting the advice in the same sentence (i.e. you provided a link to a Google search, which strikes me as the exact opposite of curation).

Regarding the civility stuff, yeah, things here have gotten heated. I regret my second reply to @Scope creep above; had I taken a 30 minute break between writing and posting it, I would not have posted it. It adds nothing to this discussion on the value of including this article, and it's needlessly defensive. I'm sorry. If anyone feels the need for further discussion there, my talk page is open and feels like a more appropriate venue. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 05:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dylnuge My basic stance is "when in doubt include", but I can see why people would disagree. But one of your arguments puzzles me a bit. You write: "I don't think an organization's research being cited indicates notability of that org any more than it would for an individual researcher". But isn't that exactly one of the major factors in the case of researchers? WP:Notability (Academics) says: "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." Of course that need not translate to organisations and there's still the question of whether the threshold is reached and whether or not citations in non-scholarly publications count in the first place. So it may not make a difference in your evaluation of this particular article. I just wanted to point out that it may be relevant in other cases. And I agree that people should not rely too much on WP:THREE. It's more a statement about how people make decisions, not about how people should make decisions. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to that criteria; my phrasing may have been a bit unclear. There can be leeway on what constitutes "highly cited academic work" but I don't think the provided work would make an individual researcher notable, so I can't see how it'd make an entire organization notable on its own. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 19:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can see that. Your phrasing threw me a bit off because it sounded like you wouldn't take citation into account at all. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed by Dylnuge. CastJared (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: the user above has been commenting on a large number of AfDs in rapid succession with empty or "per X" !votes. The comment above is one of 6 they left in the same minute and one of 22 they left in the same five-minute window and is unlikely to be indicative of consensus. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 19:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The delete vote was striked because of sockpuppetry. CastJared (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and ORG. If someone finds three sources post them and I'll look. To be clear, Three sources are all that is needed here, three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, ping me.[35] // Timothy :: talk 05:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if you're serious but seeing as how the discussion has gotten a bit murky above (for which I take some, certainly not all, responsibility), these are good:

Cheers.Oblivy (talk) 03:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being mentioned as part of other work isn't SIGCOV. I can only find one source that isn't just a passing mention. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:11, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The best WP:THREE sources listed above don't meet the WP:ORGDEPTH thresholds. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon (Estonian TV programming block)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable, nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2022.

PROD removed with "result of PROD cannot be redirect?", not sure what that means. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Estonia. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No references, hard to find serious sources--Estopedist1 (talk) 06:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, a redirect would be better option than delete. Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect either to TV1 (Estonian TV channel) or Paramount International Networks#Nickelodeon given WP:ATD. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources and completely unexceptional block of Nicktoons which just happened to air on a main channel. Not every Nick-branded block is notable. Nobody is going to type this long title to end up dumped into an article without a mention of Estonia or Nickelodeon. Nate • (chatter) 23:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. – Joe (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Pan American Racquetball Championships[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Sources such as this [36] are primary. Also per Wikipedia:NOTDATABASE. Contested prod. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Guatemala. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - I was surprised this article was nominated for deletion, especially as the event in question is one of the qualifying events for the 2023 Pan American Games. The article details the latest edition of an annual international sporting event that's been happening for over three decades involving a sport recognized by the International Olympic Committee. It seems the lack of references is the basis for the nomination, so I've added references to the event most of which are in Spanish, as the winners were from Spanish speaking countries and it's usually the winners that make the press. Trb333 (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep for passing GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covered by multiple secondary sources; I don't understand how it's supposed to fail sigcov or GNG. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of newly added references would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn‎ per WP:HEY. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Brennan[edit]

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

No indication this is a notable individual, fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. I find all of four GNews hits about him; a general search turns up stats pages and Wikipedia mirrors but not much else. Primefac (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Education, Sports, Rugby union, United Kingdom, and England. Primefac (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ an internet search seems to bring about a BBC interview, but the page looks to have been taken down. I'd be interested to know if there's any offline coverage in Jersey media, where the team he played for are quite regularly covered, but I'd say weak delete for now. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is all thats left of that BBC interview & have bolded the only notable thing. BBC: "We've gone from level seven of the pyramid to level two and we're now disappointed that we've lost to a team who are 14th in the nation."

Brennan, 31, is the club's longest-serving player and in his 10th season at St Peter.

He has been part of the island side which has been

Jersey gained a bonus point from the weekend's match which leaves them six points above bottom-placed Doncaster.

"We're not really looking at Doncaster, we're looking at our games," added Brennan.

"We're looking to have our destiny in our own hands which we still do, we don't want to rely on other teams losing." PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found this stats site, but I don't have any money to pay for it. https://www.itsrugby.co.uk/players/brennan-jon-27005.html PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Got his net worth($5 Million) from this page: https://allfamousbirthday.com/jon-brennan/ PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Happy to update my vote to Weak keep given the sources added. It's still close on GNG, however there's clearly sourcing out there such as has been added. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of multiple sources added to the article, which was a woefully undersourced stub before but has now been expanded; unreferenced claims have been removed by nominator in line with BLP rules. Longest-serving player on the Jersey Reds, with 200 appearances during its ascent through six leagues to the RFU Championship; named to the RFU Championship Dream XV at the end of their first season at England's second-tier of rugby, at which time he was one of only a few Jersey-born players left on the team. More than enough coverage to satisfy WP:BASIC, which allows us to combine content from multiple independent sources to establish notability. Strongest national coverage for notability purposes are "Legend Brennan Ready for Siam Cup Farewell" on ITV, and The Guardian article in 2013 on the rapid ascent of the Jersey Reds, which has several paragraphs on Brennan (although some of those are direct quotes); Brennan was also interviewed in the BBC Sport article, "Jersey prop Jon Brennan says they have the quality to stay up". There is a lot of other coverage besides chronicling his career, and as a side note, there seem to be an awful lot of articles which feature his photo prominently (suggesting that he really was the "face of Jersey rugby" for an extended period). Cielquiparle (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since listing, the article has grown from stub status to something with numerous sources and references. There seems rot be enough articles featuring him specifically. Article was lacking info but this AfD has managed to turn it into a good piece.

RodneyParadeWanderer (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spring 2008 New York Fashion Week[edit]

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

Non-notable fashion week. The New York Fashion Week topic as a whole is notable, but don't see anything that makes the 2008 edition independently notable. Natg 19 (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and United States of America. Natg 19 (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling in, as this also does not seem independently notable:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as failing WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it cites seven sources, so passes GNG. With sporting events, we have articles on both the competitions as a whole and the individual events (e.g., Men's FIH Hockey World Cup and 1971 Men's Hockey World Cup). Why should we not do the same for fashion events? Furius (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The sources are mainly fashion industry so not independent. LibStar (talk) 09:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is to take a very broad definition of "independent". Sources for sporting events are mainly sports journalism, so not independent either. Furius (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this isn't so. The sources include the Daily Telegraph and The Washington Post. These are not fashion industry publications. Furius (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the links are dead so I cannot view them, but they are dated to 2007, so I do not know how they contribute to notability for the 2008 event. Natg 19 (talk) 15:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in the first sentence of the lead, the event took place in 2007. Furius (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is an excellent snapshot of a moment in time and could easily be expanded. Extensive coverage in The Guardian, Vogue, Slant Magazine, The Cut. To clarify for @Natg 19, Spring/Summer fashion weeks happen in the fall prior. So 2008 spring fashion week would take place in fall 2007.

