< February 15	February 17 >

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. First WP:SNOW close. Please tell me if I applied it wrong. (non-admin closure) Carpimaps (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie's Bustle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Reopen AfD. Game is non-notable and fails WP:GNG, and the WP:REFUND requested for the article failed to fix these issues. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat surprised some one put the article back up considering how little the notability is for this game, as the person who made the article in the first place im gonna be honest there is not a lot of sources for this game. Not gonna add a CSD tag this time because the author who did get the article back may add more viable sources and probably will challenge this AfD. Seems that there are reliable sources as shown by the recent edits and this AfD discussion so Keep Lambda-edits-things (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The Hardcore Gaming source is SIGCOV and VGRS, but other than that all I can find is a Japanese review of unknown reliability. Assuming the Japanese review is reliable though, one more source would push it over the line, or coverage of the games attempted removal by VGRS. Jumpytoo Talk 02:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing vote to keep thanks to the evidence by NinCollin and Tom gordon that the Time Exchange and Japanese articles are reliable sources Jumpytoo Talk 21:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that Time Exchange article is a reliable source as well, as the author of that article is Damien McFerran, Editorial Director of Nintendo Life, Push Square, and Pure Xbox, all of which are listed as reliable sources on this page. A few others would agree on this. NinCollin (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I admit it is a weird situation, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events", and that means whether the game itself is notable, not a copyright claim long after the fact. And in that regard, there's only one review that has been confirmed reliable, so I will definitely not withdraw the AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this train, the aforementioned Japanese article is, from what I can find, the only archived version of a LOGiN article - LOGiN was a Japanese web-magazine that was part of ASCII Media Works (itself being part of Kadokawa Future Publishing, the holder of Enterbrain, who are cited on these three articles and many more), so I'd say that's fairly notable. Atop that, the author, Osyamu Takashima, has a Foriio page with his credits smothered across it. Keep Tom gordon (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep HG101 is definitely a reliable source, and like I said in my response to Jumpytoo, Time Exchange is also very likely a reliable source, as it's written by the Editorial Director of three other approved reliable sources. As far as the iDevGames source, it's cited on a few other articles (like this one), so it's not necessarily unreliable, but I could also understand the argument that, being an interview, it doesn't really add notability (since it could be considered mostly primary-source material.) Jumpytoo also brought up this review, but as stated it's of unknown reliability. The official website also mentions several magazines (alternative English version) that are in some way associated with the game (whether said magazines featured the game in an article or otherwise,) so that's worth looking into if said magazines can be found (which may prove quite challenging though, since they may not be archived anywhere and thus may be lost media.)

I feel that there's enough here though to warrant keeping this article for now. NinCollin (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not the weakest sourcing, and it sounds like there might be some more sources to discover with some work. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 10:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:THREE. 134.6.245.131 (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing isn't the best I've ever seen, but is does seem to get it over the line of demonstrating notability. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep scrapes through WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:16, 23 February 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.

Ben Wikler[edit]

The result was (non-admin closure) Withdrawn by nom Andre🚐 22:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does not pass WP:NPOL as he hasn't held state-wide public office, at the very least. Bedivere (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG. Wikler is not a holder of public office, he is a state party official. I will also note this article survived a PROD 7 years ago and was created by Aaron Swartz. Andre🚐 22:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This person, notable primarily as the chair of a state-level political party is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and the article isn't referenced well enough to get them over WP:GNG. This is not what it takes to make a political operative notable enough for an encyclopedia article. --Bedivere (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've been mass nominating AFDs of Democratic party state chairs but this guy is actually quite notable. Did you read the article? It passes by a mile. Andre🚐 22:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he has received significant coverage, such as here, here, here, and more. Kornatice (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn as this person is obviously notable beyond being the chair of the state Dem. Party. --Bedivere (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please actually read the articles you nominate for deletion. Andre🚐 22:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do read them. Bedivere (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Podlodowski[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NPOL as she hasn't held state-wide public office, at the very least. Bedivere (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG. Chairs of state parties often are notable. Andre🚐 22:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This person, notable primarily as the chair of a state-level political party is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and the article isn't referenced well enough to get them over WP:GNG. This is not what it takes to make a political operative notable enough for an encyclopedia article. --Bedivere (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If someone meets GNG they may be notable. Nobody is asserting an "automatic" pass nor is passing NPOL necessary. Andre🚐 22:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added some sources and can add more. She's clearly notable by our standards, though the article was not in great shape when it was nominated. I'm unclear on whether or not the nominator engaged in any WP:BEFORE. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Members of prominent city councils, such as Seattle, are usually kept. Still, the question is are there enough sources to write about her accomplishments in office. This piece in the Stranger in 1999 after she announced she was not running for reelection does talk about her accomplishments and positioning on the council (but is not yet reflected in the article). There are also national articles that describe some of the policies she pushed as as state party chair. In addition, the subject has been mentioned multiple times in the NY Times, in a story about Microsoft employees, and the subject's efforts to place books about gay families in the school libraries. --Enos733 (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As usual, state party chairs are not inherently notable ex officio but may be notable if they have received significant coverage. I also do not think that Seattle is a large enough city for city councilmembers to be considered notable ex officio. All that said, with the sources covered above and that were added to the article after nomination, there does appear to be sufficient significant coverage to demonstrate notability in this case. Curbon7 (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:27, 23 February 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. Joyous! | Talk 23:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Walters (politician)[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NPOL as she hasn't held state-wide public office, at the very least. Bedivere (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC) *Delete, WP:BLP1E. Andre🚐 22:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Going to do some WP:BEFORE to ensure candidate does or not not meet GNG before I weigh in. Andre🚐 05:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: As usual, state party chairs are not inherently notable ex officio but may be notable if they receive significant coverage. Coverage isn't super great, but it seems just enough to cross the threshold, with articles like ([1][2])[3][4]. Curbon7 (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Curbon7 Andre🚐 15:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Whitmer[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NPOL as she hasn't held state-wide public office, at the very least. Bedivere (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable state party chair, meets WP:GNG Andre🚐 22:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This person, notable primarily as the chair of a state-level political party is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and the article isn't referenced well enough to get them over WP:GNG. This is not what it takes to make a political operative notable enough for an encyclopedia article. --Bedivere (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She has GNG and WP:SIGCOV. There are several references in the article and more coverage than simply that this person is a party chair. Andre🚐 22:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Nevada. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given press in last 2 days adding to WP:GNG case. [5] [6] [7] LizardJr8 (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes WP:GNG based on coverage surrounding her election as chair. Curbon7 (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep or merge to Nevada Democratic Party. There is certainly a lot of coverage, thats not in dispute. The only question I really have is whether Whitmer really need to be a stand-alone page or can it be sufficiently covered at Nevada Democratic Party? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 17 February 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. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Kleeb[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NPOL as she hasn't held state-wide public office, at the very least. Bedivere (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable state party chair, meets WP:GNG Andre🚐 22:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This person, notable primarily as the chair of a state-level political party is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and the article isn't referenced well enough to get them over WP:GNG. This is not what it takes to make a political operative notable enough for an encyclopedia article. --Bedivere (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This person has at least 3 well-referenced sections about different things. Not just 1. Andre🚐 22:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Nebraska. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG due to coverage in media. Did you do any searching WP:BEFORE nominating? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not. I assessed the article just by reading it. I have come to the conclusion that the person is notable, after making some web search. Therefore, this nomination is withdrawn. Bedivere (talk) 00:50, 17 February 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yvette Lewis (politician)[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NPOL as she hasn't held state-wide public office, at the very least. Bedivere (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable state party chair, meets WP:GNG Andre🚐 22:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This person, notable primarily as the chair of a state-level political party is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and the article isn't referenced well enough to get them over WP:GNG. This is not what it takes to make a political operative notable enough for an encyclopedia article. --Bedivere (talk) 22:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to copy paste this response on every AFD? Nobody said it was an "automatic" pass. She barely meets WP:GNG she is a professional opera singer, and has a source for that, as well as state party chair and superdelegate with reliable sources. Andre🚐 22:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Maryland. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the nomination made on the basis her not having a state wide public office, or on the basis of notability assessments of what can be ascertained from searching in google, google scholar, google books etc? It seems like the former, is that correct?

I CT55555(talk) 23:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — I count three instances of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources already. Additionally, there is qualifying coverage of Lewis in The Baltimore Banner (Dec 2022) and The Washington Post (June 2015). That brings us to five RS. She clearly passes GNG requirements. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 16:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: Passes 7th criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (politics) which says "The person founded, leads, or operates a major political party or similar electoral organisation.". 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 09:52, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per as nom. I have changed my vote due to User:Curbon7 reply. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 03:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (politics) is an abandoned guideline proposal, NOT an official guideline or policy. Curbon7 (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has - perhpas only just, but it has - significant coverage in reliable sources, so passes GNG. Springnuts (talk) 10:58, 24 February 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. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Bernhardt[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NPOL as she hasn't held state-wide public office, at the very least. Bedivere (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Women, and Louisiana. TJMSmith (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable state party chair, meets WP:GNG Andre🚐 22:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This person, notable primarily as the chair of a state-level political party is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and the article isn't referenced well enough to get them over WP:GNG. This is not what it takes to make a political operative notable enough for an encyclopedia article. --Bedivere (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is really getting old. You need to actually read the articles and not mass delete them. Andre🚐 22:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them have the same issues. Bedivere (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This one is more borderline then some but still barely meets WP:GNG Andre🚐 22:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: State party chairs are not inherently notable ex officio, though as usual may be notable if they meet WP:GNG. The coverage is not great, but is satisfactory to demonstrate she likely passes WP:GNG, albeit not very strongly. Curbon7 (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Curbon7, but a keep is a keep. Springnuts (talk) 11:00, 24 February 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 00:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Schmuhl[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NPOL as he hasn't held state-wide public office, at the very least. Bedivere (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statewide office is not a requirement for an individual to meet NPOL. The majority of bios on Wikipedia are of individuals who have not held statewide or higher office. His notability comes from management of two very notable campaigns for national offices (Donnelly’s senate and Buttigieg’s presidential) and his leadership of a state political party organization. SecretName101 (talk) 22:07, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is presented as a "political figure serving as the chair of the Indiana Democratic Party". Being the chair of a regional political party is nowhere being a notable politician. Bedivere (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG. Chairs of state parties often are notable. Andre🚐 22:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This person, notable primarily as the chair of a state-level political party is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and the article isn't referenced well enough to get them over WP:GNG. This is not what it takes to make a political operative notable enough for an encyclopedia article. --Bedivere (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another repetitive reply that in no way rebuts whether this person meets GNG. Andre🚐 22:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This obviously constitutes significant coverage, suggesting that the subject does in fact pass WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he meets our notability guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 04:19, 24 February 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 00:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy DiNardo[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NPOL as she hasn't held state-wide public office, at the very least. Bedivere (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable state party chair, meets WP:GNG Andre🚐 22:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This person, notable primarily as the chair of a state-level political party is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and the article isn't referenced well enough to get them over WP:GNG. This is not what it takes to make a political operative notable enough for an encyclopedia article. --Bedivere (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She's notable as the first woman to hold her position and has WP:SIGCOV in RS. She has also held several other positions. Andre🚐 22:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles in New York Times and Connecticut Post are clearly enough to meet WP:GNG. WP:NPOL states that meeting WP:GNG is enough. BruceThomson (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — in addition to the existing sources that qualify as SIGCOV in RS, there are others I found after some searches: In the Connecticut Examiner (Sept 2021), The Westchester County Business Journal (June 2020), and possible The Day (Mar 2021) (the latter being more obscure and paywalled). WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 16:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Vobes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Four news hits (two of which don't mention him), barely any Google hits, and an article (even pre-stubification) that has been pretty much unsourced since its creation. I am more than happy to be wrong but I think the '07 AFD came to the incorrect conclusion. Fails just about every inclusion metric we have that I could test. Primefac (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Literature, Entertainment, and Biology. Primefac (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. I could not find any significant third-party coverage. Which is probably why the WP:BLP is completely unsourced. Mike Allen 20:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:07, 21 February 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 The Hollies. Joyous! | Talk 02:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don Rathbone[edit]

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

Non-notable pop drummer, unreferenced; moved to draft but quickly returned to main. Naive search reveals not much in the way of SIGCOV, only standard basic information sites, band website and the likes of Discogs. As a member of a successful band (before major success) an article may be warranted. However, the lack of sourcing and the move-warring necessitates discussion. Eagleash (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Hollies per WP:BANDMEMBER. No evidence of notability outside of the band. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:33, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 18:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Medwin Publishers[edit]

