< February 06	February 08 >

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 01:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clogs (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG, nothing else found with a search. Only source is the band's website. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 23:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 23:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are also several issues in the article that have not been fixed for at least six years. Sheep (talk • he/him) 19:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. A basic Google search revealed numerous reliable sources, which I've added, as well as slightly expanding the article. Now well passes WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been significantly improved since nomination with the addition of references to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Independent, Pop Matters, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Guardian so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient independent reliable sources to establish notability per NBAND.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:25, 14 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. Joyous! | Talk 03:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liliana Zagacka[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Besides the linked World Athletics profile, other databases, and many, many mirrors of Wikipedia, I couldn't find anything about this athlete (WP:SPORTBASIC). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. According to [1], she may be notable due to the following: "She is the first Polish woman who jumped over 14 meters in the triple jump. Polish record holder: triple jump - 14.22 (July 6, 2001 Biała Podlaska). 10-time Polish champion: long jump (2001-2004), triple jump (2000-2004, 2008) and 4-time national vice-champion: triple jump (1996-1998), long jump (2000). 9-time Polish indoor champion: triple jump (1998, 2001–2005), long jump (2001, 2003, 2004) and 5-time national indoor vice-champion: long jump (1998, 2002, 2005), triple jump (1999, 2000) . Personal bests: long jump – 6.63 (July 14, 2002 Szombathely), triple jump – 14.22 (July 6, 2001 Biała Podlaska)." I have no strong opinion as I believe Wikipedia has way too many catalogue-entries for sportspeople who didn't achieve anything, just participated here and there, but it does say she is a "record holder" and "champion", that sounds like something that makes one notable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus, due to the changes in NSPORT, athletes are no longer presumed to meet GNG based on achievements and are required to have at least one GNG source cited in the article at all times (and to meet GNG overall). So none of those accomplishments can contribute to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 17:59, 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!} 23:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. No GNG coverage has been identified, and NSPORT is very clear about its notability requirements. JoelleJay (talk) 02:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "weak delete" based on the first source found by Pelmeen. GNG requires multiple SIRS, can more be found? JoelleJay (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the active years, offline sources are likely. Google search gives sources like [2] [3] But it seems Google is unable to find all Polish language sources, see searches on these sites [4] [5]. -Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Article exists in Polish and she is a recognized athlete, but my vote stays only if sources can be located to satisfy the current WP:NSPORT notability Ppt91 (talk) 23:23, 8 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 01:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Cowley (diplomat)[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO. 3 of the 4 sources are primary. LibStar (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Bilateral relations, Latvia, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2018-12 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 15 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 05:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harry MacDonald (diplomat)[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant indepth coverage to meet WP:BIO. The only source provided is primary. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2022-10 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 15 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 Smash! (comics). (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 05:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-Man[edit]

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

Zero real world notability. Fails as per WP:NOTPLOT. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep featured in a national comic; has been significant enough to be revisited by Alan Moore, Grant Morrison and Mark Millar; and is referred to in publications by at least two comics historians that are cited below the article. IMHO this means at least some debate, discussion or attempt to improve the article is warranted rather than a redirect to a page which contains very little of the material, which does not seem to improve Wikipedia or follow the principles of good faith. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:NOTPLOT the article is roughly 50/50 between plot summary and out-of-universe history. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BoomboxTestarossa What two historians? See below for my comment about Gifford's coverage, IMHO it's trivial / non-academic quality, unfortunately. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "academic" seems like a needlessly high bar, and not one that seems to be needed for many other comic pages. It's been mentioned in dead tree sources by Gifford, Murray and possibly Holland, all restricted in terms of coverage by being niche paper books with a finite page count, possibly subject to editing for pressures of space. As you said itself the character has been mentioned in an encyclopaedia, and surely the point of Wikipedia is not being bound by the restrictions of an paper encyclopaedia in terms of space? I'm not sure what the point is in having the ability to cite books and other media (Lew Stringer, for example, probably would have had to have published a restricted paper version of Cor! but instead can run it as a blog because internet) if they can just be dismissed as non-academic. Outside of The Big 2 and some of the weightier indie comics, how many comics get academic coverage?

