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 don't see a consensus to delete the article. While there are some suggestions that a merge might be preferable to keeping the article in its current location, that is a discussion for an article talk page, especially as the target is still under discussion. Joyous! | Talk 01:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cow Hug Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not a notable topic. SSIND21 « let me know » 19:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is a one-off event for 2022. Had it been the start of an annual event I would likely offer an opinion for retention. While there is a decent amount of significant, independent, reliable source coverage. the event per se needs to pass WP:GNG in order to have place here. My opinion is that this is a GNG failure, despite garnering press coverage. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Altering !vote to merge per Rhododendrites. Wise words. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and India. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How can you say that this is "Not notable". ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 05:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The event is called off by Animal Welfare Board of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeSou27 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Being called on or off by any organization doesn't passes or fails Notability. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 05:51, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the amount of RSes referenced. Clearly notable, and notability is permanent, so even if the event no longer runs, it was once (and thus still is) notable. Just add a more prominent note that it was called off. BhamBoi (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I doubt, this one of momentary grapevine will hold, without any likely long term acceptance. But coat-rack reference to cow-cuddling from WaPo news article made me curious. For cow cuddling I could find an academic reference written by academic scholar Emily McGiffin. Chapter 4 Laudable Cow: Poetics of Human Cattle relationship Work:Bencke, Ida. Multispecies Storytelling in Intermedial Practices. United States, Punctum Books, 2022. pp page 93 is specific about Cow cuddling and as per book origin of the new (western interest) trend seems to have been attributed to Dutch origin. Bookku (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep because there are reliable sources and at least some notability. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has received significant coverage in national as well as international media so the notability is established. Charsaddian (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of lasting coverage and no long-term significance. WP:NOTNEWS applies. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes WP:GNG. I can find news coverage from many newspaper or television stations of other countries and other continents like from Sky News, The National News, Al Jazeera, USA Today, CBS News, The Time, The Guardian and CNN. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 09:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: WP:DEPTH says "The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like The Guardian, Time, Newsweek, or The Economist)." and this event has feature length articles in major news magazines like The Guardian and TIME. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 09:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I also found some more news sources from many other international newspapers like Greek Reporter, NBC News, The Independent and Smithsonian (magazine). ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 06:05, 19 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!} 23:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Not a notable event. Alex-h (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a notable event because it passes WP:DEPTH. WP:DEPTH says that "The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like The Guardian, Time, Newsweek, or The Economist)." and this event has feature length articles in major news magazines like The Guardian and Time. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 11:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Animal Welfare Board of India. This seems like a pretty obvious merge to me, and I'm surprised not to see other boldtext merge !votes. We have a very recent event and do not yet have an indication that there will be lasting significance. We also have a clear parent article for which the sourcing justifies inclusion. Merge, and if it receives lasting significance, spin the stand-alone article out later. As an aside, since the subsection about cow cuddling predating this event (which needs a source-based connection to this event, btw), makes me wonder if there's potential for an article on ~"cow cuddling" or "cow hugging". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, preferably Merge: into Valentine's Day in India in a special section and add link of that section in See also section of Animal Welfare Board of India.

"WP Policy review": Though there was considerable social media and media coverage; so called supposed to be event was non–event (appeal withdrawn in hours and event just did not happen), most coverage was in form of Meme or coverage of Meme and social media stance, hence one of applicable discussion is WP:Notability (memes) and , though WP community still does not have consensus over memes one good point mentioned over there is "The meme has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the meme itself, and which qualifies as a reliable source." Though considerable media coverage happened is clickbait and trivial to have an independent article as of now, WP:SENSATIONAL states ".. Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting. .."

While mentioning WP:DEPTH above learned co-wikipedian @​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖 seem to miss just next paragraph ".. Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally. ..". Here in this case main event in context is Valentine's Day in India. Unless and until some one owns up Cow-hug day in WP:Future event it does not seem to create independent notability.

Whether 'Cow hug day' that did not happen will be discussed whenever future Valentine's Day in India will happen? answer is yes. Whether as much it will be discussed every time Animal Welfare Board of India is discussed probably not as much beyond occasional gossip hence merge in Valentine's Day in India and see also link in the later. Bookku (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Valentine's Day in India as it would make sense there due to the date it was proposed to happen on. It can be mentioned in Animal Welfare Board of India#Activism, however as Bookku mentions above, it moreso pertains to Valentine's Day than the actual board itself; the board is a statutory body and not exclusively an activist group. Unknown-Tree (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Animal Welfare Board article or Valentine's Day in India article. There is considerable coverage, but it seems that coverage all takes place within the span of a single week or so. WP:PERSISTENCE is relevant here: Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 14:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Animal Welfare Board of India or Valentine's Day in India. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:15, 27 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 International recognition of Kosovo. Viable AtD. While there is no strong desire to merge, there's no clear reason to delete prior to redirecting. History is under the redirect if someone finds sourced content worth merging. Star Mississippi 02:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamas–Kosovo relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Similar AfD to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kosovo–Myanmar relations. These articles are replicating content in International recognition of Kosovo. Also nominating:

• Bhutan–Kosovo relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Botswana–Kosovo relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Chile–Kosovo relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Eritrea–Kosovo relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kosovo–North Korea relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) LibStar (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Kosovo, and Caribbean. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa, Asia, Korea, and Chile. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all Articles can always be recreated if and when there's something substantial and notable to cover other than non-recognition. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just because they're replicating content of another article, doesn't mean they aren't worthy of a standalone article. These have merit and are sufficiently notable. --Bedivere (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How are they sufficiently notable? Each article is not subject to significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But there's nothing to cover apart from some blow-by-blow of the continued non-recognition! RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Bedivere; most of these are sufficiently notable and the replication of content is not a good enough reason to delete them. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Each articles fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Not seeing any in depth coverage for any of these pairings. Yilloslime (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• delete all Once one gets past the first sentence of each, the rest is blow-by-blow WP:NOTNEWSpaper reporting, which may or may not justify the thesis of each article. Besides, it's hardly notable whether Bhutan recognizes any place it doesn't directly abut, and the recognition of the rest is hardly notable either. Perhaps as entries in the list they are justifiable (although I'm having a hard time believing its contents, if the supporting citations all look like these), but there's certainly no reason for individual articles. Mangoe (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Mangoe. Highway 89 (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/redirect all When something doesn't exist it generally doesn't need an article. The main recognition article says it all. Reywas92^Talk 21:38, 18 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!} 23:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to International recognition of Kosovo as an WP:ATD. Kosovo is only a partially-recognized state, so other states' recognition is different from other relations articles. However, that is better covered in the main page as opposed to separate pages, since most diplomatic relations except for regional neighbours are solely hinged on recognition.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bahamas-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Congratulations! This is the first article in a new delsort! –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless we can find a reliable source that significantly covers the topic of the "Bahamas–Kosovo relations" (or others'). Sporadic mentions of political statements is not reliable coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Countries should have relations before we write about their relations. If there's any info that's not duplicated in International recognition of Kosovo, then it can be merged into that article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:20, 27 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. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Juliya (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, tagged for notability DonaldD23 talk to me 21:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Sri Lanka. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