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

Insufficient independent sources to merit standalone article, page seems to be more of a hit piece, but regardless, is not sourced independently, or from RS'es. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the address listed for Medwin Publishers is a home in a neighborhood in Michigan. Also making note that the author Kjalarr also created Jacobs Publishers, another predatory publisher with a US mailing address but hdqtrd in the same location in India as Medwin Publishers. It not only doesn't feel right, there are no reliable sources for either article to justify stand alone articles. Both are already listed as predatory publishers on Beall's list. They may even be outright hoaxes or at the very least scammers based on their questionable addresses. Atsme 💬 📧 01:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article clearly states that this is a non-reliable publisher. I did look up some of the articles and some of the board members, and they do exist although none are stellar (post-docs, first-job professors, etc.). The occasional article can be found in PubMed. I think it is good to keep this article - the information is acccurate. Lamona (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment None of the reasons you've provided are reasons contained in our guidelines for establishing notability. Just because a company exists and can be verified isn't enough. This isn't the Yellow Pages. Can you point to any sources which you believe meet GNG/NCORP criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I should have mentioned that there are sources in the article, and I also found Predatory Journals in Dermatology. I realize these sources may not be enough because they are mainly mentions. If the article is deleted, would a redirect to Beall's list make sense? If someone searches for this article on WP it would be nice to at least give them a heads up that there's something fishy about it. Lamona (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not sure Wikipedia has a role to play in "warning" people about companies in that manner. In fact, pretty sure Wikipedia doesn't want to be in that role. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/NCORP guidelines apply. WP:SIRS tells us that *each* reference must meet all the criteria for establishing notability - at least two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the sourcing meets the criteria, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A complete failure of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Even if this company was notable this article should be WP:TNTed. Jumpytoo Talk 10:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Frank Anchor 19:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Magnacca[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - User has nominated/proposed around 20-25 articles for deletion (almost all related to Australia/Oceania and that they didn't create) within a day (see User_talk:Simione001#AFDs). I found [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], and [22] among many moree sources. He definitely has offline coverage having played in the fully pro Norwegian top flight and extensive career (12+ years) in Australia. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 10:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG with significant coverage on page.--Ortizesp (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:50, 20 February 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lapic[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - User has nominated/proposed around 25 articles for deletion (almost all related to Australia/Oceania and that they didn't create) in a very short amount of time (see User_talk:Simione001#AFDs). Has sources like [23] and many more offline coverage, having made 10+ appearances in fully pro Croatian top flight and Australian top flight and played in 1993 FIFA U17 World Cup and played for Hajduk, one of best Croatian teams. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Don't want to repeat myself over and over again but i haven't nominated anywhere near 25 articles lol. Anyway there is one article that maybe satisfies WP:GNG which I cant read due to not having access and even so this is probabaly no enough hence afd. Simione001 (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated/proosed these articles for deletion within the last day: Peter Bevilacqua, Bradley Clarke, Samuel Dweh, Akpo Godwin, Celestine Onyeka Obi, Melvin Minter, Daniel Ganderton, Paul Harries, George Horsfall, Zacari Hughes, Liam Jacob, Mario Jermen, Glenn Johnson, Kailo Karpeh, Panagiotis Lachanas, Paul Lapic, Leroy Jennings, Scott MacNicol , Anthony Magnacca, Chad Mansley, Dauntae Mariner, Steve McDonald, and David Meechan, which is more than 20. Also, I'm fine if you create stub articles and not delete others' articles but I don't understand how you can create stub articles and then go on a spree of trying to delete other users articles. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are not all from today so not nominated in short time as you suggested. Thanks. Simione001 (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, they are not all from the same day but it is still a relatively short time. Also, I appreciate you creating many soccer articles no matter how small they are, but I find it frustrating that you do that while deleting many others hard work. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This source is decent. Not seeing much else though. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I agree that the SMH article is useful, but I don't think it's enough to satisfy the GNG as we generally need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Jermen[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - User has nominated/proposed around 25 articles for deletion (almost all related to Australia/Oceania and that they didn't create) in a very short amount of time (see User_talk:Simione001#AFDs). There is coverage like [24], and [25] and other offline coverage (such as in Greek), having made 10+ appearances for PAOK, one of bets Greek top flight reams, and the fully pro Croatian top flight, and had extensive career in Australian top flight with 70+ appearances and 18+ goals. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do you know how to count? I haven't nominated anywhere near 25 articles. One article about the guy getting injured doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated/proosed these articles for deletion within the last day: Peter Bevilacqua, Bradley Clarke, Samuel Dweh, Akpo Godwin, Celestine Onyeka Obi, Melvin Minter, Daniel Ganderton, Paul Harries, George Horsfall, Zacari Hughes, Liam Jacob, Mario Jermen, Glenn Johnson, Kailo Karpeh, Panagiotis Lachanas, Paul Lapic, Leroy Jennings, Scott MacNicol , Anthony Magnacca, Chad Mansley, Dauntae Mariner, Steve McDonald, and David Meechan, which is more than 20. Also, I'm fine if you create stub articles and not delete others' articles but I don't understand how you can create stub articles and then go on a spree of trying to delete other users articles. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are not all from today so not in quick time as you suggested. Thanks. Simione001 (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, they are not all from the same day but it is still a relatively short time. Also, I appreciate you creating many soccer articles no matter how small they are, but I find it frustrating that you do that while deleting many others hard work. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 10:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keepthe two sources presented by Das osmnezz are sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Frank Anchor 15:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG with sources on page.--Ortizesp (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm highly skeptical of the claims that Jermen played league matches for PAOK or Zadar. For example, RSSSF has a full list of league matches played during the 1998–99 season, and Jermen doesn't appear. I fear that we are relying on the Sydney Morning Herald article (and unreliable statistics databases like voetbal.com) which simply reports Jermen's own claims about playing professionally in Europe. If the only coverage we can find is that SMH article, I think this is a clear case of WP:BLP1E where we have no in-depth coverage of his career (just the legal claim resulting from his accident). Jogurney (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kailo Karpeh[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - User has nominated/proposed around 25 articles for deletion (almost all related to Australia/Oceania and that they didn't create) in a very short amount of time (see User_talk:Simione001#AFDs). Has many coverage on page already (19+ sources) and played for fully pro Indian top flight team Sporting Clube de Goa and had extensive career in Australia with many goals scored. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 25? That is false. Anyway, I'd say that all of the references are no more than trivial mentions. This guy has been playing amateur football in Adelaide for several years which is where I come from. He is not notable. Simione001 (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated/proosed these articles for deletion within the last day: Peter Bevilacqua, Bradley Clarke, Samuel Dweh, Akpo Godwin, Celestine Onyeka Obi, Melvin Minter, Daniel Ganderton, Paul Harries, George Horsfall, Zacari Hughes, Liam Jacob, Mario Jermen, Glenn Johnson, Kailo Karpeh, Panagiotis Lachanas, Paul Lapic, Leroy Jennings, Scott MacNicol , Anthony Magnacca, Chad Mansley, Dauntae Mariner, Steve McDonald, and David Meechan, which is more than 20. Also, I'm fine if you create stub articles and not delete others' articles but I don't understand how you can create stub articles and then go on a spree of trying to delete other users articles. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They are not all from today so not nominated in short time as you suggested. Thanks. Simione001 (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, they are not all from the same day but it is still a relatively short time. Also, I appreciate you creating many soccer articles no matter how small they are, but I find it frustrating that you do that while deleting many others hard work. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG with sources on page.--Ortizesp (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are a number of sources included with the article, but none appear to even approach being in-depth coverage. The Sportskeeda entry appeared to be useful, but it's dedicated to his older brother (with just one brief sentence about Kailo). I couldn't find anything else that suggests WP:GNG could be met. Also, the idea suggested above that the nominator is "trying to delete other users articles" is troubling (it backs my suspicion that some editors participating in football biography AfDs take a view of "ownership" over articles that simply isn't acceptable). Jogurney (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of significant coverage in reliable sources - fails GNG. Springnuts (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite playing for a plethora of clubs, I was unable to find any sources that meet GNG's requirements Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:57, 25 February 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harberger Tax[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, first reference is from a primary source which is not independent of the subject's creators. Second source seems to just be an announcement of the creators' book about the tax, not very reliable. MaterialWorks _(talk) 19:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MaterialWorks _(talk) 19:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(not that I have very inclusionist preferences)

I think this article is important, and I have improving it on my TODO list. I would be sad to see it deleted, and just reuse this as a template when reviving it in the future. Niplav (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ugh *note Niplav (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 20:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as from first glance it seems plausible that such a tax proposal exist and has been analyzed, and another user has it on their todo list to improve it

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first three results that I get by clicking on the word "books" in the nomination are [26], [27] and [28], all significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There are plenty more books and academic papers with coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention [29] Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources presented by Phil Bridger and the Journal of Legal Analysis article linked on article talk (same as the link I just gave above) establish GNG clearly. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:07, 17 February 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 22:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JPedal[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT and WP:GNG. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTDIRECTORY for any PDF vower apps while hundreds of such exists. We can't include them as article. May a simple inclusion in PDF is enough. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Software has no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, to the point that it doesn't warrant mention in any other article either. - Aoidh (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:13, 21 February 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. Except for the nominator, unanimous support for keeping and consensus that the subject meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Johnson (politician)[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a businessman and politician, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for businessman or politicians. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates (or even hinting at candidacies they haven't yet formally launched) for political office -- the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, and non-winning candidates get articles only if either (a) they can be properly established as already having preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy, or (b) they can show credible reasons why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly more enduring importance than everybody else's candidacies.
But this basically glosses over his business career as mere background to the candidacies while failing to show any sources covering him in a business context at all, so it isn't passing the preexisting notability test, and it doesn't show any strong reason why his candidacy was more important than everybody else's, so it isn't passing the "special case" test.
And as always, the mere existence of a handful of run of the mill campaign coverage, in the local media where campaign coverage of every candidate in every election is merely expected to exist, is not sufficient to claim that he would pass WP:GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to either win election to public office, or show more already-existing notability in business than this is attempting to establish. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Michigan. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Bearcat

I appreciate your feedback on the article in question and understand your concerns regarding the sourcing of the information. However, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment that the sources are not sufficient to pass NPOL criteria.

I would like to highlight that the sources used in the article are not limited to just local media coverage of the individual's political campaign. I have taken a comprehensive approach to research and have also included other credible sources such as interviews with the individual, industry publications, and news articles that provide insight into their business career.

Furthermore, I would like to emphasize that the purpose of the article is to provide a complete picture of the individual, including their background, achievements, and aspirations. The sources used in the article not only support the individual's candidacy for political office but also highlight their business acumen and contributions to their community and industry.

It is worth noting that Wikipedia's goal is to provide accurate and comprehensive information on all topics, and this includes individuals who have not yet held a notable political office but have made significant contributions in other areas. The individual in question may not have won a political election, but their business career and political aspirations are still significant and deserve to be documented and preserved.

In conclusion, I believe that the sources used in the article are credible, and relevant, and provide a comprehensive picture of the individual. I respectfully request that the article be allowed to remain on Wikipedia and that it be evaluated based on its merit and the information it provides. I believe that the article presents a neutral and balanced view of the individual and does not contain any semi-advertorialized information. I am grateful for your expertise and guidance, and I am eager to make the necessary adjustments to the article so that it meets the high standards set by Wikipedia. Your suggestions are greatly valued and I am honored to have the opportunity to implement them in a thoughtful manner.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Lasha.khosh Lasha.kh (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews with the subject, in which he's talking about himself or other things in the first person, do not help to build passage of WP:GNG.

And by the same token, you do not make a person notable as a businessman by sourcing his career in business to primary sources like his own business website, or to campaign coverage which happens to briefly mention his business career by way of background — you would have to reference his business career to sources that centered his business career as foreground, and you haven't used any sources like that at all.