It would be nice if editors would work to expand fashion articles they see as unfinished rather than dismissing them and nominating them for deletion. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additionally @Natg 19 WikiProject_Fashion uses Fall 2008 fashion weeks and, by extension, List of fall 2008 New York Fashion Week fashion shows (as it is linked in the article) as a way to anchor the project and add designers and brands to Wikipedia. It would be detrimental to the project to delete these articles; they are some of the only articles archiving fashion that we have. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 19:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Analysis of the proposed additional sources would be very helpful in determining what to do. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Slant and the Cut are actual articles about the event, the Guardian and the rest are photos of the outfits, with no critical analysis. Seems ok, I don't think the event was ground-breaking, but it's covered. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per prior comments. Fashion weeks (and this one is no exception) attract significant news coverage. There also are reviews of individual collections shown during fashion week (typically each collection is reviewed by multiple sources) so if we count those toward notability, which I think we should since generally individual collections do not have articles, you will be well over the minimum coverage required for an article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hanetball360[edit]

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

No independent or secondary sources, only press releases and promotional blurbs – the only possible exception (which is unreachable from outside the US so I can't see it) is the Sun Sentinel source, https://www.tribpub.com/gdpr/sun-sentinel.com/ , but a single source doesn't make a concept notable.

The article was very promotionally written with a lot of exaggerated claims; I have cleaned it up and removed several superfluous and inappropriate sources. I have not been able to find any independent sourcing, just press releases and churnalism in English and French. bonadea contributions talk 13:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Florida. bonadea contributions talk 13:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: here is the article before I started cleaning it up, in case someone else finds anything useful in there. --bonadea contributions talk 13:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The WSVN item twice calls the sport "obscure", not a very good endorsement of its notability. I haven't read the Sun Sentinel item because I would have to disable my ad blocker to do so. A Google search turns up a lot of social media and blog posts, press releases, and other questionable sources, but nothing new from reliable sources. Unless someone turns up more reliable sources, I expect to support a delete. - Donald Albury 16:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per submission. Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. A recently invented "sport", and so unsurprising that there isn't enough coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nothing meeting GNG has been noted, I now support deletion. - Donald Albury 12:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. – Joe (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jérémie Poirier[edit]

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

Article about a hockey player, not properly sourced as passing WP:NHOCKEY. His top notability claim is that he's a draft prospect to the NHL, which is not an "inherent" notability claim in and of itself -- the highest level he has actually played at so far is the farm team system, which is not a level of play that guarantees automatic inclusion in Wikipedia either.
His only basis for notability at this time would be if he could be shown to pass WP:GNG on his sourceability, but this is referenced entirely to primary sources self-published by his teams and their leagues, with not a single GNG-worthy reliable source shown at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if he actually takes ice in a real Calgary Flames game, but just playing for the farm team isn't enough to earn a Wikipedia article in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTAL violation to boot. Ravenswing 13:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article updated with WP:GNG quality sources. Player meets notability due to franchise records with Saint John Sea Dogs and All-Rookie AHL team. Arguably top honours. IceBergYYC (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What element of NHOCKEY do you claim this meets? Being named to an all-rookie team or setting a franchise record meets no notability criteria whatsoever. The criteria for junior league and minor-league players is quite specific: being an all-time top ten leading league scorer, or a First Team All-Star. Ravenswing 18:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meets general notability due to coverage of honours and records. NHOCKEY irrelevant. IceBergYYC (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Local interest coverage in local interest contexts doesn't help to establish notability of the "just because media coverage exists" variety. For a hockey player at the junior level, media coverage only builds a GNG pass if it's being given in the context of achievements that would satisfy a criterion listed in NHOCKEY, and does not build a GNG pass if it exists only in run of the mill contexts that hundreds of other players at the same level of play could likely also show. GNG is not just a numberL it also takes into account the context of what the person is getting coverage for, and considers local coverage in not-inherently-notable local contexts to be not worth all that much. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that full articles discussing the player in question, in both of the major newspapers for the city of 1+ million people, including the players above and beyond achievements at the junior and minor professional level are more than enough to satisfy GNG. I agree that a news article stating "Jeremie Poirier scored a goal in tonight's win" is run-of-the-mill and does not satisfy GNG. However, the cited articles are now GNG satisfactory. As for your statement that GNG is only applicable if used to satisfy SNG that is untrue. WP:ATHLETE states "Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline or another subject specific notability guideline." Poirier satisfies this. IceBergYYC (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that "For a hockey player at the junior level, media coverage only builds a GNG pass if it's being given in the context of achievements that would satisfy a criterion listed in NHOCKEY" is absolutely untrue. GNG means getting significant coverage from multiple, independent reliable sources. It does not specify that the reason for the coverage has to be one of the few achievement that provide presumed notability under NHOCKEY. While excepting "run of the mill" context that hundreds of other players at the same level of play could likely also show" has some validity (up to a point), most junior hockey players do not have multiple articles specifically about them in the Calgary Sun or in TSN, and most do not have additional coverage detailing their achievements and potential as a top prospect and potential first round draft pick. Rlendog (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG so NHOCKEY is not an issue. There is a full length piece about from the Calgary Herald/Calgary Sun in the article (and there is more available from the Herald/Sun as well that is not currently in the article), there is a full length piece from TSN, there are non-trivial items about him from the Hockey News and Hockey Writers. I haven't gone through all the sources listed in the article but that is enough to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources in the article show a pass of WP:GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article meets WP:GNG as per WP:HEY. Flibirigit (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this does not violate WP:BALL, this is just a new page so I think someone can close this with no consenesus. 174.27.4.51 (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I Could Tell You (poem)[edit]

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

Does not meet notability (WP:GNG) criteria. The fact that it is a poem by a notable author does not IMO merit a stand-alone article (see for instance WP:BOOKCRIT for comparison). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: per WP:BKD (adapting for poetry), would suggest poem receive coverage as part of a parent article (like Collected Poems [1945] or the poet's article). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If WP:BOOKCRIT is used then the subject passes points 1, 4 and 5. If the WP:GNG is used then it passes with flying colours, as shown by the sources cited in the article and those found by searches such as this. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources cited in the article consist of a personal blog, a poetry archive, and a reference about villanelles. The study guide is obviously more substantial. Some of the sources indexed in the link are trivial treatment - others not (Ferry 1996 and Miller 1981). I think my issue, thinking about it, is probably per WP:BKD - this would be better treated as part of the collection it originally came from (or as part of Auden's article). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those were not all of the sources cited in the article when you nominated it for deletion. There were also two books, including the study guide mentioned below. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the study guide, and the second of the two books was the 'reference about villanelles'. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This should never have been brought up for an AfD. The poem is covered in such a large number of academic articles and other books that I'm not going to attempt listing them all. Instead, I'll point out that Gale and Cengage Learning released a study guide for students covering only this poem. Let me repeat that: two of the biggest names in educational publishing released a study guide on this poem because it is so important. This poem absolutely meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon lists '3,000+' Gale/Cengage study guides, so I don't know that it's a particularly high bar for inclusion. There are other sources, for sure, but I'm not certain much of the coverage is not 'non-trivial' treatment (Ferry 1996 is an exception). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that 17 pages about the poem is trivial? If there are 3,000+ such study guides then that is 3,000+ instances of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of scepticism about the worth of the Gale/Cengage series (it seems in fact to excerpt from their reference workPoetry for Students) (who are the authors?), but that said it probably does count as a 'non-trivial' work for WP:GNG purposes. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to echo what Phil Bridger said and add that Gale and Cengage are gold standards as sources, especially with regards to literary topics. But since you want additional sources, here are a few: This New Yorker essay that references the poem, a Washington Post essay that does the same, a review in the Guardian where a poem by John Ashbery is compared to Auden's poem, a review of If I Could Tell You by Soumya Bhattacharya in Outlook India where it is explained Auden's poem inspired the novel's title -- these are merely what pops up in recent news searches for the poem. There are many, many more academic articles that reference or cover the poem. So again, this poem easily meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are so many, many books that cover this poem, some that cover Auden's works, and some that are specifically directed at this one (you can start with the GB link above provided by Phil Bridger). The subject passes WP:BOOKCRIT and WP:GNG. Jacona (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very widely discussed in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on my own search, I found there is sufficient analysis to establish this poem as notable. [37] [38] [39] should be sufficient. And that's without considering the Gale/Cengage study guides. The number of such study guides that exist does not concern me-- I have no doubt there are 3,000 notable literary works... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are vast numbers of individual poems or individual pieces of music that are included in Wikipedia and are rightly not proposed for deletion. What is the point of eliminating valuable knowledge? A good number of people have edited and added to this page. The poem itself is not run-of-the-mill and is noteworthy among Auden's considerable output, as shown by the evidence provided above by other reviewers. In particular, being one of the half-dozen most successful examples of the villanelle form in the English language qualifies this as sufficiently notable. That is also the reason why it would be unhelpful and inappropriate simply to roll it in with a collection of other poems which just happen to have been published in the same volume. Hyperman 42 (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, thanks to those who have provided other useful references regarding this poem; if (as I hope), the article is retained, please feel free to add them to the article, which will hopefully avoid any future challenges that the references aren't sufficiently significant. Hyperman 42 (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful not to misconstrue nominations to AFD as destructive or other to the purpose of Wikipedia - I'd hardly give my free time to be anything other than helpful. The consensus is unanimous in favour of keeping and, even if I have concerns about some sources and would favour a different set-up (merging with the 1945 original collection, which itself doesn't have an article!), mine is very clearly not the majority opinion. I'd also like to thank those who've taken the time to contribute to the proposal. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:53, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 03:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bowala[edit]