I also find it curious that you've chosen to respond to this rather than the longer reply below, which does little to make me think Wikipedia guidelines are being applied in anything other than an arbitrary and - dare I say - petty fashion. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 14:13, 4 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. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I disagree that it's 50/50 between plot summary and out-of-universe history, as the Publication History section is basically just a list of appearances and more plot summary. The only info that would show real-world notability is the first couple of sentences of that section, which are sourced to a blog that can't be used to establish notability. OliveYouBean (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the content, would this be something that could be solved by a re-write? I'm not saying the article is a finished work ready to be framed, I'm just desperately trying to understand the wildly different standards that seem to exist compared to, say Sweet Tooth (comics). There seems to be a different set of criteria between new additions to Wikipedia and pages that have sat around in a lousy state for years and it strikes me as very confusing and inconsistent. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Smash! (comics). Catalogue+plot summary, no analysis, nothing to show that character is significant - just that it existed. There is no indication that any source cited in the article is non-trivial, meets WP:SIGCOV and goe beyond plot summary. Btw, Encyclopedia of comic characters is in IA and Tri-Man's "entry" can be seen here. I wouldn't call it an academic work, most if not all entries there are just few sentences long and consist of catalogue and plot summary info. Denis Gifford is a reliable author, but many of his works were aimed at popular audience, not scholars. This work is not scholarly, it's at a level of a fanboy book of trivia (as evidenced by it having zero academic reviews). Academic work would contain analysis of the topic, not just description. However, there is no harm in redirecting this entry to Smash! (comics) in the spirit of PRESERVE. Anything that has entry in something called an encyclopedia, even if it's a non-academic, fanboy one like this, should have a redirect and be mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But surely very few British comics have been the subject of academic analysis? Do we junk all of the pages? I mean I've been looking for a copy of Steve Holland's Fleetway Companion to try and flesh out some of the British comics entries with another dead tree source, but is there the chance that any additions would be dismissed as "non-academic" and "fanboy" (which seems like an unhelpfully pejorative term)? Significant is a relative term and one IMHO wide open to recency bias. Is Roocket Girl significant? Is it more significant than Tri-Man? The answer to both seems to be that it's come out in an era when comics attract a lot of 24-hour news cycle bumf, which by Wikipedia criteria seems to make it more notable than something which came out pre-internet. The IPC weeklies had six-figure circulations, before trying to untangle what exactly was exported to the "dominions". For significance I'd again point to being revisited three times by significant comic authors, note WP:NOTPAPER and apologise for forgetting to put a stub tag at the end of it, as it was never the intention to give the impression the page couldn't do with further work; my original plan was to expand sections further but I opted to try and find out more about the notability status before I invested more time and effort into it, and it was intended as a stub which would hopefully get expanded by myself and others in days, weeks, months and years to come.

And again I'd like to question what appears to be a haphazardly-implemented set of criteria regarding newer articles and letting others just sit there for years when not subjected to such stringent attention (leading to the possibility of circular reporting considering how much content is drawn from Wikipedia). Smash! (comics) itself is beautifully written but seems to fail many of the criteria applied here (e.g. I was unable to find any source to allow the comparisons with Spider-Man and the Green Lantern to be worked into the article, and it would seem likely that any that would be discovered would be dismissed as "non-academic, fanboy" ones.