And no, unsuccessful candidacies do not pass NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the probably is advertising for his campaign; I've found coverage about him over a lawsuit at being disqualified for a forged signature [30], [31] and in WaPo [32], none of these are flattering coverage, but it's at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Like @Oaktree b, I also found independent coverage about him, even if this article does need major work to make it neutral CT55555(talk) 01:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I too think that the nature of the subject's 2022 campaign (Super Bowl ad and failure to make the ballot) move the subject closer to the Christine O'Donnell side of the spectrum of political candidates (that is more noteworthy than most). That said, the article was a mess and lots of the information was speculative and propaganda. I took the liberty to trim the article and remove much of the bloat. --Enos733 (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely noteworthy enough to be kept. There is also enough media coverage for him. --Arkansawyer25KADIMA (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oaktree. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 17:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough third-party coverage for him. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Has plenty of reliable sources. NYC Guru (talk) 20:32, 16 February 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 February 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Izaiah Jennings[edit]

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

Article about former soccer player who had an unsuccessful 6-month spell in the Austrian second division and which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Online coverage consists of club press releases, match reports, hyper-local coverage of his high school's soccer program, a club fansite blogpost, and a couple of trivial mentions/club press release regurgitations in the Austrian press. Jogurney (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oklahoma. Shellwood (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:31, 18 February 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SwapSimple[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An article on a small, long defunct company, created by an WP:SPA with a very obvious WP:COI. It was nominated for deletion shortly after its creation way back in 2006, but was kept, largely due to arguments by that same WP:SPA. Looking at the company now, it really does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Of the external links that were added from the last AFD, the only one I can still find online is this one from the AASCU, and the company is only mentioned in that article in a single sentence. Searching for any additional sources turned up very little - a couple of similar one-to-two sentence mentions in articles, and press releases. Rorshacma (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Illinois. Rorshacma (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ORGCRIT. A few book mentions but nothing that would add up to meeting WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The website has been defunct for a decade. I don't see any sources for it. Delete Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utterly fails GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability, none of the sources I can locate come close. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination speaks for itself.--Mpen320 (talk) 19:55, 23 February 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Al-Ameri[edit]

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

Could not find any detailed coverage that would qualify for WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG. Please bear in mind, when searching, that there are plenty of namesakes as this is a very common Arabic name. Emaratalyoum is about Ali Al-Amri (footballer), so needs to be ignored. Rimessa is about a Tunisian footballer of this name so also needs to be ignored. Akhbaar24 mentions him and simply says he renewed his contract with Al-Adalah. The coverage is so weak that it doesn't even say how long it has been renewed for! It's not even close to the depth that we need. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:43, 21 February 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 19:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Leib[edit]

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

Notability appears rather doubtful. Hildeoc (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hildeoc (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No outside sources. NYC Guru (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 13:59, 20 February 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Betcha (band)[edit]

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

Band that fails WP:BAND. This article has no non-primary sources. Mousyomens (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found, other than hits on the "betcha", which is a slang word. Oaktree b (talk) 20:35, 16 February 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 17:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sacro-Egoism[edit]

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

Violates WP:NOTDICT and perhaps WP:ESSAY; seems highly likely that the page was created by the coiner of the term, User:Jsknoxesq vs Dr. John S. Knox; all edits from that user are to this article, and a userspace article for another term invented by Dr. John S. Knox. While there is some coverage in academic papers, all of them I have been able to find are by Dr. John S. Knox himself. Seems distinctly like he created a term for his PhD, and soon after made an article to promote his theory; in the last ~15 years seemingly few other academics has engaged with his material; except for being mentioned in the 2010 edition of Implicit Religion: the Journal of the Centre for the Study of Implicit Religion and Contemporary Spirituality. The mention amounts to simply "“sacro-egoism” (i.e., the ideology of self-fulfilment) (Knox, 2008)", among a list of other various philosophical propositions. It is mentioned briefly in relation to Quaker philosophy in "Quakers and spiritual direction" and even more passingly in some other Quaker-related works, but I don't think that justifies an article of its own, especially given that it was created by the coiner. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Religion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is tricky. I agree there look to be WP:COI issues on this topic. But if we ignore those for the moment, we have a term that has been discussed and published in a doctoral thesis and a resulting book. I suggest ordinarily we might take that as being a reason for inclusion. On the other hand, few others use it and there appear to be few who cite the book (and therefore presumably few who are building on the idea in their scholarly work). So on balance, I think we are left with a term that has been described and discussed by a single academic in the literature and which hasn't really met a bar of sufficient usage to be noted outwith of WP, therefore it probably shouldn't be here yet either. So WP:TOOSOON. Mix back in the unenclopedic writing style and the possible COI issues and I think that's a Delete. JMWt (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I find very little discussion of this concept by authors other than John Knox, and the article as written is an essay. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I see a consensus to Keep this article and that is confirmed by the improvement to the article during this nomination period. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Si Xingjian[edit]

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

Article about a paleobotanist and stratigrapher, not properly referenced as having a serious claim to passing our inclusion criteria for scientists.
There are things here that would be valid notability claims if they were referenced properly, but there's nothing "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to cite any WP:GNG-worthy reliable sources -- but the sole reference here is a primary source profile on the self-published website of an organization the subject was directly affiliated with, which is not a notability-building source.
This was also created in draftspace and then moved by its creator without a proper WP:AFC review, but was moved back to draftspace as undersourced and then got reverted back into mainspace again by the creator with the argument that it was "never in AFC" in the first place -- except that draftspace is AFC by definition, so there's no mechanism for a page to somehow be in draftspace without being in AFC -- and the creator added absolutely no new sourcing to improve the article in the process.
As I can't read Chinese, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who can read Chinese can find significantly better sourcing to properly support Si Xingjian's notability -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough that a single primary source would be sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, and China. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to prove WP:GNG based upon supplied information. UtherSRG (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Keep I'm convinced by the later arguments to switch my position. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! | Talk 16:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cannot see enough in-depth sourcing to meet WP:GNG, and I can't see how they meet WP:NSCHOLAR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I found lots of Chinese sources, since he's actually a pretty important scientist in China. You can find a ton of papers about him here. There's also [33] and [34] (both are reliable, the first is published by the an institute of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the other is published by Guangming Daily). I also found a short biography of him in this book. Mucube (talk • contribs) 23:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the sources shown by Mucube are a little hard to parse for obvious reasons, it appears that the first link does contain pointers to a number of good-size obituaries, which should do the trick notability-wise. These would of course need to be vetted for source reliabilty and correctly attributed for use in the article, which I hope will be undertaken by a Chinese speaker. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his Wikidata and authority control catalog entries alone convince me that he's notable enough to warrant an article. Both enwiki and zhwiki articles could do with expansion but deletion is unnecessary here. jengod (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Musicians who oppose Donald Trump's use of their music[edit]

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

This is useless, weird version of a list. Not notable for it's own article. See WP:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 17:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. Every entry is entirely reliably sourced by a combination of high level generally acceptable third party sources (BBC, CBS News, Chicago Tribune) and music sources vetted as reliable at WP:RSMUSIC. Additionally, the subject is discussed collectively by reliable sources as well - see Billboard Magazine and Billboard again, AP News, Ultimate Classic Rock Magazine, the list goes on and on. As such, it greatly confuses me that the nominator cites (the essay) WP:TRUMPNOT when it clearly passes both WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Sergecross73 msg me 17:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Politics, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is not just an arbitrary list of similar occurrences. The general objection of artists to Trump using their songs has been noted in many sources. small jars tc 18:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is no Trump rally article yet, which is definitely a notable topic that has received wide academic research; I think this would fit more snuggly in that hypothetical article in prose form. That said, the article has to exist first. Curbon7 (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd take that over deletion, but I think that would be difficult because, as you say, there's a lot of "ifs" involved there. The article would not only have to exist, but also be written in a way that isn't redundant to the existing Trump rally articles (see at the Trump rally link). Then you'd have to balance all of that with the contents of this article, which is already good size, and likely growing bigger with the next election cycle. Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this is encyclopedic content. Other presidents, as well as many other people, have had musicians complain about them using their music. What purpose would articles for any of them serve? This is just pointless trivia. Dream Focus 19:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the article and my comments above show, it's a topic discussed frequently, both in individual cases and collectively, in high level general, political and music publications. You want to handwave that way with a vague accusation of being trivial? Sergecross73 msg me 19:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could we not just fit a mention of this in a different article listing the name of the musicians that were against it? Should we have ana article for every politician it happened to? Or just a general article about the situation. https://people.com/music/musicians-who-have-told-politicians-to-stop-using-their-music/ https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/top-10-musicians-who-objected-to-politicians-using-their-songs-a8591351.html https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-lists/stop-using-my-song-35-artists-who-fought-politicians-over-their-music-75611/ and many other places talking about this. Dream Focus 19:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I originally wanted to create some other ones for other politicians of varying political ideologies, because I assumed I'd eventually get some bad-faith political accusations like this. But this doesn't happen so frequently with any other one politician. I did source hunting and figured that I couldn't justify making one for Obama, Romney, Biden, Clintons, etc because most of them only have a handful of occurrences to their name. I've checked in years since I created this one, but back then I couldn't get enough going to build anything else of substance.

That said, I listed a ton of sourcing above. Can you help me explain how this article in question doesn't meet WP:NLIST? Its honestly rare in my experience to get this variety and quantity of NLIST-confirming type sourcing. Sergecross73 msg me 20:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping this article does not set a precedent for making similar ones for random politicians. The press have given particular attention to this in the case of Donald Trump. If you search Google for musicians opposing Barack Obama's use of their music, for example, you'll only see articles about the general phenomenon, but musicians opposing Donald Trumps's use of their music returns articles specifically about Trump. small jars tc 20:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These media sources loved Obama and hate Trump, so of course that is to be expected. This is a list of the 27 musicians who were against Trump. There is no real content to it other than listing that they did, and which specific songs and the dates some things happened. Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign#Music list which musicians objected to him using their music during that campaign. In whatever campaign something happened in, just make a mention of this in the article for that campaign. Dream Focus 21:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes zero sense. The subject is musicians contesting Trump's unauthorized use of their music. Every entry documents the song that was used, the context of its use, and the details of the artist's response to its use. Every aspect is covered, there's no further context to give. And you again cannot answer how this doesn't meet NLIST. Your comments reek of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. Sergecross73 msg me 21:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Usually if a musician has issues with a political campaign using their music, it's settled with a quiet cease-and-desist and promise not to do it again, and we never learn about it until years after the fact through the artists' and the deceased politician's archives (and it never gets to WP:N). Here, these are musicians that have done the quiet cease-and-desist, this campaign has completely ignored it and continued to play their music, and forced a public statement which the subject has blatantly ignored. This is definitely encyclopedic due to the subject's bizarre want to annoy everyone and be in court constantly. Nate • (chatter) 21:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's just due to left-wing bias, try a search for Ronald Reagan: same lack of specific attention. small jars tc 22:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cited well, and per my above statement. Nate • (chatter) 21:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to make some further arguments in favor of deletion. For this article to be noteworthy, it would need to be established in RS that the concept of musicians opposing him using their music is notable within itself. What this article is doing is taking a bunch of unconnected-news articles about a musicians opposing Trump using there music and arbitrarily listing them to craft this article to make it appear as though the concept is supported by RS, when in reality it really isn't. It's like if I got a bunch of unconnected RS that mentioned Trump walking his dog on the south lawn on different days and trying to say that the abundance of those articles proved the concept is notable. This can probably be very reasonably mentioned at Donald Trump in popular culture or Public image of Donald Trump. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 21:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss my first comment in this discussion? I listed off 5 reliable sources already that covered the subject collectively. And there's more out there, I can keep going, its just that usually 5 or so is enough to drive the point home. Sergecross73 msg me 21:39, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few sources doesn't prove this article is needed. It can all be summarized with those sources in other articles. It would have to be quite extensively covered to warrant it's own article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 21:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even close to only a few, I just stopped at a few because more is often seen as overkill. Here's many more reliable source publications that cover this concept collectively in detail (again, passing NLIST, which no opposers have even addressed, let alone successfully contested):