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

Full disclosure: I saw this page based on a comment from a contributor at Wikipediocracy, a website I very occasionally visit and have commented on occasionally.

Also nominated:

Bowala (7°16'N 80°37'E)
Bowala (7°9'N 80°43'E)
Bowala (7°10'N 80°34'E)

This is a disambiguation page between three "villages" all with the same name separated by relatively short distances. These are clearly all the same "village". Going to each of the locations on GMaps I see no obvious village at 7°16'N 80°37'E, nor at 7°9'N 80°43'E, nor at 7°10'N 80°34'E.

Each of the articles is supported only by a vague wave in the direction of the Sri Lanka government statistics website. Searching on there I see a few references to a Bowala as an "agrarian service centre" (e.g., 1 2 3) and that's it. Bowala appears to be potentially just a farm, in which case the appropriate standard for notability is WP:CORP.

Doing a WP:BEFORE I see only results for algorithmically-created site and people with the surname "Bowala". The sole exception is the website "HISTORY OF CEYLON TEA", which appears to be user-generated content, and describes the site as a tea estate established in 1870, however there is no real detail here that might point anywhere else and the site is of course unreliable for being user-generated content. There is no Sinhala wiki article for these places that I can identify. It's also possible that Bowala is a neighbourhood within the Dangola district of the city of Kandy, but the sourcing for this is solely Google Maps based on Wikipedia itself and when I click on addresses within this apparent neighbourhood (e.g., Vimala Buddhi School) none of them describes themselves as being within "Bowala". The boundaries shown on the map appear to be those of Dongala.

The actual sourcing of these articles is unclear, but given their creator these articles were likely created algorithmically based on GNS data. GEOnet Names Server data has been found to be unreliable for whether a place is populated under WP:GEOLAND.

Needless to say that other mass-created articles about what are really farms/"agrarian service centres" in Sri Lanka also need looking at, because these are not actually legally-recognised populated places. This is yet another sad result of the contention that Wikipedia is a geographical dictionary and should have the same coverage as geographical dictionaries do, coupled with a determination to include everything listed within unreliable and/or misunderstood sources. FOARP (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 09:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Disambiguations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Clearly not the same village, given they're separated by between 10 and 25 miles (that would be the largest village I've ever seen!). But I agree that there's no obvious evidence that they even are settlements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Necrothesp, thanks for your response. What I mean by "These are clearly all the same "village"" is that it is highly unlikely that there are really three "villages" all with the same name within a couple of dozen miles of each other, and probably only one location with that name. FOARP (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mass-created without adequate sourcing to establish notability, especially as three separate places. Reywas92^Talk 15:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are indeed sources indicating multiple locations in Sri Lanka called Bowala, but it appears to mean something like “estate” with the term “bowaladar” meaning something like “landlord” (see here) (btw I don’t speak Sinhalese) so I think this sits along with Dr Blofeld’s Libyan wells and CarlosSuarez46’s Iranian water pumps. Mccapra (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's indication of notability for any of these places; we don't even have sufficient sourcing to definitively tell us what they are. –dlthewave ☎ 03:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 12:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steven P. Mullins[edit]

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

Certainly accomplished, but I can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they meet notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, SEC filings and PR news don't help with RS, rest are passing mentions. I find pretty much the same level of coverage about him. Oaktree b (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very little that is in the article is verifiable in the sources. There are a lot of statements like: "Held many positions" that are sourced to one article that confirms that he held one position. I find no significant independent sources about him that would support notability, although there are a few local sources with "local boy did good" stories. I note that the article was created by an SPA who joined only in the last few weeks. Lamona (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Barnard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Working musician, but cannot find enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG. Was draftified, where another source was added (the Vive Le Rock), a review of his self-published album, and then returned to mainspace. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Doesn't he meet the criteria for having drummed in at least 2 notable ensembles. "Weak" because his significance in some of the ones listed is, well, weak...but criteria is criteria. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Besides the criteria mentioned by ShelbyMarion, it has significant coverage in several publications, like The Hamilton Spectator, Vive Le Rock, Rhythm. Wayaguo (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Basically, per above ShelbyMarion and Wayaguo. Manzzoku (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on current coverage, and being in 2 notable ensembles. Pershkoviski (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gorsi clan[edit]

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

One of many articles created by problematic user Hanshingling (talk · contribs); see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1125#Disruption. Originally prodded for failing WP:GNG and because the creator allegedly used a large language model, it was deprodded by a user who suspiciously deprodded three other articles created by Hanshingling, and who didnot make any actual improvements. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Punjab. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 12:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sir thanks You so much for replying and giving your precious time for the discussions. I will follow the Decision and Guidelines of Wikipedia and will not make any changes to these articles until the Discussion of Deletions of these articles not finish. Bensebgli (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC))) Sock. Abecedare (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Also, there is an open SPI investigation as well.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. // Timothy :: talk 21:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pyae Phyo Thu[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer. Sources cited don't come even close to establishing notability, and a search finds only the usual match stats and profiles, plus some social media. Previously draftified for lack of notability, but was published again, so here we are. Fails WP:GNG / WP:SPORTCRIT (and WP:NFOOTY no longer applies, whether or not this would have met that). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Myanmar. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - best I can find is Thanh Nien, which is a mention in a squad list for a youth fixture; not sure how anyone would consider this footballer notable enough for an encyclopaedia article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Less Unless (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Misadventures of the Dunderheads[edit]