● Delete I concur with nominator in regard to notability; in addition, the article is in very poor shape Ppt91 (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep as there is reliable sources coverage such as this, and this but its not really critical analysis like reviews, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : More information and references were added to the article. The film claims it introduced high definition cinema to their country and which can be considered a notable fact. Also the references indicate that it has a significant coverage and hence can pass WP:NFILMAbhishekrand (talk) 14:55, 20 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!} 23:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per new sources. Suitskvarts (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The film's introduction of HD quality to the country is a significant milestone in Sinhalese cinema. As such it meets the inclusionary criteria WP:NFIC #1 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:39, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feed the Children Vallarta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Sources provided are very local or not reliable. LibStar (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Mexico. Skynxnex (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No significant coverage by reliable sources. Should be a speedy delete. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 20:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Looks like a worthwhile and wonderful organisation, and I wish it all the best, but that doesn't get it past our GNG, so it's a Delete from me for lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Springnuts (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:31, 27 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) 22:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Dina Ariqat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable ex-Britney Spears impersonator. Previously deleted by PROD in 2007 and newly recreated for some reason. Mccapra (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Mccapra (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I could not find support for WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG/WP:BASIC notability in an online search, or much beyond databases and this from Screen Rant. Beccaynr (talk) 03:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete She seems to have been in two movies in very minor parts - she can only be found in the 'full cast' list on the second IMDB page. Since that's all that we know about her, her entry in IMDB will have to be where people look for her. This same lack of information has been ported to nearly every movie database, and none fill in anything more. Lamona (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No references provided and I was not able to find anything. Fails notability and WP:NACTOR.Pershkoviski (talk) 20:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:36, 27 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 List of Melbourne City FC players. Star Mississippi 02:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Clarke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lots of references but nothing of substance. Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His appearance for Melbourne City is the reason for this article, and is backed with enough sources including multiple club reports and stats that define his playing career. FastCube (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NSPORTS2022, playing a game for Melbourne City is no longer an automatic notability pass Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Melbourne City FC players, the one article I could find was in this minor Australian soccer website of dubious reliability, everything else was either database listings or social media. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:27, 26 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) 22:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve McDonald (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I found a passing mention in a BBC squad list and a few mentions in a semi-pro match report in GameDay. Please ping me if anything better is found and I'm happy to change my !vote. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Playing a solitary game in the SPL for Motherwell (as a late substitute) does not in itself make someone notable and I cannot find any other evidence that would suggest he has the sort of notability that would justify him having a Wikipedia article. Dunarc (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I just don’t see any evidence of WP:NOTABILITY in the WP:SOURCES given in the article. They don’t satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. If there were significant evidence of notability, then I would support keeping, but as it stands I have to say delete since the subject just doesn’t seem notable enough to merit an article. Shawn Teller (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No significant coverage. Fails notability. Pershkoviski (talk) 20:26, 26 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edupunk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

nominating for deletion per WP:NOTDIC. Previously listed for deletion and didn't find consensus. Seems like a flash in the pan. Tdmurlock (talk) 20:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Education. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 22:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 22:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 22:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - NOTDIC seems like a misguided rationale, as it's an approach to teaching not a word. It got a bunch of coverage in 2008, e.g. Chronicle of Higher Education, a Guardian blog, but the coverage wasn't limited to then. See The Professional Georgrapher in 2018, ICHL in 2011, The Tyee in 2010, Inside Higher Ed in 2010, the book DIY U: Edupunks, Edupreneurs, and the Coming Transformation of Higher Education in 2010... A Google Scholar search returns hundreds of results. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The sources provided by Rhododendrites more than adequately demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. WJ94 (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article is not a dictionary definition, and I see no challenge to its SIGCOV. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:24, 27 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) 22:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sam O’Nella Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Another non-notable youtuber. Was nominated for an award in 2019, didn't win and just keeps doing what he does. No mentions in any RS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I did see his content before. But who cares. Super Ψ Dro 20:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sam O'Nella Academy is a very important part of the YouTube educational video space. He is one of the most well liked and respected content creators. Even if you don't care, millions of other people do.

  If you think this article is not "Notable" that doesn't matter. A majority of Wikipedia articles aren't notable or are only notable for not being notable. Almost every chemical compound has a Wikipedia page but I bet half of those do not really matter or are not notable.

  Sam and his channel have a cult following with the internet coming together when he came back. I don't see a cult following for Lead(IV) acetate. ThyOfThee (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence of reliable news sources discussing his cult following in depth. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News sources don't often have articles about youtubers like Sam, more people like Pewdiepie or Mr Beast as they are the biggest on the platform.

Sam's cult following can be seen in these places though,

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1DTYW241WD64ah5BFWn4JASam has over 4 million subscribers and nearly 600 million views

https://twitter.com/sam_onellaSam has 285 thousand followers and has several accounts based off his characters and jokes

https://www.reddit.com/r/SamONellaAcademy/His subreddit has 91 thousand members, all dedicated to his channel

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11988522/episodes?season=1 Sam O'Nella Academy is also on IMDb

In all of these you will also find that any sort of mention of a topic sam has covered, any mention of it in a place outside his community is joked about continuously.

You will also find that when he uploaded his most recent episode of Sam O'Nella Academy, a very large portion of the internet celebrated as he was back from hiatus.

I highly doubt a majority of the things on Wikipedia have news articles written about them. I don't see a new article for Potassium hexacyanoferrate(II) yet its on Wikipedia ThyOfThee (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical compounds are discussed in scientific journals and help study crystal structure. I couldn't find any peer-reviewed journal mentions of O'Nella's work. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete::Fails to meet 'significant coverage' of WP:GNG, unless Reliable sources can be found, then should be deleted until then. StarryNightSky11 ☎ 22:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've made some improvements to the article, added the award nomination and some tabloid news, but I don't think it meets WP:GNG. CT55555(talk) 22:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. Doesn't appear to meet GNG or WP:ENT. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Most of the content was copied from Sam O'Nella Academy at Fandom. — Diannaa (talk) 14:59, 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Min-gyu (footballer, born 1999) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:GNG found for this footballer. The article's current references are a database page and a trivial mention in The Star, which is hardly a claim to notability. The Korean Wikipedia article is unsourced. I have used the Korean name for searching in conjunction with his previous clubs but found nothing of note. All I can find is plenty of coverage about Kim Min-kyu (actor) and Kim Min-kyu (entertainer) but nothing about this footballer. Please also don't confuse him with any of the other several footballers at Kim Min-kyu. Malaysian searches were a little better but still don't show notability. Majoriti is a trivial mention and so is Makanbola. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. Does not appear to meet GNG. May be WP:TOOSOON.Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:04, 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. Joyous! | Talk 20:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Elizabeth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, only notable role was a one-season-stint in reality show The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. Throast ^{((ping)) me!} (talk | contribs) 18:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Throast ^{((ping)) me!} (talk | contribs) 18:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, South Africa, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. References are a gossip site, a news announcement that her husband has filed for divorce, an interview, a page announcing that "Carlton Gebbia will be joining season four of Real Housewives of Beverly Hills", and so on ... nothing which comes remotely near to indicating notability in the terms of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (Incidentally, if the article is kept, it should be renamed to Carlton Gebbia. Elizabeth is her middle name, but none of the cited sources calls her "Carlton Elizabeth", and I con't imagine why the Wikipedia article does.) JBW (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks indepth coverage failsWP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. She has some coverage (here's Screen Rant, for example), but it's all in relation to this one show. Target article can afford to be expanded with information about its main subjects. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Gebbia, which is the name she's known by, already redirects to The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. I don't think anyone would ever search for just her first and middle name. Why this article was named "Carlton Elizabeth" is inexplicable to me, and it should be deleted for that reason alone. Throast ^{((ping)) me!} (talk | contribs) 18:53, 27 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. Joyous! | Talk 20:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grand River Enterprises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The company appears only to be notable for the founder's lavish lifestyle and being sued for smuggling, a BEFORE identifies nothing on which to write an article about GRE. Star Mississippi 18:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Canada. Star Mississippi 18:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to locate sufficient sources that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:49, 27 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. Joyous! | Talk 20:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Palatinate (award) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Cannot find significant, independent coverage, so I think this is a GNG fail. Coverage is linked to Durham's extensive student publications and related materials. Possible merge targets include Palatinate (colour) and/or Team Durham( although that article is currently is mostly based on non-independent sources and may itself be non-notable). It could get a sentence or two in Blue (university sport) under 'Other British universities' as this award is a very similar concept- JohnmgKing (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Sports, and United Kingdom. JohnmgKing (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't find anything, even in history books about Durham University. Maybe the idea is not very old? JMWt (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:43, 27 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 Move?. Or quite honestly, mess, but what the consensus appears to be is that there should be an article with this information and that this information should possibly live at Yorkdale-Glen Park. If I'm incorrect in this assessment, please ping me. After a month here, we don't need DRV. Star Mississippi 02:29, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Park, Toronto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