This is already far more than what is normally needed to convince people NLIST is met. Sergecross73 msg me 21:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sergecross73 Andre🚐 06:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NLIST as it has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - this does pass WP:NLIST per the sources Sergecross73 provided, but as others have alluded to, this seems more like an indiscriminate collection of information than encyclopedic content. Artists getting mad at politicians (or anyone they disagree with) using their music is nothing new - these sources only exist because Trump is, well, Trump. Would strongly support merging this content into one of the other numerous Trump-related articles. Highway 89 (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it as indiscriminate, its has a very defined scope that, to my knowledge, documents every noteworthy occurrence to date. And as was also mentioned above, I think there's a bit more to it than just "because Trump is Trump". To expand on it: Trump gets so much more coverage on this subject because he does this far more frequently than other politicians, and he often doesn't stop even after he's asked - both to a level unseen with any other politician. I've never quite understood if it should be attributed to a deliberate strategy, or carelessness, but his approach to this is definitely different. For example, Trump would not hesitate to use the music of well-known liberal leaning musicians like Neil Young, Bruce Springsteen, or Panic at the Disco's Brendon Urie, but Biden/Clinton/Obama would not generally even entertain using the music of conservative artists like Ted Nugent or Kid Rock. Its not a criticism, I'm just saying one approach generates far more coverage than the other, and that's why its worth documenting. Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He gets more coverage because they write more articles about him. CNN lost most of its viewers once they no longer had Trump to talk about every day. Everyone was writing about him constantly about anything they could think to write about, since that got them views. Many past politicians got away with using music without permission because they didn't irritate the owners enough for them to make a comment about it. You are just documenting Trump getting more attention than others because the media hated him and/or knew they'd get more attention. Dream Focus 02:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's frankly a weird choice of a list, but well, it's fairly referenced and should be kept. --Bedivere (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No lasting historical value. Of the moment and completely generic in nature. Happens all the time, all over the world and has been happening for centuries. Completely non-notable trivia. Trash Fails WP:NLIST. scope_creep^Talk 13:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does it fail NLIST specifically? Nothing you said has anything to do with NLIST. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What the list needs is a better lead and/or overview section that cites some of the many, many articles about this phenomenon in general (i.e. treats them as a group). It's an easy WP:LISTN pass. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I'll try to develop something like that. Thank you! Sergecross73 msg me 17:07, 21 February 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 17:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carol S. Batey[edit]

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

I do not see how this author satisfies WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. Potential BLP concerns as well, as nothing cited is a reliable source under BLP guidelines. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Tennessee. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the only coverage I find, I doubt it's the same person. [35] Oaktree b (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Andre🚐 06:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She has two books that were published by 'normal' publishers, but others that were self-published. I find no reviews, not even in Publishers Weekly or Kirkus. Lamona (talk) 00:55, 19 February 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 16:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Lebel[edit]

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

Article about collegiate soccer player who played in a handful of second division matches a few years ago, but which utterly fails WP:GNG. There is no online significant coverage in reliable sources; just match reports, press releases and blogposts like this that fall far short of SIGCOV. It's WP:TOOSOON for an article about this young player. Jogurney (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as stated in the nomination

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:30, 18 February 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 16:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Fielding[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about footballer who has only made a single appearance in the FA Trophy cup and which utterly fails WP:GNG. The online coverage is trivial; just club press releases, match reports and brief blurbs like this that don't represent significant coverage in reliable sources. Article was previously kept at AfD in 2018 long before WP:NSPORTS2022 and without any consideration of whether the article passed the GNG (it didn't and still doesn't). Jogurney (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We had a lot of Mansfieldcruft deleted some time ago; alarming that as recently as 2018 such an article was "speedily kept". He did indeed have plenty of time to make a reasonable impression at that point, but he didn't and still hasn't. Also, as I always say in these circumstances, we are supposed to be a global encyclopaedia, not Anglospherepedia. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as original article creator, no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:30, 18 February 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 16:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Nagar[edit]

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

While this is a real place, I don't see what makes it notable. Plus, it's just one long paragraph that isn't correct in it's grammar. I like Astatine (Talk to me) 15:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems to be a council which would likely qualify as legally-recognized. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The above article is much improved now. Unsourced content and 'original research' has been removed by me. It's not a long pargraph any more. Meets WP:GEOLAND which states, "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable". Also meets WP:NPLACE which states, "Cities and villages are generally kept, regardless of size, as long as their existence is verified through a reliable source". This article already has an archived reliable source by the National Reconstruction Bureau, Government of Pakistan website....Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comment. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is the sourcing is not sufficient to elevate this beyond the definition. Will also move the DAB as suggested Star Mississippi 18:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

City slicker[edit]

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

Article lacks sourcing and reads like an extended dictionary definition reaching toward but not quite achieving encyclopedic tone. Recommend deleting and moving city slicker (disambiguation) here. QuietHere (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 06:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTDIC. Unlike the near-synonym dude, I couldn't find much written about the phrase as a phrase (though I could find lots of scholarly work using it, mostly in article titles in social sciences). Contrary to earlier versions of the article suggesting it is white rural idiom, one of the few scholarly articles that I found mentioning the term is "Idioms of the present-day American negro" (Ruth Banks, American Speech 1938). Cnilep (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although it does not have sufficiently elevated linguistic standing for its current positioning as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the City slicker (disambiguation) page, it is a very well known descriptive expression which is listed under the 15-page Category:Stereotypes of urban people, the 68-page Category:Class-related slurs as well as the 121-page Category:Pejorative terms for people. While it could certainly use additional inline cites, this brief article deserves continued presence among its companion entries at the City slicker (disambiguation) page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that it appears in some large categories is immaterial. We need sources that discuss the idiom as a subject in itself. Like Cnilep I searched for those and came up short. While the meaning of the phrase might be common knowledge, I think it would actually be challenging to source the bulk of the article's contents without conducting original research. Jfire (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a simple case of an article about a word or phrase, a dictionary definition contravening WP:NOTDICT. Not only are there insufficient sources in the article, there aren't any outside in the world, meaning the topic is not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think these are sufficient. One dealing with the difficulty in translation of American idioms into Romanian [36], a discussion of slang words [37], contrasting the use of the term with American radicalism [38] and contrasting the term to others [39]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's also mentioned in the Encyclopedia of American Folklore [40] Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I am confident there are more sources that can be found and the article can be improved. There are other terms that are less commonly used that have more developed pages (such as yokel) I am sure the wikipedia community can build up this one LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant WP:SOURCESEXIST. At least Oaktree had the decency to link some rather than just assume they must be out there somewhere. QuietHere (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

QuietHere, I get that you are the nominator here so you are pro-Deletion but let's pull back on talk of "decency" and personal attacks on editors with an opposing points of view especially towards editors less experienced than yourself. LegalSmeagolian, take this as a teachable moment...it's better to find and report back on specific sources you have located which help establish notability rather than simply assert that they exist somewhere out there. Also, AFD discussions are probably not the best place for a newbie to learn about Wikipedia policies. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to try and get a consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 15:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Left a notice at WikiProject Languages regarding this AfD. Hopefully it doesn't end in no consensus 'cause that'd bother me more than a keep that I disagree with. And for what it's worth, Liz is correct that I spoke poorly above so I apologize to LegalSmeagolian for that. QuietHere (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good! @QuietHere LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plainly a case of WP:NOTDICT. TH1980 (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After 18 years on Wikipedia, this entire article is sourced to a 1930 Mickey Mouse comic? This means the page, as of this datestamp, is entirely OR. I looked and there has never been anything approaching RS on this page. It is true sources presented by Oaktree b do mention the topic, but IMHO do not directly detail. After looking at the disambiguation page, I can't find any reason this article is necessary. In the event the outcome of this process is keep, I'll trust Oaktree b or other keep assertors to blow up the entirely unsourced OR page, and recreate it afresh from presented sources. BusterD (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move the disambiguation page into its place. It's a mostly unsourced WP:DICDEF. Better served by the Wiktionary entry. If someone wants to make a real encyclopedia article about it in the future, they can give it a try and/or go through DRV, but there's nothing but a DICDEF to keep here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move the DAB page as suggested by Rhododendrites above. This is a definition, not an article. Joyous! | Talk 18:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Burns[edit]

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

Player played one game in second division, and all other games way down the league pyramid. Coverage is almost exclusively passing mentions in match reports, with a handful of short local sports articles giving some attention (things like this and this, but nothing really substantial (e.g. covering his career or giving some background) or supra-local. Fram (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Fram (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly significant figure in Scottish lower league football with ongoing career based on sources here on on the page itself. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As it happens, I have seen the subject play as a sub in a Scottish 4th tier match. Such coverage as exists is in routine game reports or, as Fram says, supra-local coverage: for example, Stirling Observer articles are "badged" online as Daily Record. I really don't see that that the subject's career as youth footballer and then semi-pro has demonstrably attained notability. AllyD (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:SPORTBASIC due to lack of significant coverage despite the WP:REFBOMB giving an illusion that Burns is covered well. Upon assessing all of the article's sources, none of them are anything better than a few mentions of scoring goals in match reports for semi-pro/amateur fixtures. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources do not support GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, not enough significant coverage to pass GNG. Frank Anchor 00:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing doesn't seem to be sufficient per WP:SPORTBASIC. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:09, 20 February 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 Cielo Vista Mall. I see a consensus to Merge. If you would prefer different target, that can be discussed on the article talk page or you could merge different parts of the article (or the basic details) to different target articles.

As an aside, it's predictable but sad that we associate an acceptable level of notability based on the number of fatalities in an attack. Notability shouldn't rest on a high body count. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 El Paso shooting[edit]

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

This is not a notable shooting with only one death. The significance of this shooting comes from its connection to the 2019 El Paso shooting, elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and United States of America. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2019 El Paso shooting. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023 for now. Since the only known link to the 2019 shooting currently is the location, it's not particularly appropriate to include there. Obviously, this can be revisited later once more information is released, but I doubt it will be within the timeframe of this AfD. ansh.666 18:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merging to the mall article also makes sense to me. ansh.666 21:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - articles on mass shootings are generally assumed to be notable if there was at least one death. By this logic, lots of other articles on mass shootings would be deleted as well. The notability of this shooting is not dependent on the El Paso shooting (so if this took place in Gladstone, Michigan, would no one care?). The article needs expansion sure, but give it some time; this is a developing story. Crusader1096 (message) 19:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
articles on mass shootings are generally assumed to be notable if there was at least one death - this is clearly not true if you look at the lists of mass shootings. The majority of incidents with deaths don't have articles. ansh.666 19:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still, there are two other people who are in critical condition. Crusader1096 (message) 20:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that written? -- Veggies (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep, or merge into Cielo Vista Mall, which is where the shooting actually took place. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No lasting effect can be plausibly expected from this. It's not even notable enough to be mentioned in the mall article, except maybe in one sentence. -- Veggies (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to 2019 El Paso shooting, Cielo Vista Mall, and/or List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023 per everyone else. Love of Corey (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cielo Vista Mall Half-kratos21 (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cielo Vista Mall. He didn't beat the high score so no point in trying to make an article about it. 2A0E:97C0:470:0:0:0:0:27 (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Cielo Vista Mall and/or List of mass shootings in the United States in 2023 article. Yodabyte (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In response to lasting effect it states that "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." With that said, this shooting only happened a few days ago. It is too soon to determine the lasting effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitialwritinghjm (talk • contribs) 16:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The shooting actually happened more than a week ago. Yodabyte (talk) 04:03, 23 February 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). The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 11:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability with all the cited sources being bookstores/online libraries. Was de-prodded ~~with a claim of "more than a thousand sources", but that is untrue~~. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 13:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator - It has been demonstrated below that there are enough sources that discuss this book to meet GNG and NBOOK. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 11:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't say that there were over a thousand sources. I said that one English translation had had over a thousand citations reported by Google Scholar, which you can see just by looking at the second entry you get by clicking on "scholar" in the deletion nomination. At least for me at the moment it shows 1188 citations for the translation by El-Helbawy, Siddiqui and Shukry. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point us to good examples of reviews of the book or academic papers that give it more than a fleeting citation, please? JMWt (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN 9780190900366, published by the Oxford University press, has coverage of the book in its chapter about its author. ISBN 9781135788001, from Taylor & Francis, has coverage on many pages. Page 146 of ISBN 9781134704019, also from Taylor & Francis, includes in its coverage, "the book ... became one of the bestsellers of the century on Islamic religious law, and has been printed in 30 editions and published in 20 languages." ISBN 9781317112549 (Taylor & Francis) has coverage. I don't have time at the moment to look beyond the first few Google Books results (which I got by searching for the title but excluding the author, i.e. [41]) but this is clearly notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong and will strike that part; I've just checked and it does indeed have a lot of citations. However, it fails the WP:SIGCOV test that demonstrates that the subject meets GNG. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 15:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Having looked through JSTOR, Google Scholar, Google Books, The Wikipedia Library, and a couple of university library catalogues I have access to, I can't find any significant coverage of this book. It certainly has a decent number of citations, but nothing to suggest that it meets WP:NBOOK. The only thing that gets close to coverage is this review - but at only two sentences it can hardly be called significant. I may well have missed something (especially non-English and/or offline sources), so if anyone uncovers anything, please ping me. WJ94 (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what Google Books search arguments you used, but the search that I linked above found quite a few sources from reputable publishers, certainly a lot better than a two-sentence review. You asked to be pinged, so here goes. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding those Phil Bridger - based on what you've found plus the sources listed below, I'm happy to change ym !vote to keep. WJ94 (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to assist others, I've used ar.wiki to find references in Arabic. If you are interested to find references you probably need to search for the Arabic term الحلال والحرام في الإسلام and the ar.wiki page is here [42]. JMWt (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The book has a more extensive article on French Wikipedia. This is likely in part due to the book being specifically briefly banned in France in 1995, as verified by the French government order, before the ban was repealed three or so weeks later after the publisher apparently argued the French government back down. That there is this much backstory to the book's publication all but guarantees that there will be other news coverage out there and that the work will meet WP:GNG. The work has also been well referenced in Arabic news, including in obituaries of Yusuf al-Qaradawi. It is routinely cited as his most prominent and influential work. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearly taken quite seriously as a reference work, and is cited in various peer-reviewed works on Islamic precepts as applied to practical applications in industry. Just on the first few pages of searching for it on scholar I found a paper on Defining Halal Supply Chain Management and another on Halal tourism: Concepts, practises, challenges and future Iskandar323 (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Although I'm the nominator, I now concur with the above !votes and would like the article to be kept. I'm not sure of the appropriate way to withdraw the nomination though - I can't close it as I am not uninvolved. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 10:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Bestagon: It's very simple. The steps are here: Withdrawing a nomination. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:52, 17 February 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 12:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Virat Kohli Statistics[edit]