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

The existing article has no significant independent sources, and I have been unable to find any. Note: an editor who claims to be the producer tried to delete the article for their own reasons - see User talk:Audiblefeast#April 2023 - but I am calling for deletion as non-notable. ColinFine (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Calmes, Holley (2013-03-13). "Independent filmmakers introduce 'The Dunderheads' in Suwanee". Gwinnett Daily Post. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.
  The article notes: ""Dunderheads" is the only one of the six independent films which is not a documentary. "This movie won Best Feature Film at The Big Apple Film Festival at Tribeca Center," said Toni Shrewsbury, Suwanee's special project coordinator. "The comedy in 'Dunderheads' is dark, kind of Fargo-esque." The film was directed by D.G. Brock, who has worked with legendary film producer Roger Corman and has been a Disney screenwriter. Producer Bruce Stubblefield's sound credits include three Academy Award winners. ... The movie also features veteran actors Olympia Dukakis and Haley Joel Osment. Film-goers will follow an eccentric family which includes a grandmother and two teens who get into funny but poignant situations as they travel to unplanned places."
2. ""Montana Amazon" Wins Big at the Big Apple Film Festival". IndieWire. 2010-11-12. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.
  The article notes: "D.G. Brock’s debut feature, “Montana Amazon – The Adventures of the Dunderheads,” was named as the Best Feature Film at the seventh annual Big Apple Film Festival. The comedy, starring Academy Award winner Olympia Dukakis (“Moonstruck”), Oscar nominee Haley Joel Osment (“The Sixth Sense”) and rising star Alison Brie (“Community,” “Mad Men”), follows a rural Montana family whose secluded existence is shattered after an accidental murder forces them to evade authorities on an attempted escape to Canada. Matters become complicated, however, when the trio accidentally drive south for their journey -taking them on a road trip through the American West, culminating in Mexico. Dukakis and Osment also served as Executive Producers on the film."
3. Smith, Jason (2008-03-31). "Scenes for independent film shot in Barstow" (pages 1 and 2). Daily Press. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "They needed to show life on the open road so they came to Barstow. Production crews and actors from the independent film "Montana Amazon" filmed scenes for their movie near the Harvey House, the Bagdad Cafe in Newberry Springs and locations in Amboy over the past several days. The movie, starring Hayley Joel Osment, Olympia Dukakis and Allison Brie, tells the story of a dysfunctional family's road trip across America. The family, led by a grandmother played by Dukakis, lives in rural Montana. After a killing occurs, the grandmother decides to move the family to Canada, but heads for Mexico instead."
4. Farner, Keith (2013-03-08). "Suwanee indie film series to feature Dukakis, Osment". Gwinnett Daily Post. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.
  The article notes: "On March 18, Movie Tavern will play host to "The Misadventures of the Dunderheads" as part of the Southern Circuit Tour of Independent Filmmakers. Actors Olympia Dukakis and Haley Joel Osment star in a film about an eccentric Montana family that includes a grandmother who can't read, a 17-year-old who accidently kills his best friend, and they flee with his 18-year-old sister on an adventure across the American West. They originally plan to escape to Canada, but end up in Mexico. The behind-the-scenes crew includes a Disney screenwriter and sound credits by three Academy Award winners. The film also won Best Feature Film at The Big Apple Film Festival at Tribeca Center. It's directed by D.G. Brock."
5. "Director, producer hold discussion, screening of 'MisAdventures' at Palace". The Gallatin News Examiner. 2013-03-13. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Greater Gallatin and the Palace Theatre presents "The MisAdventures of the Dunderheads," with director DGBrock and producer Bruce Stubblefield as part of the South Arts Southern Circuit Tour of Independent Filmmakers at the Palace Theatre in Gallatin on March 22. ... "The MisAdventures of the Dunderheads," follows an old Montana family who've been in the mountains too long, but are as all-American as apple pie and murder. Eccentric, strong-willed Grandmother Ira (Olympia Dukakis) is quietly raising her teenage grandkids, Womple (Haley Joel Osment) and Ella (Alison Brie) when Womple accidentally kills his best friend."
6. Less significant coverage:
  1. Moore, Roger (2010-10-31). "Fest grows, adds a little comedy". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "There will be a Q&A with Oscar winner Olympia Dukakis, Haley Joel Osment ("The Sixth Sense," "Secondhand Lions") and Alison Brie ("Mad Men," "Community") after their new movie, "Montana Amazon," screens Friday at 7:30 p.m."
    The article further notes: "'Montana Amazon': Olympia Dukakis is the crazy, chain-smoking, non-verbal granny who drags Haley Joel Osment and Alison Brie on a dizzy cross-country trek after Osment's character accidentally kills a friend. Is there a laugh in this road picture comedy? Maybe one. (Friday, 7:30 p.m.; Sunday, 6:30 p.m.)"
  2. Lawrence, Vanessa (2008-11-24). "Haley Joel Osment Grows Up in 'American Buffalo' Play". Women's Wear Daily. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.
    The article notes: "And despite his academic commitments, Osment has no intention to abandon it. He has already shot “Montana Amazon,” a “surreal” indie film in which he stars opposite Olympia Dukakis as her sheltered grandson living removed from society. (“Another below-intelligence character,” he grins.)"
  3. Perry, Byron (2008-07-21). "Players". Daily Variety. Vol. 300, no. 11. p. 10. EBSCOhost 33286726.
    The article notes: "Angel Oquendo has landed a role in "Montana Amazon," starring Olympia Dukakis, and "Vacancy 2," helmed by Eric Bross, Oquendo's credits include "Nip/Tuck" and '"Ocean's Thirteen.""
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Misadventures of the Dunderheads (previously known as Montana Amazon) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Donaldd23 (talk · contribs), who removed the proposed deletion. Cunard (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based upon all of the significant and reliable coverage detailed above that were identified by Cunard, this easily passes WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 11:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is This Tomorrow?[edit]

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

PRODded by BoomboxTestarossa (talk · contribs) with with concern issues not addressed for 12 years, also clearly written by subject or someone close to them, Google search brings up no notable independent sources to address notability concerns., then deprodded by StarTrekker (talk · contribs) for alleged mass PROD, but then reinstated by BoomboxTestarossa. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Webcomics. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per prod, unable to see any noteworthy places to redirect to. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum the article is also confusing as the more famous Is This Tomorrow is often referred to as the name as this article. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 2003 in webcomics. Hiding T 12:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am finding pretty much nothing regarding this comic in reliable sources - a few mentions here and there, but nothing close to significant coverage. I would be opposed to merging anything to the proposed 2003 in webcomics, and would in fact recommend removing its listing on that page, as it just does not seem like a notable enough example to be included there. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sourcing is insufficient. If creator ultimately decides to accept draftspace, I'm happy to provide it. Star Mississippi 02:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alvaro Diaz (nobleman)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. The only claim of significance is that he was Tenente of Siero, Asturias, and the only source cited (this) has no publisher, author or isbn, so is almost certainly not reliable by our standards. Alvaro Diaz is a common name, so searching for it yields many results. A search for "Alvaro Diaz" AND "Siero" gets:

no hits on JSTOR
16 hits on Scholar, of which one verifiably includes "Alvaro Diaz" (the pdf is not searchable, so I haven't confirmed whether it's the same person).
Gbooks gives a good number of hits apparently for this person; he was tenente of Siero, he bought a farm, he made a donation.

There's no in-depth coverage that I can see.

Note: he may also be called Alvar Díaz
Note 2: I've twice declined WP:A7 on this page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Spain. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add to this discussion that I think he is notable because he is a Tenente which is equivalent to a governor of medieval Spain. Simply because he is a Tenente is enough cause for notability, add to that that he is part of a long lineage of a noble family and the point is strengthened.

The source which I cite has primary sources cited for every thing which it states along with numerous direct quotations from medieval charters and so it is a accurate and reliable source. I would cite the primary sources instead but I don't think its necessary and proposing to delete the article simply because the primary sources are not directly cited is not very productive.

Also the category of people of medieval Spain is extremely underrepresented in Wikipedia, furthermore the lack of secondary sources for this period is due to a failure by the scholarly community not from a lack of primary sources. Even so the number of secondary sources and primary sources should be sufficient to support this as reliable and notable.