I really, really am trying to add to Wikipedia while having fun and not treading on anyone's toes. I've done the reading (which seems rare, but hey) but the lack of consistency with which many of the principles are applied is making it quite frustrating. I do, however, appreciate everyone's effort to explain this openly in a discussion rather than just blanking the page. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(I've not gone back and added the stub template or anything while this discussion is going on as that would feel dishonest) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 08:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is on the page seems already enough to make it appear notable. As for Gifford ...er.. I really cannot understand why he should have written work aiming at scholars to be considered worthy of trust by Wikipedia. Lacks a world-academic-review-that-is-not-mainly-written-as-a-description so far? Ooooookay but still, what is on the page shows a certain notabilty.MY OH MY 17:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I'm struggling to see how the character is notable, the article says it only appeared in 20 issues then reappeared later but only as a background character. The sources seem good to me though, two proper books about comics. Eopsid (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it serves the encyclopaedia to have an article about this character who appears in multiple notable comics, especially since (at least to me) the source material is the most obscure of them. From what I can see, the coverage is significant enough. HerrWaus (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Smash! (comics) - There are only two potential valid sources for establishing notability listed in the article, and neither coul be considered WP:SIGCOV at all. The Encyclopedia of comic characters, for example, is only three sentences long that pretty much does nothing but briefly describe the most basic premise of the character. Regardless of how "academic" the book or is how reliable an author Gifford is, that is simply not significant coverage. That is pretty much the same case with the The British Superhero book - a couple of sentences briefly describing the character's powers, and another stating the character was unpopular and soon canceled, which is not significant coverage. Being mentioned or appearing as a background character in later books does not confer notability (and the comics where those cameos happened are not valid reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability), and if two very brief descriptions in books is the best that can be found at this time, the character does not pass the WP:GNG. Redirecting to the main Smash! (comics) article, where he is already described, would preserve the article history, and in the case of further reliable sources being found that contain more significant coverage of the character, it could potentially then be spun back out in to a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus here yet. A redirect or merge is an option that has been mentioned.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The only two reliable sources don't provide WP:SIGCOV, and this does not pass the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Rather clear GNG fail, though it may be a viable search term for a redirect. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:03, 13 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. Proposer did not apply any policy based arguments in their nomination. General consensus is that WP:GNG is met. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 05:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Lopes Cardozo[edit]

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

Not notable at all Ew3234 (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Philosophy, Judaism, Israel, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. Entry is fine, just needs a bit of pruning and editing.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more than not notable/clearly notable is needed to make a decision here. We need some analysis of the sources in the article and elsewhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is very little about him in reliable sources. Everything cited is either self-sourced, or writings by him. Bearian (talk) 14:38, 7 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!} 22:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Cross Currents article is substantive and about him/his thought. There may well be sources in Hebrew, which I cannot access. It is possible that he can be considered a major thinker in Rabbinical thought. Lamona (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. He is a prominent and well known alternative rabbinic voice who is and has published extensively, his views are reported on by news sources, for example here in:

The JC See also this article [6] and there are so many more. I have no direct interest here, but this page should stay.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shackwelllane (talk • contribs) 23:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per sources above and the WP:GNG. Intro is bold and incorrect. gidonb (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwater, Arizona[edit]

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

A gas station/cafe in the middle of the Goodwater Ranch, the scene (more or less) of a 1953 rape/murder which got the perpetrator the chair. It's clear from topos and aerials that this is all that was ever there; there was never a town here and everything is long gone. The notoriety of the crime appears to have been short-lived, as this was pretty much all I could find out about it beyond an AZ Supreme Court appeal ruling which "omit[s] many atrocious circumstances". Mangoe (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Meh. There's buildings there, and quite a few ranch roads. Could be a settlement. It has its own zip code after all. Otoh, not seeing anything that would be notable right there, on the map or anywhere else. It's only about 10 minutes from the Hopi Travel Plaza (not in Goodwater) and less than that from Painted Forest (not in Goodwater), but neither seems like anything more than completely arbitrary as a redirect. If I don't come back to this, this comment can be considered a very weak delete. Elinruby (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

off-topic for AfD but somewhat interesting: I did not find the murder you referenced. I did find something in Newspapers about a much earlier murder (1920s) committed by someone who lived there. Neither factoid strikes me as notable however. Elinruby (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does not have its own zip code, and I could not determine that it ever did, or even a post office. Mangoe (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:GEOLAND, if we're going to have an article on a settlement then we need a reliable source which says it's a settlement. The sources cited in the article are not reliable and I can't find anything better. The news article on the murder says "In the early 1950’s, Goodwater, Arizona was the proverbial wide spot in the road... there was little more in Goodwater than a service station and small cafe", which suggests there wasn't actually a settlement there at all. Relying on the judgement of editors about whether there's a settlement there is WP:OR. Hut 8.5 18:27, 11 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) 22:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Arvizu[edit]