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

Clear WP:NOTSTATS violation. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a stats website, and so does not require a copy of all Kohli's stats as copied from ESPNcricinfo. The only text in this article is copied without attribution from List of international cricket centuries by Virat Kohli, and that article highlights some useful stats, whereas this general stats article does not. Adequately covered in Virat Kohli#Career summary as well, a separate article dedicated to stats copying from ESPNcricinfo is wholly inappropriate Joseph2302 (talk) 11:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, Lists, and India. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I comprehend the transgression committed and concur that it ought to be erased. ✨Ashish Legend✨ 13:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a suitable subject for inclusion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:CRUFT. Much of what a player achieves can be described in the body of their article; some exceptional achievements, i.e., 25+ international centuries or five wicket hauls might be worthy of a list, but we shouldn't be trying to mimmick CA or CI, especially where they already offer stats. If they're not covered by either of those, make sure they're original, stand-out and backed with reliable sources with prose. StickyWicket (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear WP:NOTSTATS fail. Ajf773 (talk) 08:52, 20 February 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. Sandstein 13:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Ward[edit]

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

This article was just nominated for A7 speedy deletion. I declined the request because the article has been around for over a decade, but it's true that there doesn't seem to be any claim of significance and the sources don't look like they establish notability. Tried a bit of a WP:BEFORE but there are so many other people with the same name that it's hard to find anything about this lady. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Dance, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment she has quite a lot of web-coverage, though not of the highest standard. She does appear to be someone whose viewpoint is deemed valuable by at least some independent writers, e.g. [43], and she has held an important role in a notable institution for a long period, in addition to her role in the Society of Heads, so I'd hate to see her expunged from Wikipedia altogether. If we cannot find sufficient to justify a stand-alone article about her, she should at least get a strong mention in our articles about Elmhurst Ballet School and the Society of Heads. Elemimele (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The name is too common, I can't find anything about a ballet lady. Delete unless someone can pull up some decent sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm not claiming she's particularly notable, but I'm really struggling with the implication that it's okay to delete articles on anyone with a common name, merely because we find it hard to do Google searches! Just add an extra term or two, like "ballet", and up she pops; it's really not hard to find her. My problem is that most of the sources either repeat the same information in almost identical words, indicating that they're probably press-releases from her institution, or they're otherwise closely linked to Elmhurst. I do think a reasonable approach would be to merge her to Elmhurst. Elemimele (talk) 11:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No indication whatsoever of notability. A mistake it hS been up so long, but that should not stop us from deleting an article that doesn't meet any criteria to be on Wikipedia. Jeppiz (talk) 18:11, 17 February 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. Sandstein 13:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Nolan[edit]

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

I PRODded this with the following rationale: My WP:BEFORE search found none of the in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources needed for Nolan to satisfy the GNG, and none of the WP:NMUSIC criteria appear to be met. The PROD was contested on the talk page, but there are still none of the sources needed to establish notability: reliable ones (books, newspapers, etc.) that discuss Nolan in detail. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and United States of America. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have done some work on the article, and it is clear to me that she has been Cyndi Lauper's lead guitarist for 7 years, and did perform with her at the White House last year, but doesn't seem to have received significant coverage about. People who know music notability guidelines, I hope, will comment if the added content established notability. CT55555(talk) 14:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. The added content has been helpful, but perhaps not yet to the required level to establish notability. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find anything for this musician, all I find is a minor league baseball pitcher with the same name. I still don't think we have GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy Deletion G4. Near-identical article previously deleted in November 2022 Joyous! | Talk 15:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Kumar Yadav[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Block conveyor and district party chair are not roles that confer notability. Mccapra (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bihar. Mccapra (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies I just realised this should be a speedy delete G4 - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manoj Kumar Yadav. Mccapra (talk) 08:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 10:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Recreated by the same editor as before, despite consensus in the previous AfD deletion in November. The same points as in the previous instance can be made about this one; nothing indicates the subject meets the WP:POLITICIAN criteria. AllyD (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IIMT Group of Colleges[edit]

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

Given this article more than a year for sourcing to emerge, it has not happened and my own search identifies only primary sourcing. Star Mississippi 03:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Star Mississippi 03:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: IIMT College of Engineering was ranked 55 by National Institutional Ranking Framework in 2018 [44]. Misterrrrr (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
please explain the relevance of your comment to the question of the subject's notability. Thanks. 174.212.224.45 (talk) 00:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you're a experienced user, pls comment through your account. --- 👑Misterrrrr👑 (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't see that there is any implied notability for college level education at WP:NSCHOOLS even if it is a top-100 college in India. Unless there is good coverage in RS - which I'm not seeing - it isn't notable. JMWt (talk) 08:44, 16 February 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 08:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ISketch[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Cannot find any reliable sources that discuss iSketch in-depth. I see brief mentions, and that's it. The one reference in the article doesn't mention iSketch, at all. -- Mike 🗩 17:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Games, and Websites. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There appear to have been a number of sites mentioned in the first AfD from 15+ years ago. All of them I checked seem to be dead. Anyone able to go Internet Archive diving for them? Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned above a number of sites in the previous AFD demonstrated notability, for example CNN Review: The all-star team of online games, PC World: An Online Doodle Dandy, AskMen.com The Best & Coolest Sites Around, also it might be worth searching the PC Magazine archives on archive.org, for example PC Zone WEBGAME of the month Piecesofuk (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also saw some of these. For me, they mostly fail WP:SIGCOV. The CNN reference and the PC World reference is only one paragraph. AskMen is two sentences. PC Zone would qualify, I think, but that is still only one reference with significant coverage. -- Mike 🗩 20:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see much difference between the CNN and PC Zone sources: here's the CNN source as published in PC World (January 2002) https://eds.s.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=bd9a9c53-25f7-408f-aedc-9f4ace0d54e5%40redis Here's a couple more mini reviews from the Evening Herald (Dublin) - Wednesday 18 April 2001 and the Irish Independent - Monday 11 September 2000 Piecesofuk (talk) 09:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I looked through the references and I think there's enough information about the game to rewrite the article in a more encyclopedic fashion using said sources. I think when determining WP:SIGCOV we should always consider if the amount of information extracted from all the sources involving the subject would be enough to write a decently sized article about it, as opposed to a permastub. Given these sources, I believe it meets GNG. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'm not in love with the quality of sourcing, but it's not disqualifying. Also, this source [45]. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There aren't a *lot* of surviving sources, but they're clearly reliable and have sufficient context. Jordan117 (talk) 08:35, 19 February 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. Definite consensus to keep. Whether the page is expanded, merged to or from, or changed to a DAB, or whatever, is beyond the scope of AfD. Joyous! | Talk 15:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honinbo[edit]

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

unclear what this page is supposed to be, borderline on incoherent but subject to a slow motion edit war to reinstate the content over a redirect. To quote @Lithopsian:, s this an article, a list, a dab page or something else? anyway, it is uncited, and breaks a redirect used in a lot of articles. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keep because "Honinbo" is certainly *something* and certainly *notable*. However, quite what should be at this title is very unclear. There is Honinbo (competition), Honorary Honinbo (redirect to section at Honorary Go titles), Hon'inbō and Honinbo school, Hon'inbo, Hon'inbo school, and more, all redirects to Four Go houses. So, is there a primary topic for "Honinbo", or is it the place to put a dab page? If so, is it the house, the competition, or the title? Does the title merit its own article at all, independent of the house and the tournament? It might be much clearer if the house, from which everything else derives, had its own article instead of a fairly short section at Four Go houses. I don't know the answer, but keep the page and make some hard decisions about what should live on it. If we do decide to have a non-redirect and non-dab at the title, what we have now probably isn't good enough for mainspace, so either call it a list (and move it), merge it to an existing article, or move it to draft. Lithopsian (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems like a reasonable page. It contains material not found elsewhere, and refers to what is already elsewhere. Discussions about the contents belong on the Talk page. EiichiGo (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I just wanted to mention that we also have a Women's Honinbo article as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the topic(s) is notable, even if there is some disagreement over the scope of the page. Fulmard (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as per Liz's relisting comment, the lack of (valid) policies in debates and possibilities other than keeping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems like it should be a dab or outline page. Plenty of other relevant pages it could link to. Notability doesn't seem to be in question. JMWt (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Funny how people keep relisting. That is counterproductive. The present article was created in a series of over twenty edits around Feb 1st. The nomination for deletion was made at the very start of that series of edits (violating WP:DNB and WP:Introduction_to_deletion_process#Competence). The article that was nominated for deletion does not resemble the current article. Nobody has pointed out any problem with the present article. The content is notable and referenced. Further work is needed but is waiting for the resolution of this NfD. EiichiGo (talk) 09:17, 16 February 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. $Salvio giuliano$ 08:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anshul Jubli[edit]

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

Ranked 211 as of January 2023. Sources are not significant as they only mention his fights, nothing in-depth. Likely WP:TOOSOON. CNMall41 (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article already includes sources that are indepth and don't just mention his fights, example [46] [47] [48] HeinzMaster (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person is notable enough to have his Wikipedia article since he's the first MMA fighter from India to win a UFC match. Citation [49] [50] [51] — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 10:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Uttarakhand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This sub seems notable, he recently won a UFC contract due to he got significant coverage in Indian media. I myself wrote two articles about him on WP buy someone moved them into draft space see - Anshul Jubli. I provided more then 7 reliable refs there to prove notablity.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you wrote 2 articles about him and they were moved to draft space, what does that tell you? I also see keep comments saying there are in-depth sources. However, I do not see any of them as being notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per HeinzMaster. Adequate sourcing exists. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article subject satisfies GNG with plenty of coverage by reliable independent sources. TOOSOON isn’t a concern here. Shawn Teller (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that WP:GNG is not met for lack of appropriate sources. The "keep" arguments, made in a bludgeoning manner, are unpersuasive. They consist mainly of references to Wikiproject pages that are not community-adopted guidelines or policies and therefore have no weight in deletion discussions. Sandstein 13:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Mu Delta[edit]

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

No coverage I could find from independent sources. Scouring LinkedIn previews suggested there are ~30 students in a chapter. It's a decent article but does not seem to meet WP: GNG at present. Kazamzam (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 12:38, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Fraternity and Sorority Project supports a clear set of notability rules for this category, respecting general Wikipedia guidance, where regional or national organizations with three or more chapters, which have existed for 10 years or longer will meet a reasonable interpretation of WP's notability requirements. Additional factors are discussed on our Watchlist's talk page, such as whether a group has gained notoriety (or has been discussed) in popular media, or mention in yearbooks, in Baird's Manual or the online archive, or on campus portals, or if they own real property, etc. These factors are an attempt by Project participants to clarify for this class of organizations the general aim of requiring notability. Sigma Mu Delta meets our general bar, as they have/had three chapters and now have existed for more than 25 years. The fraternity also lists real property. While not noted in Baird's, which presently does not track professional or honor societies, SMD meets other indicators of notability. Lest anyone assume we would claim notability too readily for small or new groups, for comparison, there are or have been over 250,000 local, regional, national or international fraternities and sororities. Only a tiny fraction are supported by our Project as notable, numbering under 2,000 at this writing. While small and fairly young, Sigma Mu Delta is allowable by our consistent application of these rules. Jax MN (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for your response, I appreciate this input from the Fraternities and Sororities Project. In re: to your note about the project-defined criteria, having reviewed it, it seems that this fraternity doesn't meet the WP-specific criteria. Here is my overview:

1) Listed in an edition of Baird's or in the Baird's Archive Online Almanac - obviously no, as you mentioned.