If given enough time I will get around to citing the primary sources if it is absolutely necessary. --Tgec17 (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TNT, since the creator objects to draftifying and the source is not RS. This figure might be notable, but I will not attempt to fix this page, since it would be the same as starting from scratch. Srnec (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC) — A source that may establish notability is this one. Srnec (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia doesn't have an article about Tenentes, that page is a redirect to Lieutenant which doesn't describe the position as having a political or administrative role but as a middle-class rank in the armed forces of many nations. Then there is Lieutenant governor which is a deputy or the second-in-command in some Western countries like the U.S. and Canada but no mention of this office in Spain, medieval or at other times. And our article on Tenentism in Brazil describes "tenentes" as junior army officers. I understand it is likely that the meaning of the term has changed over time but using the resources of the project, there is no indication that a Tenente served as a governor or that this role, in itself qualifies a subject to meet Wikipedia's standards for automatic notability whether the officer came from a noble family or a common one. Notability is not inherited because your ancestors were important. Notability has to be verified by the sources included in the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: The office of a (medieval) tenente is a tenencia, which redirects to tenant-in-chief. The Spanish Wiki has articles at es:tenente and es:tenencia feudal. The modern Spanish word for lieutenant is es:teniente (from lugarteniente), "tenente" being Portuguese and Italian. The medieval term is synonymous with "fiefholder", but I thought a redirect to the etymologically related term made more sense, especially given that, like tenants-in-chief, tenentes held directly from the crown. Srnec (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even assuming everything is true, he is mentioned once or twice in primary sources in the historical record, dealing with trivia, which falls far short of what we require as significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Sourcing has been found. Star Mississippi 16:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geron Davis[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and the WP:SNG for people in general, but also musicians under WP:MUSIC. Certainly well known in Baptist circles, but seemingly not much more outside of that. I’m all for good Christian music as a Christian myself, but there’s not much out there about Davis. He won the GMA Dove Award but is that enough to justify keeping this article up? — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 07:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, and Christianity. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 07:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He appears in a lot of directories that list modern Christian songs, and sites for church-affiliated retailers. I can find nothing that qualifies as significant coverage, even from Christian music magazines like CCM Magazine, beyond minor credits as a songwriter and brief mentions of being present at awards shows. Even the award that he won didn't get much coverage beyond a list of winners. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a very poor decision to delete Geron Davis. He's one of the most prolific songwriters in contemporary Gospel and Praise & Worship over the past 40 years and one of the rare songwriters who's songs are immortalized in almost every hymnal. His songs have been recorded by an unbelievable amount of high profile, award winning artists in various genres, and he's got a long list of albums on thre of the largest Christian Music labels (Integrity's Hosanna! Music, Brentwood-Benson, and Word Music). How is that insignificant?

CCM profiles CCM artists. Geron Davis is a worship leader and traditional gospel music artist, not a CCM artist. They're not the same thing. The fact that he's won and been nominated for Dove/GMA awards is pretty significant. Thebuilder (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that everything you said has no backup in reliable sources, either in the article or in this discussion. If there is backup I could be persuaded to change my vote, but Wikipedia is not a place for hearsay. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dove is a major award, passes ANYBIO #1. Jclemens (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Dove is not a national accolade by any means. If you contrast this to, say, an Emmy, those are awarded by professional associations. The Gospel Music Association (who awards the Dove), on the other hand, is a non-profit. Now that I think about it, Davis having won the award is further proof towards the fact that he is well known mainly in the gospel music/CCM scene, but not particularly notable outside of that community (I guess you can call it a community, but you get my point haha). — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 18:35, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Dove Awards/GMAs are a national accolade. The GMAs (along with the Stellar awards) are to Christian Music what the CMAs are to Country. Both are nationally televised and their genre-specific awards are treated with the same prestige in those arenas. Thebuilder (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: Being a nonprofit does not preclude it from being a professional association. 501c3/Nonprofit is a tax status. It has nothing to do with whether or not its a professional organization. Many professional organizations and agencies are nonprofit. The GMAs have a board like other professional organizations that is headed by top industry professionals (record label executives, composers, artists, etc.). Thebuilder (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geron Davis isn't a baptist. He was raised as part of the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI) and his songs are song in almost every denomination. Davis is not only important because of how "popular" he is in a certain circle. His music is historically significant in the sacred/gospel music categories. The amount of publications alone that his songs appear in verifies that. His music has had direct influence on some of the most influential gospel music artists of the past 30 years.

He's been a popular artist himself. His song "Holy Ground" was in the top 100 songs sung by the global church for like 25-30 years and is in contemporary hymnals. His songs have been recorded by Barbara Streisand, Dolly Parton Israel Houghton & New Breed, Phillips, Craig & Dean, The Gaithers, Hillsong, Darlene Zschech, Michael W. Smith, Alvin Slaughter, TD Jakes, Brooklyn Tabernacle Choir, Sandi Patti, 4Him, Vicki Yohe, and many more. Thebuilder (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, the The Recording Academy (formally the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences; abbreviated NARAS) which is the organization that holds the Grammys is also a 501c3 nonprofit organization. Thebuilder (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article and BEFORE fail to show anything meeting IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Source eval:

Promo about song, no direct and indepth information about the subject. >> 1. Christensen, Phil; MacDonald, Shari (2000-09-27). Our God Reigns: The Stories Behind Your Favorite Praise and Worship Songs. Kregel Publications. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-8254-2369-7. Retrieved 16 November 2010.
MySpace, promo primary >> 2. ^ Davis, Geron. "Geron Davis Biography". Geron Davis Biography. Retrieved 26 November 2011.

BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject direct and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy (WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines (WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV). BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV, game news, database, promo. // Timothy :: talk 04:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons already listed above Thebuilder (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the Dove award counts for notability, we'd need better sourcing for the article though. Oaktree b (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Norton, Virginia (2001-05-19). "Songwriter Has Taken Many to 'Holy Ground'". The Augusta Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
  The article notes: "On a Sunday morning 20 years ago, Geron Davis rousted his younger brother and sister out of bed to teach them a song he had written the night before. Their minister father expected them to sing it that day in the new sanctuary of his church in Savannah, Tenn. On Holy Ground, a song Mr. Davis wrote in 15 minutes, has been heard by millions of people since. It was sung at President Clinton's inauguration and at his mother's funeral and was recorded a couple of years ago by Barbra Streisand for her album Higher Ground."
2. Withers, Robert C. (2003-03-22). "Gospel singer Davis to perform in Huntington". The Herald-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
  The article notes: "Geron Davis stands in awe - yet today.Twenty-three years ago, the Savannah, Tenn., preacher's kid entered the new sanctuary of his father's church, dimmed the lights, sat at the keyboard of a new grand piano, plunked out a few chords and tried to get inspired. ... Barbra Streisand - having heard the song at the funeral of Virginia Kelley, President Clinton's mother - recorded it on her "Higher Ground" album in 1997, which sold 5 million copies in its first three months. Davis' tune has since been discussed by the likes of Rosie O'Donnell, Barbara Walters and Time magazine."
3. Usberghi, Sue (1991-07-13). "Davis will perform at tabernacle". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
  The article notes: "Geron and Becky Davis were raised in pastors' homes and met in 1981 while attending college in Jackson, Miss. The Davises are songwriters. Mr. Davis' song Holy Ground, written when he was 19, was the group WORD's best-selling anthem for 1986 and was nominated for the Gospel Music Association's Song of the Year in 1988. His second song to be recorded by a major artist, Gentle Hands performed by Truth, was his first song to reach the charts."
4. Paoletta, Michael (2003-02-15). "Let It Rain". Billboard. EBSCOhost 9093001. Archived from the original on 2023-05-07. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
  The article notes: "Geron Davis has long been one of Christian music’s most respected songwriters, and it’s his talent as a writer that provides much of the foundation for this highly listenable album. For this set, Davis penned eight of the 11 cuts, and he and his wife, Becky; Alyson Lovern; and Shelton Lovern turn in compelling performances."
5. Terry, Lindsay (2008). I Could Sing of Your Love Forever: Stories Behind 100 of the World's Most Popular Worship Songs. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson. p. 153. ISBN 978-1-4185-1969-8. Retrieved 2023-05-07 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Geron Davis was born in Bogalusa, Louisiana, in 1960, into the home of Pastor Gerald and Patricia Davis. As a child he would listen to recordings of his favorite singers, whose arrangements were done by Lari Goss, composer of "Cornerstone," and try to pick out their intricate harmonies. Now, as an accomplished musician, Geron has ministered with the choirs of such great churches as Christ Church in Nashville, Brooklyn Tabernacle in New York City, and Prestonwood Baptist Church in Dallas."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Geron Davis to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources show that this person is in fact notable enough for an article. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 16:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 13:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Pollock[edit]