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

Article about former soccer player which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Article was previously deleted in 2008, but re-created in 2012 after he made a handful of second division appearances. However, there is no significant coverage available, just transfer announcements (like the OC Register blurb I added to the article) and statistics database entries. He was noted for a good performance in one match at the U17 World Cup, but a notable playing career never materialized, and there is nothing to suggest this passes the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 21:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability. Almeida Fernando (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoyTheKingCanDance (talk • contribs) 09:03, 14 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) 22:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lauson Stone[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unlike his brother, this son of Supreme Court justice Harlan F. Stone is not independently notable. Novemberjazz 21:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in the following sources:
1. Pace, Eric (1999-11-12). "L. H. Stone, 94, Defender of 8 In '42 Trial For Sabotage". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2023-02-08.
  Full New York Times obituary, virtually always a reliable indicator of notability.
2. "Deaths Elsewhere". Washington Post. 1999-11-14.
  Shorter Washington Post obituary.
3. "Industrialist Lauson Stone Brother of Chief Justice". The Pittsburgh Press. 1946-04-23. p. 9. Retrieved 2023-02-08.
4. "When Mr. Stone's on the Job, Things Start to Happen". The Brooklyn Daily Eagle. 1948-04-18. p. 27. Retrieved 2023-02-08.
  Obituaries are not the only available sources; there are ample contemporary sources for Stone's career.
This is sufficient coverage to meet the notability guidelines independent of the subject's other notable family members. Jfire (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but ↑ that's ↑ some weak sauce.

You say that obituaries are not the only available sources; there are ample contemporary sources for Stone's career but this simply isn't true.
The first two sources you provided are obituaries, and the second one mentions multiple people, so it hardly counts as "in depth coverage".
Source #3 is an obituary for the wrong Lauson Stone. Did you even read the title? 🙄
The only source that is entirely devoted to him is #4, which is a fluff piece.

I'd consider a redirect to Harlan F. Stone#Personal life or Operation Pastorius#Trial and execution as a potential compromise. Novemberjazz 03:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down in that article a bit dude. Jfire (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? Novemberjazz 04:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought your original edit referred to the WaPo obit. You're right about source #3 being the wrong Lauson -- appears to be an uncle. My mistake. Nevertheless, I think there are still sufficient sources to meet GNG. I've expanded the article and added those sources. (As an aside, I don't find comments such as "Did you even read the title?" and "that's some weak sauce" to strike the collegial tone we're seeking here. Please WP:AGF.) Jfire (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not your fault, the original reply did refer to the wrong source (#4 instead of #3) before it was edited. [7] Novemberjazz, per WP:TALK#REPLIED, it's generally considered bad form to edit your comments without any indication that you have done so when other users have replied to them already since it removes context. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His role in the saboteur trial has received modern coverage ([8][9][10]). His role in Bertrand Russell hiring controversy is also covered by modern sources [11]. This is above trivial mentions and is in independent, reliable sources, so WP:BASIC is met, and WP:BIO1E doesn't apply, even if the article is destined to not to ever be super long. In the alternative, if there is consensus to delete, it would be more appropriate to merge to the personal life section of his father's article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A sufficient number of quality links and objective coverage. I`d like better to keep.--Loewstisch (talk) 09:58, 9 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Barnes Travelling Scholarship[edit]