• Delete: Not corroborated by external sources. See article's talk page for more information. User:FortUser (orginal nominator)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The city recognizes Yorkdale-Glen Park as a neighbourhood (see [1]). Yorkdale-Glen Park was redirected to Glen Park, Toronto here way back in 2009 by User:SimonP. Perhaps the names for these neighbourhoods were different 14 years ago. 09:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Check the City of Toronto's Yorkdale-Glen Park map again. The part of the "Glen Park neighbourhood" east of the Allen Expressway is not part of Yorkdale-Glen Park. The City of Toronto groups it with Lawrence Manor and the part of Lawrence Heights east of the Allen in Englemount Lawrence. See [2]. Your source is not valid corroboration in my opinion. FortUser (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The Yorkdale-Glen Park neighbourhood boundaries only enscapulate part of the "Glen Park neighbourhood" (west of the Allen Expressway). The "neighbourhood" itself is not recognized by its locals (myself included) and other Torontonians unlike nearby Lawrence Manor, Lawrence Heights, or Forest Hill. Due to WP:NOR, we can't make up a neighbourhood uncorroborated by secondary sources. If we used relatively obscure official neighbourhoods, the well-known Lawrence Heights would have to be deleted. In conclusion, we are in quandary. The information about the area should be kept, but the question is where. Please note this is my first deletion nomination. If I'm unaware of a certain solution, please propose it. FortUser 15:48, 1 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!} 06:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - looking in recent Toronto Star articles, they frequently refer to Yorkdale-Glen Park. As such this is a very likely search term. And while we could redirect to North York, or Toronto, the existing article is better. We should find better references - but articles that can be improved shouldn't be at AFD. The only question in my mind, is why the article isn't called Yorkdale-Glen Park; but the redirect at least mitigates that. Nfitz (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Just a note that the nominator here is FortUser and the talk page they refer to is the article talk page.

If any editor is proposing a Redirect or Merge, you need to specify the target article. Closers can't come up with this themselves or it's a Supervote. Also, there is a suggestion to Rename this article. If you support this option, then vote to Keep this article and then a page move can be discussed on the article talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Yorkdale-Glen Park. WP:GEOLAND sets a really low bar for keeping articles about places, but still, despite this location existing in Canada where we would expect English-language sources to report on it, I can find nothing from my searches. The only sources in the article are poor. One uses Yorkdale-Glen Park, the other is a school brochure. So therefore I think let's delete it. But maybe Yorkdale-Glen Park could scrape by, but still probably not. Does it pass WP:GEOLAND because it appears in crime stats? I think not, that's still not what WP:GEOLAND needs something more that database contents. So probably delete this, there is nothing worth saving here. If someone felt that it should redirect to Yorkdale-Glen Park, then I'd want to see them commit to immediately add something about Yorkdale-Glen Park, maybe drafity it to that and then move to main space once it had something. Sorry, I realise this is not a clear !vote so if you are not sure how to treat this opinion, treat it as a delete. CT55555(talk) 17:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not redirect. Redirection poses a problem, because Yorkdale-Glen Park includes most of Lawrence Heights but not the portion east of the Allen Expressway, which is well-recognized as part of Lawrence Heights. Redirecting would pose an internal contradiction. Is the portion of Lawrence Heights (the bulk of the neighbourhood) part of Yorkdale-Glen Park or Lawrence Heights? If internal consistency isn't a problem, show examples of an area simultaneously recognized as part of two neighbourhoods. FortUser (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Redirect. The Lawrence Heights article itself says that it is part of Yorkdale-Glen Park. I think redirect is the best option. We should also make an Englemount-Lawrence article to cover the eastern part of "Glen Park neighbourhood." If there is a colloquial neighbourhood in part of its area, a brief summary about it should be given and the reader should be redirected to the colloquial neighbourhood's page. FortUser (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
   We could even do this throughout Toronto. Any residential area not in a neighbourhood on Wikipedia should be mentioned in an article about the City of Toronto's official neighbourhood containing that residential area. This could take a lot of work, though.  FortUser (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think the consensus is that Glen Park, Toronto should be deleted or renamed. User:Nfitz, User:CT55555, the annonymous commenter and I agree. There is no dissenter who has defended the Glen Park name. Let's get this page deleted and archived for now and talk about redirecting later. FortUser (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• By my count, User:FortUser, you've now voted 4 times - and with 3 different choices. You need to strikeout three of those! For the records, using the quick Google search I linked above, the subject was very notable - but I haven't done a deep dive into the content. Nfitz (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Your comment above talked about sources referring to Yorkdale-Glen Park, not Glen Park. Therefore, how can we keep a geographic landmark not corroborated by other sources? We should make a Yorkdale-Glen Park article and delete this one. FortUser (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz is correct, User:FortUser, and I have struck your duplicate votes. You can only issue one vote. Also, this AFD will be as open as long as it needs to be. You can't rush the process so please stop issuing orders. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I'm new to Wikipedia. Now I know for the future. FortUser (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why, User:FortUser would you delete this article, rather than just renaming it? Nfitz (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The boundaries for Yorkdale-Glen Park are different then this "Glen Park" neighbourhood. I'm all in favour of migrating some of the content but not all of it. We have to (a) reference Lawrence Heights in a sub-section, (b) write about the part north of Lawrence but west of Dufferin and (c) delete all information about the part of this "Glen Park" neighbourhood east of the Allen Expressway. It's a whole different ball game. FortUser (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me, then, User:FortUser that the most sensible place to leave it is here. How much of this "Glen Park" area is outside of "Yorkdale-Glen Park"? Nfitz (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Around 1/3rd (the area between the Allen and Bathurst). Similarly, the entire northern Yorkdale-Glen Park (the area north of Lawrence), which is around half of Yorkdale-Glen Park, is not in the Glen Park neighbourhood. It's too different for a rename. FortUser (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: There are two sources where the Glen Park neighbourhood is mentioned that I found:

° Neighbourhood Guide.^[1] Despite being mostly accurate it does invent the neighbourhood of The Woods. ^[2]. Furthermore, it extends Downsview's southern boundary to Lawrence omits the portion of Clanton Park south of Wilson. ^[3]. It also extends Newtonbrook to Dufferin. Such an error-prone source should not be considered.

° Toronto Star ^[4]. The neighbourhood name is only mentioned once in the article without clear borders. Furthermore, the writer probably got the name from Neighbourhood Guide, Google Maps, or here (a case of circular referencing).