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

Aaron Pollock

This Lugnuts stub biography of a living person of a rower does not satisfy any current provision of sports notability or general notability. The one reference is a database entry, and so is not a secondary source. If a source that provides significant coverage can be found within seven days, that will be a Heymann result. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and California. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are already two RS with sigcov in the article, if not used very well. Kingsif (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Seems to weakly pass GNG with the two sigcov pieces in the article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the two SIGCOV sources already in the article, this source probably meets sigcov, although I can't tell for sure because it's paywalled. — SamX [talk · contribs · he/him] 01:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant excerpt here:
The PAC is a popular training center where Moore and Pollock have trained at since graduating. Pollock spent two years on the San Diego State rowing team before moving to Philadelphia. Aside from the week stay in Tampa, he and other oarsmen spend the winter months preparing for the day they can take to the water. "In the fall, we row and do a lot of aerobic and (weight) lifting training," Pollock said. "In the winter we train indoors focusing on working with weights. Then it's back in the water and we de-emphasize weight training and incorporate high intensity aerobic workouts."

Not really SIGCOV in my estimation, but contributes to a body of marginal coverage. Suriname0 (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the evidence provided above by other editors. Although the article does still need to be expanded a bit. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. Expansion of an article is not a reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 13:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crow Village Sam[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPERSON notability guideline. Nice little story, but this guy lived in a tiny town and didn't really do anything notable and its largely unsourced. Rusf10 (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Crow Village, Alaska I found the one source that is listed in the article and the guy has an interesting life but he doesn't pass WP:GNG. He does give a lot of history of the area and it is recorded in the source, not enough for an article but enough to move some of the content over to the Crow Village, Alaska article. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Alaska. Rusf10 (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I've added more info but being a major ethnographic informant for Yup'ik culture and founding a community are both extremely notable. Yuchitown (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Strong keep. per Yuchi Indigenous girl (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per changes by Yuchitown. oncamera _{(talk page)} 02:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now that the article has been expanded, and more relevant content was recently added by Yuchitown. Seems decent enough for keeping. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:53, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Fitzgerald[edit]

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

I am not seeing anything suggesting encyclopedic notability for this mostly-local news anchor. BD2412 T 03:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Alabama, and Virginia. BD2412 T 03:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not much there, aside from self-generated publicity regarding a departure from a news network and the hosting of a political debate [40], [41], [42], as well as subtle passing mentions in books [43]. No significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. Multi7001 (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ . ✗plicit 23:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tabitha Fringe Chase[edit]

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

A FOIA request and passing mentions over a baggy pants debate don't seem to establish notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable "activist" with no sourcing found. The FOIA request isn't even linked, could be fake for all we know. Oaktree b (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is real: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/spyfiles/georgia_foia.pdf CT55555(talk) 12:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sexuality and gender, and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. The article was badly formatted, with most references presented as external links, some of them dead. I've fix most of that, more work is needed. This wasn't an easy !vote as she is mostly known for one thing and policy normally directs us away from biographies about people arrested but not charged. However, that policy stems from privacy concerns. As she has written about her arrest, clearly she doesn't seek privacy, in fact she is trying to draw attention to her arrest. Therefore, privacy concerns aside, is she notable enough? She is noted for two things, the FBI arrest and then protesting an underwear bar, so WP:BLP1E doesn't discount this as she is not low profile at all, and there are two events, even if one is minor. CT55555(talk) 13:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your cleanup work, but they still have to meet GNG. If you look at the attention she received for the second, the sources I saw literally just mention her name and that she was holding a sign, not SIGCOV. I also don't think the IWW sources are reliable. There's no evidence of fact checking or any editorial process-- it just seems like a blog to me. That leaves us with the Atlanta Progressive News, a reasonable source. I can't see one reliable source with significant coverage establishing notability, especially since there seem to have been absolutely no mentions of Chase that don't occur in 2005 or 2007. For notability to be established, I'd expect some coverage beyond the immediate aftermath of those two events. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is fair. We could say she passes WP:BASIC but that would rely on IWW being a reliable source...I'm reconsidering.... CT55555(talk) 15:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: To say she passes WP:BASIC, we'd need to have at least one solid, reliable source with significant coverage. I just looked more carefully at https://archive.iww.org/node/1832/ which seems to share content published elsewhere, in this case from Creative Loafing, which seems not like a reliable source based on info I saw here: https://creativeloafing.com/about-us I therefore am about to withdraw my !keep vote. I'm probably a weak delete at this point, but prefer to consider for a bit before updating my !vote, I'm keen to see what others say. CT55555(talk) 16:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's been nothing since 2007, so no sustained coverage. We've settled the FOIA issue I mentioned in my first comment, but I'm still not seeing notability even with the points raised in the discussion above. Same !vote as above. Oaktree b (talk) 02:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. There's no substantive "there" there, for this one. None of her varied professions make her notable. Nor does being questioned by the FBI for her plans to visit Iraq during the Iraq War. That would seem routine considering the chosen destination and the time period. The sourcing for that is an article written by Tabitha Chase herself. And so what if her file was obtained by the ACLU? Being one among other protestors regarding the proposed Atlanta City's regulations banning the display of underwear in public is meaningless. It just means she showed up to protest with a group of others. — Maile (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disha Vadgama[edit]

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

Only The Times of India source , No reliable sources found. Fails WP:BIO. AShiv1212 (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, India, and Gujarat. AShiv1212 (talk) 01:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Fashion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Mentions in the Free Press Journal and the Telegraph India, unsure how RS they are, seem iffy. I can't find any further sources to support keeping this. Oaktree b (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failed WP:NBIO WP:GNG & free press journal is not a reliable source. Hukumat Namanzoor (talk) 13:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another Indian fashion/beauty person with no evidence they have done anything worth noting. I don't think we can even consider the "Times of India" either per WP:TOI and Paid news in India. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. A potential merger discussion can continue on the Talk if needed. I don't see a 4th relist bringing any consensus here when opinions are split on whether the sourcing is significant Star Mississippi 13:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The XY Factor[edit]