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

Non-notable award. Of 500 GBP (about 600 USD). Fails WP:GNG. A Google search returns just 125 results - which is impressively low in itself. A news search returns nothing at all. Not even trivial passing mentions. (As a Northern Ireland-based topic, I searched in the Belfast Telegraph, the Newsletter, the BBC and others, and couldn't find even a single passing mention). While, in a 2016 de-prod note it was suggested that the article could be merged, there is nothing cited to merge. Nor can I find any refs to support even a minimal amount of merged text. The organisation that issues these scholarships/awards doesn't seem to maintain a list of recipients, so how would we support any of the merged content?). Seems a clear case of why we have WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY guidelines... Guliolopez (talk) 21:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Recipient list is entirely unsourced as well, whole thing is not notable. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG for lack of third party coverage. Nom did a substantial search. LibStar (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above; run of the mill grant. Bearian (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:27, 14 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rahman Karimi[edit]

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

No third-party reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV; prod disputed by the creator, who has a likely conflict-of-interest. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in Gscholar, GBooks, Jstor or anywhere else I can find. There was one person with his name in Gbooks in the Encyclopedia of Afghanistan, but it appears to be a different person. Oaktree b (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this already on your user-talk page. But you insist in deleting this page. Sorry for repeating myself.

I fully understand your concerns. However, this is not about nostalgia (you had previously said "Wikipedia is not a memorial"). This is about an important poet whose works can be found in many libraries abroad. According to my information, his works can be found eg in the USA, Germany (more than two dozen libraries), Austria, Switzerland, the UK and even New Zealand. On request, I can name more than 30 libraries specifically. More than 20 university libraries. Many references are in Persian. Some are from political groups. I deliberately focused on his literary work, which can also be read in English language. I hope you take into account whether or not a poet has lived in exile too. I hope you don't feel offended but the Iranian government is trying to annihilate everything democratic and all who are fighting for it. Atelier-KaRo (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no third party sources cited in the article. I looked for some, and couldn't find any. There is an Afghan politician named 'Rahman Karimi', everything I can find under the name is about him and not the subject of this Wikipedia article. The article creator points out some library holdings, but these do not build the case for notability. We need sources about the subject, not by the subject or his family. - MrOllie (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Google's algorithm takes into account News in English much more than in Persian. Rahman is a common first name and Karimi is a common surname. I think I'll send you some of those library entries. A book in Farsi is not obtained abroad simply because his family wants it. Few examples:

University of Oxford.

University of Berlin

Public Library Dresden

Public Library of Wellington (New Zealand)

University of Vienna

Public Library Zürich (Swiss)

etc Atelier-KaRo (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I just mentioned, library holdings are irrelevant to this discussion. MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add some more information. As mentioned before they are most in Farsi.
1. Reference (The summary of the book mentions explicitly Rahman Karimi)
2. Reference
3. Reference
4. Reference
5. Reference
6. Reference
7. Reference
8. Reference
9. Reference
10. Reference
11. Reference
12. Reference
Atelier-KaRo (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simple mentions and blog postings won't help either. You should read WP:N and WP:RS thoroughly. MrOllie (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Books existing in libraries does not by itself address any WP:BIO or WP:NAUTHOR notability criteria. We need third-party reliable sources that address the signficance of ths author and his works. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  To be able to judge the references I added you'll need to read in Farsi. Whereby Google translator meanwhile does not translate so badly.
  
  I think the first reference might be the best from your point of view. Nevertheless, you have to know the other writer to understand the significance. Atelier-KaRo (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Please read WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS. Pasting a list of every website you can find that mentions Karimi is not helpful. Ideally, any reference meeting WP:RS would be incorporated into the article, not enumerated here. Skimming those quickly, most of those sources appear to be blogs or other self-published sites. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first reference is a published book about "notable" poets of south of Iran. Some others are from Radio and TV stations. Others are Iranian News sites. None of them is "self-published" by Karimi or his relatives!
    