Relator websites (e.g. Redfin) do not use the Glen Park neighbourhood.

Therefore, I recommend deleting this article and creating a Yorkdale-Glen Park article which references this area. FortUser (talk) 00:54, 27 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. Joyous! | Talk 20:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Lengs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, probably WP:TOOSOON. Draftified but recreated in mainspace. KH-1 (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 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!} 15:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree that this is at best a TOOSOON situation. Definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO currently. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:37, 27 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:54, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Meara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There are 20 or so search results in both the British Newspaper Archive and NewsBank for Meara, but these all seem to be routine coverage of results. There are some online matches, but I found nothing that would contribute to the subject meeting WP:GNG. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cue sports, and Northern Ireland. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. Very low ranked player with limited coverage BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 07:55, 15 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!} 15:47, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Timothytyy (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Kirumira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

NN bio, PROD denied. UtherSRG (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Crime, Police, and Uganda. UtherSRG (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - simply does not meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have made an impact before and after this death. Passes WP:GNG

1. https://observer.ug/news/headlines/56775-police-warns-dpc-kirumira-against-resigning-through-media.html
2. https://www.newvision.co.ug/new_vision/news/1470207/muhammad-kirumira-arrested-flying-squad
3. https://www.newvision.co.ug/new_vision/news/1485389/muhammad-kirumira-shot-bulenga
4. https://observer.ug/viewpoint/58647-police-must-listen-to-kirumira-in-his-death
5. https://ugandaradionetwork.net/story/muhammad-kirumira-was-trailed-for-three-days-state-witness-

CT55555(talk) 04:41, 13 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 15:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than being a policeman who said stuff, I'm not seeing what he's notable for. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this doesn't seem argumentative, but I would frame it like he is notable for being a policeman who said stuff, notable for being arrested and then killed. I see three elements (outspokenness, arrest, death) to what he is notable for. CT55555(talk) 17:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. As the subject of major national newspaper headlines for a span of multiple years I think he passes WP:GNG. As these include both the bribery allegations, the assassination, and the complications arising from the investigation of the assassination, I think WP:BIO1E is also met. However, it is very difficult for me as a foreigner to sort out what actually happened here. His case appears to be heavily propagandized as a proxy in the conflict between Islam and Christianity in Uganda e.g., and whether his role in corruption in Uganda was one of an anti-corruption fighter or someone who was himself somewhat corrupt (or as often happens both) is also unclear. So if kept, I would urge caution in sourcing, removal of editorializations from the article, and trimming to only verifiable facts (e.g. accused of bribery: true; exonerated: less clear). The difficulty of sorting out truth from propaganda in the sources we have is why my keep is only weak. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:26, 26 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) 22:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Multimedia College of Fine Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A previous article instance was nominated for deletion last September with the rationale "Non-notable for-profit college, edited for-pay": it resulted in a soft deletion. This new article from a WP:SPA appears to be a separate instance; it seems appropriate to bring it to AfD, given the previous history. The article describes the institution's courses, various events that it has organised and competitive awards won by students, supported by course listings sites and PR references, which are insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Education, and Telangana. AllyD (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion due to previous AFD. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not the WP:YELLOWPAGES nor a platform for promotion. None of the sources meet our guidelines for establishing notability, all are simply regurgitating the company's blurb. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Also just to add to what the nom said about the creator, this "new" account demonstrates abilities and knowledge to suggest this isn't their first time editing. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:ORG. No significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:11, 27 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. Joyous! | Talk 20:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnlaugur Ernir Ragnarsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:GNG. BangJan1999 15:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Iceland. BangJan1999 15:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. All the sources in the article are WP:PRIMARY sources or don't mention him at all. A clear WP:Vanity page about a youth football player who stopped playing at the age of 13/14 with absolutely no coverage in the Icelandic media. Alvaldi (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 17:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, created by a user only making promotional edits under COI. Absolutely fails notability guidelines. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per others. —Alalch E. 21:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Does not show notability. Alex-h (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete possibly even eligible for WP:CSD#A7, as there's no actual claim of any notability. Certainly doesn't pass WP:GNG, and the personal life section may also be in violation of WP:BLPCRIME too. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article subject doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG, also failing to meet WP:SPORTCRIT. I also don’t see any WP:SIGCOV on a comprehensive search. Additionally, most if not all sources are WP:PRIMARY and have WP:RS issues. If there were evidence of notability and the subject passed WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV by reliable secondary sources, then I would be in support of keeping. Based on my read of the article, I’m afraid there are WP:BLPCRIME issues as well. Shawn Teller (talk) 23:48, 26 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 20:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Kallar Kahar bus accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:Notnews. Such bus accidents are regretably commonplace. TheLongTone (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Bus crashes are very common, but this one is significant enough that the accident drawn reactions from the PM of Pakistan. MarioJump83 (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG. Bus crashes are common. In Western Europe and Northern America, articles start with about 5 casualties. When the casualties are African or Asian this number is more often 20. Deleting this article doesn't help eliminate this Wikipedian bias. gidonb (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per gidonb. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:28, 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 merge to Mlázovy. Joyous! | Talk 20:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malý u Mlázov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not pass WP:NGEO criteria. A historically and geographically insignificant fish pond with an area of less than 1 ha and no reliable sources. FromCzech (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am writing to vote for keeping the article on the English version of Wikipedia.

 

The article meets the notability criteria set by Wikipedia. According to the notability guideline for geographic features, "a feature is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." In the case of "Malý u Mlázov," the pond has a long history, dating back to at least 1783 when a mill was located underneath it. This historical significance has been documented in a source cited in the article, which meets the criteria of a reliable, independent secondary source. Therefore, the pond is a notable feature and deserves its own article on English Wikipedia.

 

Additionally, the article is informative and provides valuable information about the pond, including its location, shape, and history. This is in line with Wikipedia's goal of providing free, high-quality information to readers around the world. By providing information about the pond, the article is fulfilling this goal and contributing to the overall body of knowledge on English Wikipedia.

 

Furthermore, the article does not violate any of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. It is well-sourced and does not contain any original research or promotional content. It is a neutral, factual description of the pond and its history, and does not contain any subjective or biased statements.

 