2) Listed on a college or university website - I'm split on whether the fraternity as a comprehensive entity meets this requirement. I could only find a university website for the Berkeley chapter (included in the external links section). The parent/Alpha chapter does not have a website. Actually, I found that their registration had been revoked at UC Davis due to hazing incidents. That can be added as a source/update but I don't think qualifies as an indicator of notability as it's not their official lists of student organization. There might be an archived list somewhere although I haven't found it.

3) Not in the yearbooks I could review under Gbooks (doesn't mean it's not there though).

4) Profiled in a print publication - no. - the above link was a passing mention

5) Own or lease real estate property - I was not able to find evidence of owning property (i.e. reviewing the constitution of the Berkeley chapter, search results, etc.). Can you provide a source for your statement above?

6) Comprehensive website as a homepage - no. There are a few Instagram pages that are by name associated with the different chapters but they are defunct; there are some Facebook pages that haven't been updated since 2018/2019, but again, not a comprehensive website. The link in the infobox is dead (now tagged as such).

7) Profiled as a significant contributor for regular charitable giving - no evidence of such outside of their own affiliated sites.

While I agree with your above points that this regional organization has three or more chapters and has existed for 10 years or longer (clearly criteria that the topic does meet), I don't believe they meet the above criteria required per the WP Talk page ("To objectively show notability, a local (standalone) chapter must meet one or more of the foregoing (numbered) conditions" and must show the criteria you mentioned).

I think my comments make a decent argument against notability but it's your topic area so please advise. I think a redirect to the UC Davis Greek life section would also be acceptable if preferred to deletion. Thank you for your help with this. Kazamzam (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your engagement in this discussion. I found a few items that speak to validity, showing that the schools themselves see the fraternity as a member of their communities. One of these is the Constitution of the Beta chapter from UC Berkeley. There are portal pages, such as the portal at UC Berkeley to their local group. Next, I note that the Alpha chapter has been placed on an indefinite revocation (~unknown duration), see the local chapter being listed for the hazing issue, here, which is actually quite uncommon among US-based professional fraternities. Odd... Third, I note that where I thought in my quick skim of Google that I saw a Guidestar page, it was a false lead. Looking for it, it noted a "Davis Foundation" which is unrelated, but I saw a second link to what I consider an tangential reference to a $1.7M 'medical foundation' under the Sigma Mu Delta name, here. --Pretty tiny for a foundation. But that may be an innocent pick-up by the datanyze group to simply reference a property owned by the group, assuming it was a charitable foundation. That dollar amount is not uncommon for similar fraternity buildings. With the fact of their Alpha chapter suspended for hazing they have other things to worry about, IMHO. Finally, as we deal with organizations that can be 200 years old - certainly not this one - we occasionally find small organizations that have gone dormant yet are still notable: The fact of dormancy does not disqualify a group from consideration as "notable", and is one of Wikipedia's rules that notability does not diminish over time. I.e.: if it was once notable, it can still claim to have met that bar.

I fully agree that this isn't a widely publicized group. But I think it is notable enough to merit a page. I also agree it needs additional citations. As Wikipedia is a work in progress, and we have plenty of space, since we can be reasonably certain Sigma Mu Delta exists and that they've existed for 25 years, they meet the bar for inclusion here. Jax MN (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 1) The WP Fraternity/Sorority guideline for notability is not a checklist that must be completely met. Rather a single factor, such as a listing in Baird's, or a combination of items suffices. However, this misunderstanding of how the WP uses this guideline makes it clear that we need to be more specific in defining its use. I believe this fraternity does pass muster by the WP guideline, especially given the challenges in finding sources for professional fraternities. 2) Government recognition: They definitely are not listed in GuideStar or in the California database of nonprofits, but that just means they are not registered/incorporated as a charity with the IRS or the State of California. While I like a listing on GuideStar as it is a fantastic independent source, a lack of an entry there does not exclude a group from notability. In addition, they did register for a U.S. Patent/Trademark for their Greek letters, providing a federal publication that is now as a source for the article. 3) Professional Affiliation - another indicator of notability that the WP likes to see if membership is a professional organization. Obviously, this group lacks such affiliation but they are sponsored by the Associated Students of the University of California which is an autonomous nonprofit with a Wikipedia article. 4) I believe I found enough sources to resolve the primary complaint of a lack of citations. I used existing sources to back unreferenced text, found new sources via a more-focused Google search and through the California newspaper archive, and used Wayback Machine to recapture defunct websites (that is still in progress as each page/update was not captured every time). The sources were out there, just not readily available through Wikipedia's links. Having said that, I also removed much of the unsourced text and rewrote sections that were copied directly from an old version of their website. 5) I agree that this group still lacks major coverage in an independent publication to establish general notability. However, after now reviewing the newly found references and having worked on many articles for the WP F/S, I find this group did meet the WP standard when the article was originally written and when their website was live. Given that they lost the founding chapter when COVID hit, it is understandable that there is a gap in website maintenance. I say keep. Rublamb (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just a note, the founding chapter had its recognition revoked in 2019, pre-COVID, due to incidents of hazing, per the UC Davis website. Kazamzam (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Comment - Alpha chapter's charter was evoked in November 2019. Colleges were only in session for two weeks of December and that was exam season. Students would have only been back on campus for two weeks in 2020 when the U.S. declared a public health emergency due to COVID. Colleges started shutting down social activities and limiting the size of gatherings. All University of California campuses stopped having in-person classes on March 10, 2020. By the time students returned to campus in the fall of 2021, much of their leadership (and probably their webmaster) would have graduated. For many fraternal orders, surviving the pandemic was a challenge. We don't know the numbers yet, but based on updates I have been making to other articles, some social fraternities/sororities lost 1/3 to 1/2 of their chapters during COVID. I stand by my comment that it is reasonable that the fraternity's websites went down in 2020 and is not necessarily a reflection of non-notability. Also, it ends up that the main fraternity's website was just a landing page that linked to three stand-alone websites. Rublamb (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you for the extensive work to improve references for this article, Rublamb. I'd missed several of these in my own search. Jax MN (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article was nominated for deletion on the basis of notability because of a lack of secondary sources and a small membership. Addressing the latter first, the group has a life membership of more than 800 which is within the norm for a small GLO with three chapters and less than thirty years of operation. Furthermore, WP:ORGSIG says that "smaller organizations and their products can be notable." From the standpoint of the WP Sorority and Fraternity, this group meets our threshold for notability because it is listed on university websites, it has 3 (now 2) chapters, and it has existed for nearly 30 years. In addition, the article has been updated since its initial nomination. With the exception of a few indicated sentences, the article now has an ample number of sources, with most being secondary sources such as a Federal publication, newspapers, and university websites (secondary because they are not controlled by the fraternity). Although not all of these sources can be described as significant coverage, there are enough for the purposes of this discussion, especially when combined with the endorsement of the WP to retain. The article itself is reasonably well-written, grammatically correct, and neutral in tone. There is every expectation that this article will continue to improve as new sources become available, especially now that it is included in the watchlists of unaffiliated WP volunteers.Rublamb (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~:You have already voted, please strike the "keep" from one and make it a comment. Star Mississippi 14:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete. The main problem here is a lack of independent reliable sources that discuss Sigma Mu Delta in depth, and while the article is certainly in much better shape than it was a few weeks ago, the references that have been added are largely just passing mentions in the press, the fraternity's website, and other sources that don't meet WP:ORGDEPTH/WP:ORGIND. I searched for better sources but was unable to find anything that would add up to notability. And per WP:CONLEVEL, a WikiProject's views on notability don't take precedence over the community consensus that articles about organizations need "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for reviewing for additional sources, as we have done. Project supporters will continue to do so, and have improved the article over the past few weeks. Wikipedia is a work in progress; this organization continues to operate and do its work on its campuses. Project supporters have long realized that, unlike controversial subjects, or groups that have misbehavior complaints among the various fraternities and sororities, media coverage is scant. The truism remains, that "Scandal sells papers and delivers media coverage", even while the many groups that quietly operate without publicity, and without seeking notoriety, these still are valuable, clarifying additions to Wikipedia. I find, and believe I speak for many readers interested in these organizations on various campuses, that it creates an unbalanced perception of the nature of all such fraternities and societies if we were to only allow articles for those groups where there is salacious media coverage or where an organization is relatively large. With 800 living members, yes, this group is fairly small, but valid, and deserves a page. Wikipedia has the space, and this article simply shows that we acknowledge that fact. To attempt to kill all articles for benign, quietly-operating groups does a disservice to readers. Jax MN (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis and discussion of the available sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment - I'd like to point out that while it's great that WikiProject Fraternities & Sororities has come up with a list of specific requirements for a fraternity/sorority to be considered notable, it's important to note that this list of requirements is not a WP policy or guideline, and doesn't overrule the requirement for every WP article to be backed up by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, regardless of its inclusion in a WikiProject. I've relisted this discussion in the hopes that an analysis and discussion about the available sources (and whether they satisfy WP:GNG) can take place here, rather than an analysis of WikiProject rules, which aren't particularly relevant here, and can only really serve as a guide to quickly estimate the likelihood that a fraternity/sorority has received significant coverage in reliable sources. However, if challenged, those sources need to be provided, or else the article will be deleted, even if it satisfies the WikiProject's rules. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - whilst I understand how wikiprojects feel ownership of pages they have worked on, I see no reason why the WP:GNG shouldn't remain the standard for inclusion. At best it appears that the refs offered are local newspapers, student newspapers and university websites. None of those meet the normal standards of the GNG. Owning a building has nothing to do with it nor does the number of members and alumni. So all we are left is a call to ignore the normal notability criteria, and I can't see there is an overwhelming reason to do that. Get a historian to write a book or article about the history of the organisation and then try rewriting the page. JMWt (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GNG is not optional. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response -The WikiProject did not create this article but used our internal criteria to determine if it was worth defending in this challenge. There are literally thousands of local fraternal groups that we deem unworthy of a Wikipedia article. As I understand it, we met the original challenge that the article lacked sources and, now, there is an added challenge regarding the quality of the those source. Since I found most of those sources, I appreciate the chance to discuss them. @JMWt mentions student newspapers and university websites, so these are the specific sources I will verify against WP:GNG.