    Is it possible that there is a specific reason for insisting in deleting the article? As I asked before, it'll be helpful to clear some points. Should others try to help? If you don't like anything I'm forwarding you. It could be helpful to have others. I'm not sure if others would be provide more. All in all, in exile living authors and artists can not provide the same form of proof in English as somebody from Europe or US.
    
    I really hope this isn't a kind of personal or political issue. I feel like Asterix in Egypt. Atelier-KaRo (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've already told you that this is a notability matter, not a political one. We routinely nominate a wide variety of articles for deletion if an editor feels that they don't meet our notability criteria. You've also yet to address the COI issue. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Regarding to COI issue: There are three ways to solve the problem (in my opinion). 1. Somebody else would publish the article. 2. You tell me, which information are suspicious and need proof. 3. I publish our discussions and hope other would help. Of course, I'm aware not everybody is familiar with the structures of Wikipedia and is able to make changes.
      
      Which way is the best? Or is there another way? Atelier-KaRo (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  P.S.: I don't agree that finding books in libraries wouldn't address notability criteria. Of course, finding a book in few libraries might be kind of local thing. But finding a book in Farsi all over the world in public and university libraries show clearly that the criteria match. Atelier-KaRo (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - meets neither WP:GNG or any of the SNG's.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:32, 14 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmie Lenz[edit]

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

Non-notable business person. Reads like a resume. Being a lecturer isn't notable and I don't find any critical discussion of him, only him talking about various things to media. Oaktree b (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Finance. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: He also serves as the Irene and Frank Salerno Visiting Professor of Financial Economics at the Duke University, and leads the Digital Asset Research and Engineering Collaborative (DAREC). He has served as Adjunct Professor at Darla Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina.^[1]^[2]^[3]Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being a professor is not enough to satisfy WP:NPROF. Holding a named chair position is sufficient, but I am unsure if the Irene and Frank Salerno Visiting Professorship fulfills this. Curbon7 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curbon7, WP:NPROF C5 "can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level". I don't see any way that the visiting professorship meets this. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce recently thanked him here(first and second paras); I don’t think he is a Non-notable scholar.Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Jimmie Lenz". Pratt School of Engineering. September 26, 2018. Retrieved February 7, 2023.
^ "Millennials are US$1 trillion in debt – but they're better at saving than previous generations". The Conversation. March 11, 2019. Retrieved February 6, 2023.
^ "Easy Money? Private Capital's Drawbacks". CFO. September 12, 2019. Retrieved February 6, 2023.

Delete. I see very little sign of WP:NPROF -- low citation counts, visiting positions only, etc. The passing mentions do not add up to a pass of GNG, writing articles in the popular press does not grant notability (unless there is evidence of impact), and I see no other signs of notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the Closing Admin. Professor Jimmie Lenz is “Executive in Residence” in the Pratt School of Engineering, Duke University, that’s why he is an Irene & Frank Salerno “Visiting Professor” in Financial Economics in the Department of Economics, Duke University. And “Executive in Residence” is a possible chair position.Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not the kind that passes WP:PROF#C5. That is for permanent faculty members given the chair as a form of recognition of outstanding scholarship, above and beyond the full professor level. There are many other kinds of named chairs (those for junior faculty, ex officio chairs for administrators, those like this one used to fund short-term visitors) and while some of them may be an honor they are not what #C5 is about. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, Professor Jimmie Lenz doesn’t qualify under WP:PROF#C5.Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appointment of Professor Jimmie Lenz as Executive in Residence(Business School) at Duke University (which is ranked among the top universities in the United States and in the world by major publications.^[1]) recognizing his prior achievements in the corporate sector, qualifies him under WP:ANYBIO#C1 or WP:NACADEMIC#C6(C).Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Lake Ontario Wind (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

References

^ "Duke University sees a record increase in undergraduate applications". Duke Today. Archived from the original on May 19, 2021. Retrieved May 19, 2021.