In conclusion, I believe that the article "Malý u Mlázov" should be kept on English Wikipedia. It meets the notability criteria, provides valuable information, and does not violate any of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Petr35571 (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wasnt able to find resources metioning more than statistical data. Juandev (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge to Mlázovy, verifiable geographical data, but not notable enough to create a standalone article. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge per Vejvancicky. Jdcooper (talk) 19:26, 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. Joyous! | Talk 20:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Ziff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability. Refs with one exception are run of the mill coverage, self-published and in some cases seem not to mention Ziff. Nthe only possibly credible claim of notability is that he is Vice -President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which curiosly is not mentioned in the article. TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and England. AllyD (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:The 2018 AfD was about a different person of this name. AllyD (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails to satisfy WP:GNG. I did search but could not find any real coverage. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The article and its references are predominantly about the Ziff family's Town Centre Securities businesses. There is some coverage of their Stylo and Town Centre Securities businesses across the Barratts Shoes and Arnold Ziff articles but no focal article which could provide a ATD redirect target; nor are there articles on the CitiPark, TCS Energy or BaySentry Solutions concerns. I am not seeing sufficient evidence that this particular individual has attained demonstrable notability though. AllyD (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources for this person, one that ran for gov't and another at the Donkey Coffee company, both of which have the same name but are different people. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article fails WP:GNG. The subject has not enough coverage.--იაკობ მახარაძე (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per those above. Given that this is the second time this editor has created this article and appears on its way to a second deletion via AfD, it might be appropriate to WP:SALT the namespace to prevent a third recreation without at least going through WP:AFC. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:44, 27 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. User:Salvio giuliano deleted as WP:G7 and WP:A7. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MR. INDIAN HACKER (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Edit Conflict Accidentally Re-Created this Page, Delete Happy Editing! -I Followed The Username Policy (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @I followed The Username Policy:, nobody else has edited the page, so you could tag it to request speedy-deletion (CSD G7) rather than go through this longer AfD process. AllyD (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:13, 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 keep. Joyous! | Talk 20:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creepy Crayon! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NBOOK, which I know is a guideline. So fails WP:GNG as well 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the nomination based on "Fails WP:NBOOK" is incorrect: There are serveral reviews cited, and a proper WP:BEFORE search with Google News shows the book was also a New York Times Best Seller ("A book's inclusion in a reliable bestseller list is non-trivial treatment if the list is notable ..."). Daranios (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: NBOOK and GNG are both guidelines. pburka (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Daranios. NYT bestseller and good sources do seem to exist. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and this should be withdrawn as inappropriately misunderstanding notability. Kirkus, Publisher's Weekly, and Booklist, all in the article at the time of nomination, are strong evidence of notability. NYT bestseller just demonstrates that no meaningful BEFORE was undertaken. Jclemens (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As brought up by other users, this has more than 2 reviews and therefore passes [[WP:NBOOK]. BuddyL22 (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While I somewhat understand the nomination rationale, the reviews that have been pointed out are non-trivial and therefore satisfy WP:SIGCOV for WP:NOTABILITY purposes. The correct conclusion based on the above is that the article subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK.WP:BEFORE would have been appropriate here. Shawn Teller (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:56, 27 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 Draftify. I'm willing to provide it for XeverPL, but I will also protect the mainspace to ensure AfC is used. Star Mississippi 02:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Slevin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

NN sportsperson, was previous soft deleted va AFD. Restored via RFU and draftified. No edits while in draft then moved to main article space. UtherSRG (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ireland. UtherSRG (talk) 13:20, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per the original AfD nom, I think this is WP:TOOSOON. In terms of sport-specific criteria, we don't seem to have guidelines specifically for darts players, and so WP:SPORTBASIC would seem to apply. Which expects that "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources". And I'm not seeing that any such significant coverage exists. In terms of this WP:SIGCOV, looking in national (mainstream) news sources, a search in the Irish Times, the Irish Independent and on the RTÉ website returns nothing at all. In darts sources, we find only passing mentions and relatively ROTM coverage. And, in local (regional) news sources, we find two examples of (very recent) "local boy done good" type stuff. While this is great, and I have added these to the article to support some of the text, I don't think these examples are significant enough to contribute much to (or establish) notability. (Otherwise, unless I'm missing something, the subject is similar to any other professional darts player - And I'm not aware of any guideline or consensus that every pro darts player (who has or had a tour card) is automatically notable...) Guliolopez (talk) 15:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:NSPORT. ww2censor (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Identical situation as in the case of Pascal Rupprecht, with the difference that in this case he has already achieved some success on the international arena in youth tournaments. I am asking for a draft this if getting a pro tour card and qualifying for the UK Open tournament is not enough. XeverPL (talk) 9:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

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 Features of the Marvel Universe#Extradimensional places. Star Mississippi 16:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darkforce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Utterly without notability. The cited sources obviously have crap-all to do with this incredibly obscure concept and there are literally no non-prinary, non-wiki, non-random-YouTube-video sources discussing it that I could find. The last deletion discussion dug up maybe two or three that actually mentioned it (that were never actually added in what’s going on a year) but the case for keeping was so seriously weak I can’t believe it actually passed (one of the votes is basically just begging and pleading; subtracting that it would easily have been no consensus). The point is that this has zero real-world impact and is not important to a basic understanding of the comics, so a few pieces uncritically rattling off in-universe details in conjunction with something else doesn’t cut it for me. Dronebogus (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Dronebogus (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jclemens below, or Merge to Features of the Marvel Universe#Extradimensional places. BOZ (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Very selective merge (as in, one sentence or two) to the "Darkforce dimension" entry of Features of the Marvel Universe#Extradimensional places, as suggested above. This article is a painfully sprawling WP:SYNTH exercise without any good sourcing. The most cogent summary statement is this: There are slight yet inconclusive hints that it may be a corruptive influence of some kind (at least to Cloak, possibly to Darkhawk as well), perhaps even a sentient entity and the opposite of the Lightforce. Yeah, no. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ve gutted all the nonsense and fancruft I could, so even if it’s kept/merged it won’t be a load of incoherent geek basement speculation and rambling. Dronebogus (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I also merged one sentence describing the… thing, stuff, whatever, to the suggested target. Dronebogus (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge with Features of the Marvel Universe. If the latter happens, I ask for the closer to place the information about the Darkforce Dimension under it's Extradimensional places section and the Darkforce information under a different section on that page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge the article is just a list of appearances that doesn't pass WP:N. I can support a merge for consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If there's a real source analysis that's going to suggest the last outcome (8 months ago, not a year) was wrong, it should have already been done. MOS:REALWORLD is not a deletion criterion; citing it in a deletion discussion--even without wikilink--is a tacit admission that the article should exist, but be presented differently. Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That must be the most content-free keep rationale I've ever read... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I put the content in the first AfD. You did read that one, right? Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having sources doesn’t mean it deserves its own article. Dronebogus (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

True, but a non-sequitur. As there exists a previous AfD that found that sufficient sources to meet the GNG existed, you've not done much to argue that the sources brought up then were insufficient. If you did, I might have a second look at them and see if more existed. Until then, you've provided an assertion without evidence, to which I have responded appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is missing is you pointing out, there or here, what in these sources makes it worth keeping. My reading of them is summarized below (they fail SIGCOV and/or there is nothing in them that goes beyond plot summary). Our articles must go beyond plot summary/catalogue information of what works the concept appeared in, per GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your input, that's not my job. I presented sources last AfD, which was last year, they went unchallenged, and the close was "Keep". Thus, there is already a standing consensus that the sources were acceptable. If the nominator wants consensus to change, it's on the nominator to explain why consensus was wrong, not just assert that it is. Jclemens (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Features of the Marvel Universe#Extradimensional places - As mentioned above, when the WP:SYNTHy unsourced material was removed, the current article is basically nothing but a list of appearances, and even the sources listed in the previous AFD would not be able to really expand the article beyond that. As even two of the three Keep votes in the previous AFD also suggested this merger, and both have reiterated that suggestion in this current AFD, it seems like the most appropriate compromise. Rorshacma (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The only thing that should change the verdict of the last AfD would be that most of the sources linked in that discussion are unreliable. Can anyone find evidence of that? The subject area here is outside my comfort zone, so I offer no opinion on the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or just redirect (as I don't see much to merge) as suggested above. Sources presented in the last AfD seem to be either in passing or limited to a plot summary; nobody has advocated any argument that this topic received even a shred of analysis, and there is no reception or analysis section in the article. This is pure WP:IPC/WP:FANCRUFT/WP:NOTTVTROPES fail. If I am wrong and analysis is found, do ping me and I'll reconsider my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is nothing to merge, and the proposed redirect location is also complete cruft. I have no prejudice towards a redirect, but it will probably end up being deleted regardless... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:08, 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. But if someone wants this to actively improve in Draft, happy to provide it. Star Mississippi 16:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Ranganathan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't see anything that convinces me if the subject has satisfied WP:GNG or even WP:PROF.