Reliable - As required, the student newspaper and universities websites are published sources. As required, these sources cover a range of time, and do not constitute breaking news that has not had time to be fact checked. WP:NEWSORG says that "news reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact." The California Aggie began in 1915, meeting the criteria for well-established. In addition, this student newspaper is, according to this article by the FIRE Foundation, overseen by a Media Board that is appointed by the university's administration. The California Aggie has a Wikipedia article, confirming that it is a notable source. The university websites included in the challenged article are the University of California, Berkeley, University of California, Santa Cruz, and University of California, Davis. I assume there is no issue with the notability and/or reliability of these institutions, but I dug deeper for the purposes of this discussion. UC Berkeley has a department of Communications & Public Affairs to oversee its communications. According to its webpage, this department is "staffed by experienced reporters and broadcast journalists." Although I did not review the biographies/resumes of this staff, the university is defining this office as professional journalists, with an implied code of ethics. The UC Santa Cruz Communications & Marketing office's mission statement includes providing content that is "accurate, credible". This department also provides policies and guidelines for the university's website. I agree that university websites might portray student organizations in a positive light and might lack neutrality. However, WP:BIASED says that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." In addition, UC Davis actually demonstrates its lack of bias by publishing negative content about the fraternity, noting hazing violations and a penalty. Thus, both the campus newspaper and the university websites meet the standard of being reliable for the purposes of Wikipedia content.
Sources - The newspaper and the university websites were not created by the subject of the article and are, therefore, secondary sources. The challenged article also has more than one secondary source, meeting the WP:GNG requirement: "since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage...multiple sources are generally expected".
Independent of the subject - The student newspaper and university websites were not created by the fraternity and therefore meet this standard. In the case of the newspaper, the articles have bi-lines and demonstrate a reporter/writer interacting with people, rather than copying a press release. Yet, this may be the most challenging criteria to explain as there is an inherent relationship between universities and fraternities. However, one of the cited references says that, at UC Berkeley, the relationship between the university and the fraternity is managed by a campus advisor and the Berkeley LEAD Center Student Organization Advising. The Lead Center webpage describes it role as recognizing student groups (RSOs), providing facilities and insurance for RSO events, and helping RSOs gain asses to campus resources. However, the LEAD Center notes "It is important to note that RSOs are separate entities from the University, and RSO programs, events, and activities do not represent UC Berkeley". Thus, the student newspaper and the university public affairs offices or even the LEAD Center are not the fraternity and do not represent the fraternity when they publish information and articles about the fraternity. These sources are, in fact, independent of the subject as required by Wikipedia.
Significant coverage - This requirement does not specify the length of significant coverage, but defines it as something between a book and trivial coverage. I hope we can all agree that a newspaper article meets this standard. The California Aggie ran "Bone Marrow Drive Aims to Draw Underrepresented Groups for Test" and "Panel to Feature MCAT Review Course Representatives" which are articles about events sponsored by the fraternity. The other instance of significant coverage is "Sigma Mu Delta | CA Link" published by UC Berkeley. This is a short feature covering the fraternity's activities, history, and other chapters. I believe any concerns about the neutrality of this content were addressed above under Reliable.
Presumed - Since coverage alone is not a guarantee of the need for an article, WP:GNG encourages "a more in-depth discussion." To me, this is where the members of WikiProject Fraternities & Sororities can really help because we have each looked at hundreds of articles covering this subject matter. Recently, I reviewed eight draft fraternity articles by non-WP editors and found that only two of the organizations came close to meeting the criteria for notability as I searched for sources. Another WP member challenged me to dig deeper for content and sources on one of those two before agreeing to publish the article. We don't believe all fraternal groups need articles, nor do we defend content that does not fit the standards for Wikipedia. If a U.S. fraternity/sorority formed prior to 1991 and is notable, it was included in Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities, but this fraternity was formed after Baird's ceased publication so we have to look elsewhere. With regards to fraternal histories, there are many out there and most are authored by historians and scholars—who are members of the fraternity. These biased sources are something that WP members are used to reviewing and evaluating. As a result, I find that brief mentions of a fraternity in newspaper and university articles are more important as a citation than a book of puffery because being independent is more important than length when determining reliability. @Jax MN is correct that some fraternities can have thousands of members at hundreds of campuses in the United States and abroad, and still have only been covered by local newspapers or the university unless there is a hazing scandal or a significant violation of university policy. This type of low profile does not mean that a fraternity lacks notability by Wikipedia's standards. As in this instance, the sources provided can and do meet the criteria to document notability.
I also want to apply the concept that Wikipedia is a work in progress. The variety and number of secondary sources already found through quick Google searches show a pattern of media coverage of the subject over many years. There is every expectation that new sources will emerge or already exist to improve this article. As new sources are found, this article can be enhanced and expanded, along with removing primary sources and/or content not backed by reliable sources. This article is already better than many stub/start class articles in Wikipedia, with reasonably good prose, many reliable sources, and a neutral/encyclopedic tone. This article now has oversight by a WikiProject that has guidelines, active members, and a willingness to reject and/or replace inappropriate content. There are editors involved that have no connection to the subject of the article and no desire for self-promotion. This article, like all of Wikipedia, is a work in progress. It should be allowed to progress and grow. Rublamb (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the sources covering a topic has no bearing on that topic's notability. Statements describing a campus organization on that university's website are not independent because they are affiliated with the subject (despite not being the same) and normally written by the subject itself. Meanwhile, per WP:AUD, an organization's notability cannot be proven solely by coverage in local media (of which college newspapers are the foremost example). I see no sources that aren't either a hosting college or student newspaper. Neither are sufficient to demonstrate notability. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response: The notability of sources equates to reliability which is a requirement of WP:GNG. It, in fact, does matter when evaluating the quality of the references which is what is in question in this challenge. I have provided documentation and sources regarding the separation of the fraternity and the university and its publication. Your statement that the university and fraternity are not independent and that content in question was written by the group is your opinion, not fact, which does not trump documentation. With regards to WP:AUD, it says that "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." The first source in the article, Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office: Trademarks. U.S. Department of Commerce, Patent and Trademark Office. 2005 qualifies as a national source. Note that WP:AUD does not specify that this source must provide significant coverage, simply that it must be a source. In addition, the students, alumni, potential students, and parents of students of these universities live across the state of California, across the United States, and internationally; therefore, the audience is not just local but statewide, national, and international. Rublamb (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not equal reliability. See the Daily Mail, Breitbart, CGTN, and dozens of other examples at WP:RSP that are both notable and deprecated because they are unreliable.

Universities are not independent of fraternities for our purposes. Dependence is not limited to "one created the other." Per WP:NORG, related organizations include business partners and associates. You yourself observed that the University of California provides facilities, insurance, and other resources to Sigma Mu Delta; this is obviously a business relationship. I could also point to other facets of the relationship, like how Sigma Mu Delta and other fraternities provide robust social networks and thereby help universities with things like alumni outreach and connecting students with jobs. The point of all of this is that universities are interested and involved in the activities of fraternities, including an interest in promoting those things by writing about them, and are therefore not independent of the subject for notability purposes. This is, of course, assuming that UC staff and not ΣΜΔ members wrote them, which is obviously not the case in, e.g., UC Berkeley's page, which uses first person pronouns to describe the organization.

It is literally not true that WP:AUD does not mention significant coverage, read the second sentence again. Additionally, it says national or international media; the US Patent and Trademark Office is not media, it is a government body, and anything it publishes is a primary source which does not contribute to notability. Meanwhile, The California Aggie is written by students, for students, and unlikely to be read by anyone not involved with the college. Sigma Mu Delta's membership obviously does not affect The California Aggie's readership. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response Yes, WP:AUD talks about significant coverage and media. However, I will quote again "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." It does not say "one significant source" its says "one...source". It does not say media, it says source. A book is a source. And, even if it did say media, a book is mass media, under the subsection of print media. Your belief that anything published by a government body is a primary source is unfounded and, frankly, absurd. In this instance, the primary source would be the trademark application/paperwork from the fraternity. However, the government publication summarizes those primary sources, making this a secondary source Rublamb (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence says: Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. You are supposed to know to resupply the adjective "significant" from the second sentence into the third. This section tightens the sourcing requirements for organizations, not weakens them: it is not a magic wand by which every organization that has ever been mentioned by an institution of national reach becomes notable if anyone else reliable has talked about them.

I disagree with your opinion that the government's report of all the trademarks it granted is a secondary source, but it is irrelevant: the coverage is not significant and not even directly about the organization (just its trademark). —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Mr. or Ms. Compassionate, you've made a very broad statement, unsupported, that collegiate media articles are "normally written by the subject itself." This is conjectural, and in no way accurate for the majority of colleges, certainly not for the three state schools which are home to Sigma Mu Delta. These are not tiny colleges with a couple of writers toiling on a weekly news sheet, who beg for filler content. These are long-standing publications with professional and student staff, operating (and teaching) under principles of journalistic codes. It's akin to saying that because I shop at the same grocery as a neighborhood bully, that I am somehow affiliated. This would be an equivalent logical fallacy. The article clearly meets the standard of notability. Jax MN (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand me, I meant that pages describing Sigma Mu Delta on the University's websites were probably written by its members (or other involved persons), not student newspaper articles. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter either way; student newspapers are only written for the interest of students and faculty of the university and generally only write about things that a directly relevant to them. There is absolutely no way to tell if the author of the newspaper article was independent of the organisation in question. Similarly, the university recognising (or not recognising) a student organisation such as this is very weak evidence of notability. The university likely recognises the chess team that doesn't mean that the university chess team is therefore notable. The fact is that outside of the university community very few have taken much notice of this organisation. Unless there is media coverage totally outwith of the university community, it isn't notable. JMWt (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument that there is no way to tell if the author of a newspaper article is independent of the subject is interesting and would have a far reaching impact to Wikipedia if taken at face value across all newspapers. Journalism is a profession with a code of ethics. If the publication is professional and reliable, there is an assumption of the reporter's independence from the subject of the article--unless stated otherwise. I frequently find guest pieces in campus newspapers and other newspapers that cite the authors relationship to the subject, such as a student belonging to an organization or playing on an athletic team. Online versions of campus newspapers almost always link to short bio of the writer. In this instance, I am looking at an article written by a senior editor of the Aggie. In evaluating this person's independence from the fraternity, it is more likely than not that a senior editor of the newspaper is not a pre-med student and, therefore, is not a member this fraternity exclusively for pre-med students. However, from your position, this doesn't matter because this is a campus newspaper. So, let's look at the source from a local newspaper, The Press-Tribune of Roseville, CA. Granted, this is a mention rather than a feature, but it does represent coverage totally outside of the university community. I also added Hlaudy, Korey (2011-03-15). UC Davis 2012. College Prowler. ISBN 978-1-4274-9714-7. Now there are three sources not linked to the fraternity or the campus--two books and one newspaper article. Rublamb (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, you are seriously trying to tell us that the College Prowler book reference is useful for determining notability. It's a single line in a table on one page. I'm not clear what you think this proves, but it doesn't. JMWt (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also forgot the the Day of Difference website if for a foundation in Australia. Rublamb (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can !keep voters stop it with the WP:BLUD? I think we all understand the position now. We don't need any more walls of text as responses. JMWt (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I felt the need to expand and clarify my defense because this challenge changed its focus and the deletion discussion was been extended to a third week after the first two attempts did not secure a majority of negative votes. Rublamb (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you've been but AfD decisions are not determined by a majority vote but by the quality of the argument weighed against policy. JMWt (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. That is why I have expanded my response (as my earlier comments were apparently not clear enough to end the debate). Rublamb (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have not ended the debate as I dispute all of your conclusions. JMWt (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Extraordinary Writ. Neither WP:ORGDEPTH nor WP:GNG are established. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm pleased to have found yet another reference for this group. The Baird's Archive had them under men's groups, not co-ed groups where I had previously looked. Also, I note that the OP had indicated they only had some ~30 members. The accurate count is 800, and like other professional fraternities, those aren't just initiates whose involvement ceases upon graduation. This organization appears to continue networking and peer correspondence during members' professional careers. Jax MN (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Response - This addition provides the significant non-local source that many have indicated was missing for this article. The online Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities continues in the tradition of the print series Baird’s Manual of American College Fraternities that, for more than a century, was the leading authority on notable Greek letter organizations. As with Baird's, the Almanac is selective in which groups are included. This is not a list of every fraternal organization, but only those deemed noteworthy by historians with expertise in the field. In addition, the Almanac is hosted by the library of the University of Illinois, an institution with not affiliation with Sigma Mu Delta. Rublamb (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is literally just an entry in a list. There isn't any prose, much less a significant amount of it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:ORG: "If the list itself is notable, such as the Fortune 500 and the Michelin Guide, the inclusion counts like any other reliable source..." This is one of those exceptions where being in a list is not considered trivial trivial. Rublamb (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand the purpose of that section. It is saying that if we had, for example, a list of "top-ten fastest growing tech companies" that had a paragraph discussing each of those companies, that list would not constitute significant coverage because the list itself is trivial; you get stuff like that all the time from churnalism. The footnote is clarifying that lists notable for their prestige are exempted from this carve-out. This does not change the requirement that the list itself contain significant coverage of the subject; note that the final line in this list of examples of trivial coverage is listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization; Baird's manual is an example of this. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not misunderstand; the section in question is clearly exempting some lists from being considered trivial, following a sttement that most lists are considered trivial. Baird's is an excellent resource that includes each organization's history, symbols, notable members, and chapters, as well as a discussion of the organization role in the overall history of GLOs, as applicable. The Almanac, which is a newer resource, continues in the tradition of Baird's but could not reproduce copyrighted text from Baird's. Thus, the two resources work in tandem, with one providing an historical overview and the other providing current (updated monthly) information on chapters and status. Unfortunately, groups such as Sigma Mu Delta that were established after Baird's final edition in 1991, never received the introductory/history treatment. Nevertheless, these two resources--Baird's and the Almanac are the definitive source for information GLOs and in determining whether or not an organization is notable. There is no higher or better resource on GLOs. As a result, it is a reference that should have significant weight, with or without an added paragraph of text. The Almanac, the Australian foundation's website, and the U.S. Patent Office book collectively prove that there is interest in this group beyond the campus--these three are not a huge articles, but they also are not trivial coverage. The campus and local newspapers do provide significant coverage. Rublamb (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned over the rush to delete this article, as Wikipedia is a work in progress. We have made great strides to improve it over the past three weeks. With 800+ living members, all in the medical field, this population is not trivial. Health professionals routinely reference their school associations within their curriculum vitae, (resumes), and it is natural for some of their dozens of patients each day seeking care to take note of these and investigate what the associations are, either from website acknowledgement or from researching the certificates proudly displayed on their office walls. Hence, far more than 800+ members would seek to understand what "Sigma Mu Delta" is. While I understand that Wikipedia is rife with publicity seeking artists, inconsequential wanna-be 'influencers' and the rest, this organization, now 29 years old, doesn't at all strike me as publicity seeking nor is it inconsequential. Wikipedia's readers are not served by limiting Wikipedia's offerings on the various helpful collegiate organizations to only those relative few where members get into trouble and thereby net the broad media coverage that comes with such negative actions. Indeed, such a limitation would effect an unwarranted imbalanced impression that denies the benefits provided by such groups, most of which are valuable, if quiet performers. As a Project volunteer I see many local, new chapters who draft articles, and I discourage many of these as not notable. This is why we identified a set of rules, fully in keeping with the general guidance on notability, but which set a rather high bar for our efforts to include them. There may be 200,000 such locals, current or in the past, but only a few of these would qualify as notable, to our practiced view. This group exceeds that bar. Sigma Mu Delta is far more than a passing campus club. Its members showcase and advocate the value of their membership throughout their professional careers. To kill this article now is unnecessarily Deletionist, and would make Wikipedia less valuable. Jax MN (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we've already heard the argument that the wikiproject is special and that your special pages shouldn't have to follow policy. Several times now. WP:BLUD JMWt (talk) 07:14, 22 February 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 03:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