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

Appears to not be notable, as nothing was found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2022. Previously deleted in a PROD in 2022, but REFUNDed shortly afterward. No improvements made to establish notability since then. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sexuality and gender, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Orphaned article. A quick Google suggests that this is not notable and that there are other things that might even have a better claim to this article title (not necessarily a good claim, just a better one). --DanielRigal (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I've added these sources to the article:
1. Kalina, Paul (2004-03-04). "Thursday". The Age. Archived from the original on 2023-04-07. Retrieved 2023-04-07.
2. Bellman, Annmaree (2004-04-08). "Thursday". The Age. Archived from the original on 2023-04-07. Retrieved 2023-04-07.
3. Stewart, Susan (2002-03-16). "The XY Factor". Vol. 50, no. 11. TV Guide. p. 49. ProQuest 236448459.
4. Yarborough, Trin (2005). Surviving Twice: Amerasian Children of the Vietnam War. Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books. ISBN 1-57488-864-1. Retrieved 2023-04-07 – via Google Books.
5. "TV Highlights". Philadelphia Daily News. 2001-09-07. p. 70. ProQuest 1894860965.
6. Washburn, Mark (2001-09-08). "Mark Washburn Recommends". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2023-04-07. Retrieved 2023-04-07.
7. Washburn, Mark (2002-01-26). "Mark Washburn Recommends". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2023-04-07. Retrieved 2023-04-07.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The XY Factor to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see this as significant coverage. It is reasonable for use as verification, and it does move us a little closer to demonstrating notability, but I don't think it gets us over the line. We have some one paragraph descriptions and extremely cursory reviews in TV listings, which I see as routine coverage. The book gives it a single passing mention. Admitedly, I don't have access to all the sources listed above but, unless the ones I can't see are very substantially better than the ones I can, I still feel that is only good enough to support a mention somewhere else and not a stand alone article. DanielRigal (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The sources "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail" so are sufficient to allow The XY Factor to meet the notability guideline. I was able to significantly expand the article with these sources. Cunard (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Nfitz (talk · contribs), who requested a WP:REFUND of the article. Cunard (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wasn't able to find any significant coverage of this series. I don't believe that any of the sources listed by Cunard (including the ProQuest sources, which I have access to) provide significant coverage; none of them are more than a paragraph long, and most of them are simple episode summaries with very little critical commentary. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart 2003 provides 133 words of coverage about the subject and Bellman 2004 provides 124 words of coverage about the subject. This meets the "significant coverage" requirement of Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Bellman 2004 includes this sentence of critical commentary: "This fascinating, almost pulp, instalment of the US documentary series is frank and revealing, although there's little attempt to examine the lot of the prostitutes." Cunard (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, the article can be merged/redirected to List of programs broadcast by History (American TV network)#Documentary Films, where The XY Factor is mentioned. I prefer a standalone article over a merge because it is unclear how much of the article's content can be merged to that list, which currently has only a list of the programs' titles without providing any further information about those programs. Cunard (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I asked for a refund, as I felt that at a minimum it's a redirect to the network. Now I see how that article has been improved and referenced, I believe it should be kept! Nfitz (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Cossack[edit]

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

This former TV legal analyst fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROMO, other than being a lawyer that was interviewed on CNN, I don't see anything we can use for notability. Visiting prof at the university isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above, and article is all primary sources. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 04:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Individual does not appear to pas WP:ANYBIO given the lack of sources available. Quick citation check does not hint at possibility of this person meeting WP:ACADEMIC either MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Law. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. 2001:4455:61D:DB00:4184:9335:4EB4:685F (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: IP has only three edits all in AFD MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 13:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bajo el alma[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2022.

PROD removed with "won award", but that is not mentioned in the article, no link to that information was added to the article, and a search did not provide any information as to what the award is. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Mexico. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no SIGCOV to satisfy WP:GNG. – Meena • 10:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’ve added some content and refs but still not sure it passes. It’s mostly churnalism and PR rather than in depth coverage. The fact that it was the channel’s first production and that it won the award for worst new Telenovela May help a bit. Mccapra (talk) 07:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 00:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rapture of the Deep (novel)[edit]

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

Non-notable book. JJLiu112 (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. JJLiu112 (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to L.A. Meyer. Though one can find a trivial review or two, this book does not meet WP:NBOOK on its own strength and should be re-directed to the author's page. JohnmgKing (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to L.A. Meyer - I've also been unable to find coverage of the book in reliable sources, or sufficient reviews to pass WP:NBOOK. The best I found was this short review from the Bangor Daily News. Redirecting to the author's page is a clear WP:ATD, though. Rorshacma (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think a redirect would be useful. We uh... We also need to consider deleting Bloody Jack (novel), Curse of the Blue Tattoo, Under the Jolly Roger, In the Belly of the Bloodhound, Mississippi Jack, My Bonny Light Horseman, The Wake of the Lorelei Lee, and The Mark of the Golden Dragon after this close. SWinxy (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
1. McGarrigle, Dale (2009-09-27). "'Rapture of the Deep' filled with adventure". Bangor Daily News. Archived from the original on 2023-04-16. Retrieved 2023-04-16.
  The review notes: "“Rapture of the Deep” is filled with figures from Jacky’s past, some aiding her, others serving as obstacles in her path. In this latest, adventure-packed installment, Jacky continues to mature and become more respectable, but proves she’s still the poor London street urchin readers discovered in the first book of the series. Here’s hoping she never grows up entirely."
2. Oravec, Kristen (December 2009). "Rapture of the Deep: Being an Account of the Further Adventures of Jacky Faber, Soldier, Sailor, Mermaid, Spy". School Library Journal. Vol. 55, no. 12. ISSN 0362-8930. EBSCOhost 45722442.
  The review notes: "She taunts and teases every man she meets and seems not to care about running around naked or half-naked in front of them. There is much sexual innuendo and an attempted rape scene. The secondary characters seem to be little more than cardboard cutouts, especially the pirates. Fans of the series will eat this title up, but for a better-drawn heroine in a historical adventure, try Jennifer Holm's excellent "Boston Jane" series (HarperCollins)."
3. Connie, Rockman (2010-10-15). "Rapture of the Deep: Being an Account of the Further Adventures of Jacky Faber, Soldier, Sailor, Mermaid, Spy. By L. A. Meyer. Read by Katherine Kellgren". Booklist. Vol. 107, no. 4. p. 68. ISSN 0006-7385. EBSCOhost 55061769.
  The review notes: "If there were an Olympic gold medal for verbal gym- nastics, Kellgren would certainly be a contender. In her reading of this seventh title in the Bloody Jack series (three previous audios are Odyssey Award honor titles, beginning with Bloody Jack: Being an Account of the Curious Adventures of Mary “Jacky” Faber, Ship’s Boy in 2008), Kellgren expertly juggles Jacky’s Cockney accent, the proper upper-class British tones of Higgins and fiancé Jamie, various speech patterns of Spanish and Caribbean officers and merchants, and the softly cadenced southern tones of Jemima, a cook Jacky buys at a Charleston slave market and promptly sets free."
4. Phelan, Carolyn (2009-09-01). "Rapture of the Deep: Being an Account of the Further Adventures of Jacky Faber, Soldier, Sailor, Mermaid, Spy". Booklist. Vol. 106, no. 1. p. 86. ISSN 0006-7385. EBSCOhost 44153405.
  The review notes: "Meyer weaves details of nineteenth-century history, lore, and ballads into a fast-paced and often amusing swashbuckler. Fans of the Bloody Jack Adventure series will relish the latest escapades of this decidedly unconventional heroine."
5. Storms, Aarene (2010-03-09). "Book Review - Rapture of the Deep by L.A. Meyer". Shoreline Area News. Archived from the original on 2023-04-16. Retrieved 2023-04-16.
  According to this page^{Internet Archive}, Shoreline Area News has editorial oversight. The review notes: "Action, adventure, brawling, singing, dancing, swimming and shooting. Bloody Jack fans, rejoice! This series is recommended for readers--and listeners-ages 8 to adult. The story contains some minor cussing (in English and Spanish), and some bloodshed (including post-battle medical scenes) and some very tactful sexual references, none of which should alarm any but the most fainthearted of readers."
6. Additional reviews from this Amazon page:
  1. "The author has done his homework, weaving many painless history lessons into the book. With its strong female character, fast pace, and fine writing, this will be a book difficult for the young adult reader to put down and one that will leave the reader craving the next title." —Children's Journal
  2. "Fans who have read the previous titles in the series will be treated to a fresh escapade and familiar characters but the story can stand alone for new readers. This will appeal to anyone who enjoys historical fiction, strong female heroines, adventure, and pirates." —VOYA
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Rapture of the Deep to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For evaluation of the sources provided above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources seem fine. The Bangor News Journal isn't the NYT, but it's a review, the rest are fine when put together to meet notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given sources found by Cunard. Some are short, but cobbled together, I think this meets NBOOK/GNG requirement of at least two independent, in-depth sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree the book is notable Computer-ergonomics (he/him; talk; please ping me in replies ) 04:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Koop[edit]