Yes, there are many people who say crazy things and they get coverage from equally crazy sources, but we need significant coverage from secondary reliable sources to meet WP:GNG.

I don't see that here. Editorkamran (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Biology, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Provisional Delete. There is no GS profile so I cannot support on that score. Are there reviews? No demonstrated pass of WP:Prof; pass of GNG yet to be proven. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Editorkamran, I am concerned that you seem to be having a disagreement with Mixmon and have nominated a couple of articles created or heavily edited by Mixmon for deletion, unrelated to your disagreement, with the same comment that these are "... may people who say crazy things and they get coverage from equally crazy sources"; I don't see quite how this applies to Ranganathan? I'm not convinced he meets NPROF, or notability as an author, but would value input from someone who knows the Indian scene better than I. He may be one of those people who adds up to notable by being a near-miss on multiple categories at the same time. Elemimele (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elemimele: Anand Rangnathan is a prolific fake news peddler.[3][4] Azuredivay (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be open to deleting, but also question Editorkamran's nonsensical motivation. This seems to be a WP:POINTy nomination. It may be correct, bit the edit pattern of the nominator is concerning. Jeppiz (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeppiz: I think you are not aware of the context but I hope you will agree with me.

Firstly, there is no need to wait for someone else to nominate the subject for deletion. This subject is known to South Asian users (especially the Twitter ones) for being a rampant fake news peddler.[5] The creator of the article has a history of being a disruptive editor. Azuredivay (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Draftify The reasons in the deletion proposal are nonsensical. One of the citations is an article in the The Hindu that tries to explain Ranganathan's work to try to prevent malaria parasites infecting blood cells.^[6] This is an example of coverage of his work in a secondary source, and there are other examples. I think the article needs more work, and the editor who did a lot of the work on the article needs support and advice from other editors. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers applies.-- Toddy1 (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. For what its worth, the subject is known for being a controversial fake news peddler[7][8][9] but that does not make him notable at all. Azuredivay (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Azuredivay for the links in your post. That Ranganathan is getting in-depth critical coverage is evidence of notability. If it is decided to keep the article on Ranganathan, then this kind of thing belongs in the article. Being the subject of a Wikipedia article is not meant to be a mark of approval. We have have articles on frauds, propagandists, corrupt businessmen, etc.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Azuredivay, I agree with Toddy1. We're not deciding whether the guy is himself reliable source here, we're deciding on whether he's notable. I also think that the fact he gets mentioned by others independent of himself increases the claim of notability, but if he's got a controversial/negative side, it is quite correct to say so in the article (provided the article presents the positives and negatives with a balance that reflects how sources write about him, and provided the negatives are supported scrupulously with good sources). I'd say go ahead and edit! Elemimele (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above coverage happened because of fake news being spread by the subject. He was not the main subject of the coverage.

Those "frauds, propagandists, corrupt businessmen" on whom we have articles generally happen to be the main subject of the coverage. Azuredivay (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does at least appear that the subject is somewhat of a polarizing personality on Twitter from the links above, with many of his tweets flagged as misinformation by reliable fact-checkers. However that itself is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the kind of in-depth critical coverage of personalities envisaged under WP:GNG. Drive-by responses mischaracterizing fact-checking of misinformation tweets as eloquent of the magnitude of in-depth coverage of the subject in reliable sources do a disservice to the consensus-building discussion. It is clutching at straws at best. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although there can be some debate whether the subject passes WP:NPROF or not ( The Indian Academy of science fellowship tilt me towards the side that he does ). It is quite clear that it passes WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. There are multiple cited sources in the article which are reliable and in depth coverage of the subject. It is not our job to rationalize which coverage is positive or due to notoriety. I will go by the standard textbook WP:NBIO guideline that - A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. . Which is clear that it does. Razer(talk) 15:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It does appear that the subject passes WP:NPROF. Point 3 states that - The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. Anand Ranganathan is a elected associate of Indian Academy of Sciences. 1 . Razer(talk) 18:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately, the keep rationale above completely rehashes the argument that was proffered for claiming inclusion under NPROF criterion #3 in the original AfD and discounted by the very articulate EdChem (vide [10]), who has unfortunately not edited since August of 2021. Ranganathan held an associateship of the Indian Academy of Sciences, which is accredited at the beginning of academics' careers and serves as a preliminary to Fellowship, which he didn't acquire. The Indian Academy of Sciences itself is not on the same footing as the Royal Society or the National Academy of Sciences, and a consensus of uninvolved editors at Wikipedia_talk:Notability (academics)/Archive_10#Notability_Criterion_3_and_the_Indian_Academy_of_Sciences, initiated by EdChem, too held Ranganathan to be not qualifying for the criterion enshrined at NPROF on pretty much the same grounds. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I see no consensus on the link that you have provided, there is hardy one response to the main post. In fact this further tilt me towards the side that he passes WP:PROF because in absence of any further comment despite trying. We should default to the main WP:NPROF guidelines.