White Rose School System[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable school system, fails WP:NCORP. BookishReader (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Pakistan. AllyD (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single independent reference. Fails WP:SIRS Rhadow (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Totally agree with nom and above. Not notable due to lack of sourcing. High schools are not presumed notable. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:19, 17 February 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 Sue Rodriguez. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Considine[edit]

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

Non-notable lawyer, with one famous client/case. Sources are all routine mentions of his advocacy, not sigcov of the subject himself. Jdcooper (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jdcooper (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable career, could redirect to Sue Rodriguez maybe? No sources found that are unrelated to that case. Oaktree b (talk) 03:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as stated in the nomination, but second @Oaktree b's remark about potential redirect LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rodriguez. One case does not a notable lawyer make. Rhadow (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Author Shaneka Mayo (Shaneka Mayo)[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable author moved to draft and moved back to main within a few minutes; poorly 'sourced' and without required inline citations. The 'awkward' title may be a cause for concern in that this sort of 'disamb' has been used to manipulate the AfC system. 'Naive' search reveals no additional SIGCOV and is almost certainly an autobiography. Eagleash (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page is now at Shaneka Mayo having been moved in in the interim to Shaneka Mayo 2. Eagleash (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources and only personal websites found. Not at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass GNG for sure. Silikonz💬 05:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Username SMAYO22 is a clear indication of eligibility for CSD under G11. Given it has already been brought up for AfD, though, here is the very obvious rationale: sources are utterly unreliable and I was not able to find any more that would come close to verifying any WP:GNG especially for WP:BLP. Ppt91 (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article creator moved it around and I deleted the redirects. The article under discussion is at Shaneka Mayo. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 19:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a single cited reliable source. MarioGom (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably qualifies for a speedy deletion under G11. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CR Entertainment[edit]

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

No context, no content, no indication of importance. Epifanove^💬 01:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and Ireland. AllyD (talk) 08:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A WP:BEFORE search returns only the same ROTM coverage we might expect for any similar small company. No indication that WP:CORPDEPTH is met. In terms of "regular" news sources, all I can find in the Irish Times or in the Irish Examiner or similar national news sources are passing mentions (of the original and merged/rebranded company). Like this. Or this. Which are the very definition of trivial passing mentions. I can find no regular news coverage which deal with the subject as a primary topic. In terms of "industry" news sources, I can find a few things in the Irish Film & Television Network site, but only a very small handful of these pieces (like this one) deal with the subject as a primary topic. And this reads like republished press-release and is not enough to meet SIGCOV. That the article was created by an apparent SPA/COI profile doesn't help. Otherwise, the subject org seems to have existed only for a few years before it was acquired/merged with another company. And, as that larger company has no article, there doesn't seem to be a viable merge/AtD option. Mine is a "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guliolopez. Spleodrach (talk) 16:29, 16 February 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Hey man im josh (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ottopasuuna[edit]

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

It seems that this article only has 1 eligible source, being Chicago Reader. Allmusic biographies are user submitted information. The article in Madozine is not significant coverage of the band and only covers one member. Mandozine also does not seem to be a reliable source. Officialangrydub (talk) 00:53, 16 February 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 February 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Finland. Skynxnex (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This should qualify for WP:SK under article 2 due to the nominator's recent back-and-forth with the article's original author in a separate AfD discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/$teven_Cannon). The timing of this nomination is further indication of that being the case and it appears that the nominator selected one of the author's (who is an experienced editor with strong record of high quality content) shorter/weaker articles so that they might stand a chance in deletion. Regardless of speedy keep, the notability of the subject should be verifiable by WP:SINGER 7 per first international album of Finnish folk and 6, for now partially, as Kimmo Pohjonen is a recognized Finnish musician and I suspect the case can be made for one of the remaining members. It already includes at least one WP:RELY and WP:VERIFY source from the Chicago Tribune review (which the nominator erroneously described as Chicago Reader). More sources might be needed (as of now, I could find short reference in The Beat, Volume 16, 1997 and a mention in Oliver, Paul, Continuum Encyclopedia of Popular Music of the World United Kingdom: Continuum, 2003, the latter of which should be sufficient to verify the band's notable position in relation to Finnish folk). The request is without much merit; it might warrant a tag on the article, though an AfD unfortunately seems like an intentional disruption. Ppt91 (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: @Doomsdayer520 is the author involved who I think might be targeted for disruption nomination and should qualify for SK criteria under WP:SK article 2. Ppt91 (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The timing of this nomination is indeed suspicious, and you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/$teven Cannon that the nominator is lashing out at other editors in that discussion and showing little regard for Wikipedia policies. Also, the nominator missed the fact that this band also has an album article here, which shows poor investigation before taking action. If the nomination is targeted at me, others can investigate, but the nominator has already shown a certain inability to detach arguments about WP policies from the subject of the article under discussion. Meanwhile, here is some history on the article. Someone had already created an article for Ottopasuuna (album), which I noticed as a member of the Albums Project, but there was no article for the band. That contradicts WP traditions, so I created the article on the band in good faith and for the benefit of readers, though I was previously unfamiliar with the band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the article, if it survives this process I will personally add the sources that have been suggested by the good-faith voters below. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See above, as I am the creator of the article though I am not particularly attached to it. I will say here that sources on the band are indeed slim and restrained to obscure classical and folk publications, but the band is highly regarded in those communities. Per Wikipedia:Permastub, a short article is acceptable if the subject is described adequately. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went to look for examples of a "properly written article" when I received feedback on the article in which I wrote. Upon checking the users submissions I noticed that the same criteria being used to establish notierierty were not being used so I wanted to learn the correct process for dealing with an article of such caliber. I suspect that if I continue to follow this trend I will find 1000s of more examples from other writers. But back on topic, there are no articles that establish notoriety. The Mondozine is an interview and therefore a primary source. Allmusic IS user submitted data, and therefore a primary source, and the Chicago Tribune (my apologies for the error) does not offer significant coverage, it's literally a starred rating with 2 short paragraphs that do not significantly cover the topic. The first paragraph solely makes fun of their name and how hard it is to pronounce while the second paragraph offers a short summary of the instruments they play and the traditional folk songs they play at their events, nothing to support notability. Officialangrydub (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of dropping hints that you are going to whack thousands of articles because $teven Cannon doesn't qualify for one, perhaps you could consider the good faith of others around here and vow to improve such articles in order to make Wikipedia even better for its readers. Also note that notability is not proven or disproven by the sources currently in an article, and you should search for more before condemning the current sources and then claiming that the subject is not notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Officialangrydub You seem to be focusing on the wrong things here and I am concerned that you are starting to really push WP:POINT which is against policy. You also mistake notoriety for notability. As I said earlier, and what others have already added, the notability of this article, while not inherent, can be still reasonably established with WP:SINGER criteria for which there are sufficient WP:VERIFY. We all agree that more sources need to be used, but several examples have already been provided by myself and other editors, clearly challenging, if not entirely invalidating, the premise of your AfD nomination. Please read more about the AfD process WP:DISCUSSAFD and how it works. Ppt91 (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep for what it's worth, 21 hits in Helsingin Sanomat. These seem to be mostly short articles about the band, its album, and gigs. I agree with doomsdayer520 above that specialist (print) sources in Finnish need to be consulted to better determine notability. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC) Edit 1: There are also at least a few articles exclusively about the band or its album in Uusi kansanmusiikki magazine. The following book is also tagged for the band in the Finnish library system: Page, Phillip (1996). Arctic paradise : contemporary Finnish folk music 1996-97. [Helsinki]: Finnish Music Information Centre cop. ISBN 951-96274-6-4. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC) Edit 2: Changing my vote to keep since the coverage seems to be piling up. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They do seem to be covered in two musical encyclopedias [52] and [53]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawal request The article has been improved to include more sources WP:RELY verifying WP:SINGER particularly in reference to the band's position as a recognized Finnish folk group and establishing the notability of at least two of its members, sufficient to satisfy criteria 6 and 7. Per WP:AFDFORMAT, specifically "If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin." I am requesting that @Officialangrydub the nominator withdraw the deletion request and I kindly ask that that the discussion be closed by an administrator. Thank you! Ppt91 (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to properly withdraw the request but for the sake of the community I will surely agree to any withdraw. Officialangrydub (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been improved since taken to AfD. /Julle (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Officialangrydub (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Comment - Since the nominator clearly withdrew the nomination after a strong suggestion from another voter, this AfD can possibly be closed by a non-admin, as seen in these instructions: WP:NACD. I thought about doing this myself but it could be seen as a conflict of interest because I created the article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind doing that since this inconvenience was my fault, I'm just confused as to where I place that line of code the protocol instructed to use. EdmHopLover1995 (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pelistank TV[edit]

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

Kurdish children's TV channel. Absolutely no independent references. Kurdish wiki has an article but it's just as bad. Putting to AfD as a last-ditch effort to see if someone can find this notable. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. I couldn't find much info about the channel either. Semsûrî (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It gets one hit in Google News and that is just an article that embeds a couple of videos from its YouTube channel. there are 4 hits in Google Scholar but only one is about the channel and that predates the alleged relaunch. Not clear whether the alleged new channel is even connected to the old one or just reusing its name. Looking at their website, it is not even clear that this is a broadcast TV station at all. You would think it would say what area it is broadcast in or what satellite it is on but I don't see anything. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete–per nominator and I didn't find much other that Wikipedia derivatives either.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: even searching under the Arabic-alphabet version of the name (پێلستانک تی ڤی), the only independent source I found was this study, which according to the English-language abstract, does use songs taken from the Pelistank TV to study the psychology of children, but doesn't seem to provide significant coverage of the channel itself. small jars tc 15:15, 16 February 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 keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in the Bangladesh Army[edit]

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

Not notable. There are no independent sources. Foxsh (talk) 06:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. Note that creating this AfD is the nominator's first and only edit. WP:QUACK. Jfire (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep nomination without merit. Mccapra (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Military, and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough independent sources. Mehedi Abedin 14:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. not sure what the nominator means by "no independent sources" LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:58, 16 February 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.