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

Non-notable sound engineer. Gsearch is straight to social media links, no mentions in RS, no awards won. Oaktree b (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost all of the cited sources are just trivial mentions, YouTube video, and promotional content. The last cited article almost reads like an RS, if not for the link to the subject's fundraiser at the very bottom. Found no significant coverge to satisfy WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eatza Pizza[edit]

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

Could not find significant coverage to meet GNG. Gnews yields very little despite this being an US company. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Arizona, and Connecticut. AllyD (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Interesting how things can fall behind to history. I found [44], which seems to indicate that it had some cultural standing. Oddly enough, the phrase "Eatza pizza" is in my personal lexicon, not till now did I realize this was its source. I am seeing a few sources talking about its closing: [45], [46], [47]. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Villarreal, Phil (2002-07-12). "Diners buffeted by pizza at Eatza Pizza locations". Arizona Daily Star. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.
  The restaurant review notes: "Granted, the Eatza Pizza fare isn't the tastiest. You won't need to be pulled, kicking and screaming, out of the restaurant when it closes. The pizza is a bit greasy and somewhat cardboard-crusted. The quick-working staff keeps up to 12 pizzas on the shelf for people to pick from. The standard fare includes pepperoni and veggie varieties. ... The salad bar is serviceable but spartan. Lettuce, bell peppers, celery, tomatoes, mushrooms, onions, cucumber and croutons are included, as well as a choice of four dressings. But come on — you're not coming to Eatza Pizza for the salad."
2. Tanner-Brown, Stephanie (2002-07-25). "Eatza Pizza offers heaps of treats for very cheap". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.
  The restaurant review notes: "I took my family to the pizza buffet called Eatza Pizza. There are three locations, in Orem, West Jordan and Ogden — all cleverly situated in neighborhoods thick with large families. ... I found that the best pies were the popular ones, mostly because the slower movers had lost their crispy, steamy edge and had gone soggy. The crust at Eatza is just too doughy to hold up over time. ... I wasn't crazy about Eatza's red sauce. It tastes very plain. It seems to be what goes into the baked ziti as well. I also wasn't crazy about the bread sticks. They tasted as if they'd been double rolled in garlic salt. Eatza Pizza has a lot of things going for it, despite some mediocre selections."
3. Domeier, Robin Hall (2007-03-07). "Out to Lunch - Eatza Pizza, but Don't Miss the Chicken". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.
  The restaurant review notes: "Eatza Pizza offers 20 varieties of pizza. If you don't see what you want, the staff takes requests. Among my favorites: simple pepperoni, sausage, and supreme (green pepper, onion and sausage). The salad bar was the weakest offering. There just wasn't much to it. Dessert includes cinnamon rolls that had an off-putting salty taste. Cherry pizza, with a sheer layer of cherry pie filling and ample drizzling of white icing, was better."
4. Radigan, Mary (2005-01-14). "Buffet offers bounty of pizza - Eatza Pizza serves up food, fun at family prices". The Grand Rapids Press. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.
  The article notes: "This is the first Eatza Pizza in Michigan and one of at least three scheduled to open this year. Other locations include Lansing and Southfield. The three Michigan sites are owned and operated by Tim Pugh, a Lansing resident and former partner in Damon's Restaurants, as well as former chief operating officer for Big Buck Brewery & Steakhouse. The corporate Eatza Pizza is a Scottsdale, Ariz.-based franchise, with 58 restaurants in seven states. Eatza Pizza focuses on pizza dough prepared daily and fresh ingredients. Varieties range from the standard pepperoni and cheese, to chicken alfredo and vegetarian. Two types of pasta, three pasta sauces and a salad bar are included."
5. Kershner, Jim (2004-08-28). "Who gives a hoot what editors think?". The Spokesman-Review. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.
  The restaurant review notes: "So I started in on my pizza. The most amazing thing about Eatza Pizza is the variety. Some of those 12 pizzas were your routine varieties, like pepperoni. But there was also a barbecue chicken pizza, a taco pizza and even a Spinach Alfredo pizza with white sauce. ... Now, as for quality, it was just fine. Please understand, the preceding sentence was written in my capacity as thrifty food consumer, not as professional restaurant reviewer. These aren’t gourmet pizzas. No one will ever mistake Eatza Pizza for Bennidito’s. These are cheap pizzas sitting under heat lamps. However, as the sign overhead states, they use 100 percent real cheese, they slice their own veggies, prepare their own dough and "blend" their sauce there every day. If I were to use one phrase to describe the pizza it would be: "Beats frozen.""
6. Campanelli, John (2006-11-03). "Kids, pizza and games: They're OK, you're OK". The Plain Dealer. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28.
  The restaurant review notes: "But after a visit to Eatza Pizza, there might be a place that kids can love and parents can, um, tolerate. ... The place has a few things going for it: It's clean. It's cheap. The noise isn't at ear-bleeding levels. It's buffet-style. And the all-you-can-eat grub isn't dog food. ... What made Eatza Pizza bearable was the scaled-down game area and the desserts. You can sit at a table in relative peace, sip coffee, snack on a slice of cinnamon pizza and just watch your kids waste their tokens and further shorten their attention spans."
7. Larson, Lisa (2006-11-24). "Kid-friendly Eatza Pizza won't break the bank". The Spectrum. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The restaurant review notes: "On the up side, the restaurant is clean, spacious, brightly lit and filled with foods few kids will decline. The down side is it's a buffet which often means trading quality for quantity. ... Looking with a child's eyes I'd say this place ranks around three or even three and a half stars. But if you have an adult palate to satiate, the food experience lands around two and a half."
8. Kirby, Kathy (2007-11-08). "Eatza Pizza treat for pie lovers, fams with kids". The Star Press. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The restaurant review notes: "Founded in 1997, the Eatza Pizza franchise has about a dozen locations nationwide. This Muncie restaurant is the first one in Indiana. ... Also very flavorful, with a good amount of toppings and cheese. I liked the pizza sauce on these slices-tangy with a tomato taste—and the crust, which is thick on the edges, but thin in the middle."
9. Navarro, Bruno J.; Ortiz, Peter (2000-03-25). "Eatza Pizza has bargain prices, tasty buffet". The Arizona Republic. Archived from the original on 2023-04-28. Retrieved 2023-04-28 – via Newspapers.com.
  The restaurant review notes: "BRUNO: I was far too hungry that afternoon to order anything fancy, so I opted for a couple slices of plain pizza. On the side, I heaped a big pile of salad without dressing. The salad was a pleasant surprise. All the ingredients seemed fresh: The tomatoes were juicy and the lettuce crisp. To wash it all down, I got a Diet Coke. At 99 cents with all the free refills you can chug, this was also a great bargain."
  The restaurant review notes: "BRUNO: The pizza itself was about average, and even better when it's hot out of the oven. Plus, it's an excellent value for a quick lunch or when you're too busy to whip up a recipe out of the latest issue of Martha Stewart Living. In all, I'd give Eatza Pizza three slices. It's a fun, casual spot to spend an hour or so, and it's kid-friendly enough to bring the whole family."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Eatza Pizza to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above. Please be more careful when nominating articles. There is lots of work ahead of us in the article space and mass AfDs takes up lots of community resources! gidonb (talk) 09:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Samuel R Jenkins (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cunard has found many reasons to keep. Meets our guidelines for inclusion. Lightburst (talk) 13:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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