  WP:NPROF is a community vetted guideline and to overrule it, we need a proper consensus which I don't see in the discussion above. Razer(talk) 10:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Azuredivay. The person is better known for fake news instead of what is being promoted on the page. The sources show he is far from notability yet. One should also see the older nomination. Dympies (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• weak Keep He appears to be a subject of ongoing interest in India-centric news media (although I can't evaluate the reliability/notability of any of those individual publications.) Sennalen (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sennalen: Show me those sources I will analyze them for you. Dympies (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just put his name in Google News Sennalen (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sennalen, it doesn't help when you handwave about the very sources that you have ostensibly based your !vote on. Anyway, I ran a Google News search on Ranganathan and the results weren't encouraging in the least. The supposed hits you alluded to was primarily in right-wing, Hindu nationalist websites like Opindia and Hindupost that Wikipedia blacklists and scholars deprecate variously as steeped in fake news and trolling [11]. These had been brought up and then consigned to the scrap-heap in the original AfD too, and their coverage is worthless at best and even then tangential. I suggest you reconsider your weak keep position and take note of the requisites for the WP:GNG. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My baseline stance is inclusionism, and I get even more skeptical when people seem highly motivated to delete a page. If anything, it adds reliably sourced information to the first page of Wikipedia results for... whatever this guy's deal is. Sennalen (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. Do you go around ascribing motives to others everytime you're queried on the sources you have handwaved about? Please stop. Notability is demonstrated; it is not presumed to exist. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator has been trying to remove reference to the Indian Science Academy from the article 2. This overzealousness to remove cited information combined with his earlier interaction with the creator of the article leads me to conclude that this is a bad faith Afd request. Razer(talk) 05:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you could focus your energies on establishing the otherwise contested and suspect notability of the subject rather than unnecessarily derail the nom with all this unwarranted snarking and imputations of bad faith. The edit you flag for attention expunged poorly cited congeries of awards the creator had directly ripped off from the CV uploaded by Ranganathan on his employer's website/database. It flowed from a talk page discourse [12], which you yourself were a party to, and where everyone's opinion bar yours converged on the point that it was poorly sourced and needed reliable, secondary sources for verification and for establishing due weight. It should not even concern the creator or the subject, for if anything, the reliance on Ranganathan's own CV is eloquent of the glaring paucity of coverage in reliable sources and possible COI editing (on part of the creator). MBlaze Lightning (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will just ignore the personal attack. Trying to remove the Indian Science Academy bit from the article which was well sourced and critical in establishing notability under WP:PROF is not constructive editing. Especially when the article is nominated for Afd. If you will read the discussion on the talk page again, you will realize the common ground was to improve on that section and not to remove it all together. Anyways, this is not the right forum to talk about the article and we can continue to engage about that in the talk page. Since another editor has now shifted the ISA elected associate to the career part which also works in the context. I see no reason we should continue this topic. Razer(talk) 10:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not suffice WP:NPROF #3 as had been established in the original AfD by its participants and as I have elucidated in my responses supra to boot. Adduced coverage isn't subject-specific nor in-depth or plentiful as envisaged in WP:GNG. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There may be some contribution towards some kind of combined case for notability via WP:NAUTHOR. A casual search found two reviews in what I believe to be reliable sources. [13][14] Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There are plenty of book reviews available for the books written by Anand Ranganathan. [15], [16] , [17], [18] etc. While I am not sure whether it is sufficient to standalone pass WP:NAUTHOR , it none the less add to the assertion that the subject easily passes WP:GNG . Razer(talk) 13:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that those sources yield a marginal pass of WP:NAUTHOR as the books are "the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I am troubled that the article is mostly about the subject's less notable career as a biologist (where there is no notability criterion pass that is apparent to me; in particular, I see no signs whatsoever of a pass of WP:NPROF). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand your concerns with WP:NPROF but in this case I don't think we need to delve into subject specific notabilities when the article comfortably passes WP:GNG. There are multiple reliable in depth coverage available ranging from books, career as biologist to his somewhat controversial editorials and comments. Razer(talk) 17:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  GNG is not clear to me. What are the WP:THREE best sources towards WP:SIGCOV? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting. Here are WP:THREE sources. One from each field in which the subject is active. [19], [20] [21] Razer(talk) 11:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid those do not wash. The India Today coverage is wholly tangential to Ranganathan, with barely a solitary sentence addressing him as being part of the JNU team that contrived a novel method to study Kala azar. Everything else is extraneous. The Hindu piece is a tête-à-tête with Ranganathan on his work of fiction with barely any prose. And such self-promotion and publicity does not count towards sufficing GNG, for the policy discounts works that are not esteemed independent of the subject. With two of your three best sources eliminated from the picture, we're left with a satirical commentary on a Newslaundry podcast (which he freelanced for) that may at best undergird a few tidbits on Ranganathan's educational qualifications — currently cited to his own CV. In conclusion, GNG is not sufficed by a long shot. In fact, none of your sources measure up on the touchstone of the watchword, which the policy itself deconstructs in the most categorical language. Ranganathan may have dabbled in multiple artistries and that stands testament to his creativity, but to reiterate the motif expressed in the previous AfD, the conspicuous meagreness of coverage in reliable, independent sources for any of his artistries necessarily forecloses the possibility of a standalone article, including under any of the applicable SNGs (including NAUTHOR for a lack of precisely significant or well-known work..subject of..multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Vide [22]). MBlaze Lightning (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @MBlaze Lightning: I agree that the first of these sources is weak, and in the absence of much other evidence of NPROF, I am skeptical that this grants much. The second source I take seriously, particularly when combined with the reviews listed elsewhere -- for NAUTHOR, I'm looking for several reviews, spread over more than 1 book, which I'm seeing here. I agree that the article would require serious reworking if he is notable mainly as an author, and WP:TNT may be relevant. The Newslaundry source, I am a little uncertain how to take. Note in passing that WP:RSP lists The Hindu as a newspaper of record, and Newslaundry as a solid source (with a cautionary note about possible bias). TrangaBellam, want to make sure that you saw this part of the discussion after your note below. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And what are these reviews for meeting the threshold for WP:NAUTHOR? It cannot be an interview with the subject even if published in a reliable source for the reasons spelled out above. We don't count it towards WP:GNG, and likewise, it would not be an acceptable source for establishing the significance of the book because it does not provide an intellectually independent and critical commentary of the subject's work. As WP:INTERVIEW notes, "Anything interviewees say about themselves or their own work is both primary and non-independent, and therefore does not support a claim for notability. I see dubious websites like geetachabbra and indiatvnews passed off as reviews occuring in reliable sources above. Those do not wash. If Ranganathan was notable as an author there wouldn't have been a need to grasp at straws like this. I am afraid I am not convinced either. Editorkamran (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the interview in The Hindu (a newspaper of record, per WP:RSP), there is also a straight up review [23]. I agree that the blog is not a reliable source, but the Deccan Chronicle, India Today, the Hindustan Times, and India TV all look at least weakly reliable to me. Indeed, the books For Love and Honour and Souffle both appear to (marginally) pass WP:NBOOK. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be in a rush to conclude that the subject suffices a certain threshold for inclusion under NAUTHOR without actually adequately establishing your contention. Facile characterizations or far-fetched constructions of guidelines do not help, for notability is not simply a numbers game; the guidelines envisage in-depth critical coverage in reliable sources, the paucity whereof is necessarily eloquent of a lack of notability. For instance, you seem to somehow find acceptable a primary account of Ranganathan's work (read the interview), a non-existent purported review in Deccan Chronicle, frivolous clickbait and non-artistic panegyric in right-wing misinformation TV news website India TV, a trivial two-para panegyric in India Today to claim an enumeration of 5, which is bogus. These do not make a work or a body thereof signficant or well-known. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Most of the listed sources only give a passing mention of the subject. desmay (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. You have misunderstood what a Wikipedia:Passing mention is.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per Azuredivay and MBlaze lighting. Ranganathan might be known for conspiracy theories and fake news but he is still too far from satisfying WP:GNG. CharlesWain (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a NPROF fail but I am not sure about GNG. What are the five best sources that the keep !voters are relying upon? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rework. We have a WP:MILL biologist, who has established a somewhat notable presence as an author and columnist. I make the case for WP:NAUTHOR above: I see 5 reviews in reliable sources (including one in The Hindu) for 2 books. A tweet of his was substantially covered by The Indian Express [24]. It is difficult to separate his work as a columnist for Newslaundry from the coverage of him there, and the coverage of his scientific work tends to be somewhat glancing, but the marginal WP:NAUTHOR case combined with other notability brings me to a keep !vote. I considered whether WP:TNT might apply, but I don't think the article is in such bad shape for that. I suggest that we should describe him along the lines of "an author and columist who also works as a biologist", as the former are the main sources of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You undermine your own case by overstating it. As a matter of fact, The Hindu and the Hindustan Times provide, arguably, the only half-decent reviews of Ranganathan's fiction work, dating back to 2015. Anything else for contriving an inflated enumeration is scraping the barrel. Specious embellishments like "combined with other notability" are bogus and an eyewash; these have not only remained unsubstantiated, but also debunked. As a matter of fact, the community considered Ranganathan's claim for notability in the round in the original AfD and none of it washed then. The only newfangled aspect that merits a reconsideration is the release of Ranganathan's fiction work Souffle, but which has not garnered a solitary meaningful review. That illustrates a lack of notability, if anything, if you ask me. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable as yet. Individual has had some of his tweets fact-checked for misinformation, for his apparent right-wing leanings, but lack of independent sources directly critiquing him means he falls short of our WP:SIGCOV criteria. No claim for notability under WP:NPROF has apparently been established to satisfaction owing to a lack of fellowship in a reputed learned society. There also seem not many sources critiquing his books for establishing their significance. >>> Extorc.talk 10:43, 27 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 16:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijit Iyer Mitra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't see anything that convinces me if the subject has satisfied WP:GNG.

Yes, there are many people who say crazy things and they get coverage from equally crazy sources, but we need significant coverage from secondary reliable sources to meet WP:GNG.

I don't see that here. Editorkamran (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or send to Draft. The current article something like stub or start class, and needs more work. A search on Google news shows 3,100 hits for Abhijit Iyer Mitra. Some of these are for articles by Abhijit Iyer Mitra, but many are either about him and various law suits involving him,^[25],[26] or are articles that quote him.^[27] Note that his name is sometimes written Abhijit Iyer-Mitra - I assume that means that his family name is Iyer-Mitra.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out the sources which have provided him coverage? Indian express has provided coverage to a controversy but that alone does not make him notable. Editorkamran (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a lot more work. We should either give the creator more time to develop it, or we should move it to draft. I gave three examples above of coverage for three different things, all from different publications. I also gave a link to Google News which you can use to find more news stories.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete Not close to meeting WP:N yet.Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Draftify per Toddy1. The article clearly needs a lot of work, but this is someone who was gaoled for political protest around legalising same-sex marriage in India, which itself could contribute to notability if we can get the appropriate sources — many of which I would expect might not be in English, given Oriya is the official language of Odisha state. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please ((ping)) me in replies) 19:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm afraid we can't have policies go for a toss. Entire article appears to be sourced to dubious, primary citations. If reliable sources have not been found for meeting even the general threshold for inclusion, then this inconsequential biography doesn't belong in our mainspace. And this really looks like a perfunctorily written, cacophony of trivial information intermeshed with a sensational account of arrest. Kerberous (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Draftify I am afraid that I do not see the notability. The gaol-episode is BLP1E. He is a prolific columnist but what else? TrangaBellam (talk) 10:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @TrangaBellam: I have given the article a scrub. BLP3E applies. -- Toddy1 (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above comments. There is absolutely no need to draftify as the subject is still non-notable. CharlesWain (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 03:52, 27 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 Pardon (disambiguation). There's o point in closing this as N/C as no one is advocating to keep it. With no clear consensus between delete and redirect, I've defaulted to the latter as it's a viable AtD Star Mississippi 16:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon Us (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Per WP:ONEOTHER. Onlk (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC) (WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:07, 19 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Onlk (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The band is already hatnoted in the film article. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Pardon (disambiguation)#See also; redirects are cheap, and pardon as a verb implies a first person pronoun. BD2412 T 17:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - without wanting to get into the weeds in subjects I don't know about, it seems to me that someone navigating to this disamb page might conceivably be looking for a specific religious topic. For example (and this might not be the best option) Salat al-Tawba. There may even be prayers in different religious traditions which begin 'pardon us'. Could this page not usefully be expanded to include those? JMWt (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JMWt: To the extent that these are ambiguous concepts, I think they could be handled at Pardon (disambiguation). BD2412 T 18:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Other opinions are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The article on the band could perhaps use a hatnote though. Highway 89 (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to DB2412. I don't think any of the three entries in Pardon#See also belong there. The connection between "pardon us" and "pardon me" to some religious topic seems a bit farfetched. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary WP:TWODABS, a hatnote will (and already does) suffice here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:17, 26 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2016 PDC Players Championship series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable to show it passes WP:GNG. I redirected to 2016 PDC Pro Tour, but was reverted. I do not believe a merge with that article is appropriate due to DUE concerns, as well as the target also having its own concerns with independent sourcing. This is one of several articles which I'll be sending to AfD, since the article's creator does not see any need for providing independent sourcing, and will be adding them to this nomination momentarily. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

2016 PDC Development Tour series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2016 PDC Challenge Tour series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2017 PDC Players Championship series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete same issues as were present in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 CDC Tour series and why I didn't redirect that. I also have concerns about the 2016 date retrieved on a brand new article. Star Mississippi 13:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All, I could find no coverage outside of database listings. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:17, 27 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. Keep !votes speak to the fact that he is notable, not the current state, which the deletes focus on. Star Mississippi 16:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yu-Chuan Jack Li (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

advert, link spam AINH (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. AINH (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Blatant advertising masquerading as an article. MaterialWorks _(talk) 11:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per MaterialWorks. Jeppiz (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but stubify: Appears to pass WP:NPROF on several counts. He holds a distinguished professorship at Taipei Medical University (c5). I don't know about the other two of his fellowships, but his fellowship of the American College of Medical Informatics appears sufficient for c3. His editorship of BMJ Health & Care Informatics should be sufficient for c8. For citations, I think his citation count is a little inflated but possibly sufficient as he has several publications with over 100 cites where is the primary or one of the primary authors (c1); also for c1, I think a good argument could be made for his impact in the field more broadly. Cut out the junk, and leave the relevant bits that are cited. Curbon7 (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Cleanup as being the president of a notable association (International Medical Informatics Association (IMIA)), and being being a distinguished professor both should automatically make him pass NACADEMIC BhamBoi (talk) 07:04, 26 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. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schmid Kreglinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Google search doesn't show sufficient coverage Medarduss (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Japan. Medarduss (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Perhaps there are more sources available in the Japanese language but I'm unable to locate any sources that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:18, 27 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. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decision analyst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No refs on the page for many years, hard to know what a RS for this would even look like to meet the GNG. Suspect it might be best to delete and have a redirect to some other target to be discussed, such as Decision analysis JMWt (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources, no article. Rhadow (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 11:00, 27 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. (non-admin closure) Shawn Teller (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trio (1997 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLAR in December 2022 that was contested; original rationale was due to lack of notability. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 12#Trio (1997 film). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and South Korea. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Because Park Chan-wook is such an important film director, there are a significant number of news and other articles that reference this film in terms of being "painfully inaccessible" or being an early film of his that "tanked." Because Park Chan-wook is such a significant director and this film is frequently cited as a misstep in the building of his career, I believe the film qualifies for notability under the Wikipedia film notability's inclusionary criteria, which states that a film is notable if it "features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." --SouthernNights (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SouthernNights. 176.88.80.31 (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SouthernNights. Dotoilage (talk) 16:54, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Manitoba expressways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Better handled as a category, and one exists: Category:Expressways in Manitoba. Rschen7754 07:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. Rschen7754 07:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Categories better handle the need. Dough4872 16:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As explained above, this is a good example of something much better handled by categories. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The list shows more information than the category thus, thus is more useful. Your reason for deleting this perfectly valid list article, is that you like categories better. Not a valid reason. Dream Focus 19:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It results in a content fork, and besides, I suspect that there are actually more expressways in Manitoba than this, depending on how you define expressway. --Rschen7754 19:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We don't have similar articles for other provinces and all the content can be found in two articles: List of Manitoba provincial highways and List of Winnipeg City Routes. Ajf773 (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to one the articles Ajf773 mentioned that already have this information. Dream Focus 20:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and start a new Category:Proposed expressways in Manitoba to handle the relevant routes as those wouldn't belong in a regular Expressway category yet. Highway 89 (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No similar articles exist. Orientls (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Overlaps other highway list and, regardless, provides little context. Do redirect to List of Manitoba provincial highways, as the expressways article is around since 2005! (the target since 2003) gidonb (talk) 03:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For reasons given above. Shawn Teller (talk) 21:00, 26 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 no consensus. The consensus is clearly against deletion, but there is no consensus whether to keep the article as it is, about Cheuk Mei Mei, or to change its focus, so that the page is specifically about her trial. Salvio ^giuliano 09:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheuk Mei Mei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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