WP:NPROF C6 is basically for presidents (occasionally provosts) of universities. The routine appointment to a visiting or adjunct (in the older sense) position surely does not meet that! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am only talking about Executive in Residence(Business School) position, not the visiting or adjunct capacities. As a creator, I have the right to vote and any closing admin will come to know easily who has created it.Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Executive in Residence position _is_ a visiting position, as the Visiting Professor title indicates. It is certainly short of the highest-level position (president, in this case) of the university! Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really I am not sure, discussing further won’t take anywhere from my side.Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the Closing Admin. Based on other editors votes/remarks, if the article is supposed to be deleted, please shift the article to my user space.Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet any of the WP:NPROF criteria (executive-in-residence and a named visiting professorship are not satisfactory), nor is there WP:SIGCOV for the purposes of GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable academic, fails all criteria of WP:ACADEMIC (and seem to have been created by the subject). Jeppiz (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeppiz, If I am the subject, why I should have created Canada–Peru Free Trade Agreement and Canada's Global Markets Action Plan? The subject has nothing to do with Canada. And again I am currently staying in a different continent.Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Ontario Wind, read WP:BLUDGEON. You created this article, you're the only one editing it, and the only one in this discussion who wants to keep it. Fair enough, but you don't need to comment on every 'Delete' vote. You've made your position clear, and it's equally clear nobody else shares it. There is not one criteria of WP:NACADEMIC that Lenz is even close to meeting. Jeppiz (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeppiz, I have stopped responding to ‘Delete’ votes after my discussion with User:Russ Woodroofe; please see my talk page. I raised concern of your ‘Delete’ comment only for - “(and seem to have been created by the subject)”; and bringing WP:BLUDGEON at this juncture will lead to WP:CIV issues, please see WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL - 2. Other uncivil behaviours - *(a) taunting or baiting: “deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting;....” By accusing I am the subject, I doubt whether you are violating the above. You can go for CU; really I am not in North America for a long time.

I have really come to know Professor Jimmie Lenz after the recently held ‘Duke Digital Assets Conference’ where Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission; and Commissioner Kristin Johnson, U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission also participated.[12][13]Lake Ontario Wind (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G7 $Salvio giuliano$ 09:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Klinge (manufacturer)[edit]

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

Non-notable company, no discussion of the company found in Gnews, does not appear to pass CORP. Even what's given here is rather point form, bits of information with no further context. Oaktree b (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 7 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Burrowes[edit]

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

Vanity spam article, none of the links given for sourcing are RS. Nothing found for this person in Gnews, appears to be another working real estate person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is definitely not the place for resumes. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Promotional piece that as mentioned by LegalSmeagolian, reads like a resume.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly promotional and nothing notable about his career. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG a Promotional piece.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:37, 14 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) 22:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khwaja Syed Fakhr Al-Dīn Gardezi Chishti[edit]

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

Unclear article, I'm not sure what this person does, it appears to be dealing with religion. I find no sources that discuss them and the reference in the article doesn't help. Not seeing GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. Oaktree b (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while I normally would support a similar article being draftified, I don't see how it could pass the AfC review process, as it certainly doesn't pass GNG in its current state. However, I'm not opposed to draftification if this doesn't end up getting deleted. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:41, 14 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 Pawar. Near identical dab page. (non-admin closure) ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 06:09, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pawar (disambiguation)[edit]

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

~~Dublication of Pawar. Onlk (talk)~~20:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Onlk (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pawar. The surname article serves a disambiguation-like function, and there are no other uses. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect per LaundryPizza03: this would have worked as a bold action, and it's difficult to see how the redirect itself could get consensus for deletion as the target serves a disambiguation-like function. – Uanfala (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. A pointless near-duplication of the main page. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:19, 10 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Henderson (diplomat)[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Algeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. could not find indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to satisfy WP:BIO criteria. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article subject doesn’t meet WP:GNG or NPERSON. I did a pretty exhaustive search for reliable independent sources that would establish notability and couldn’t find anything. Shawn Teller (talk) 01:15, 14 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 01:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Lowen[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Algeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. only routine rather than indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Magreb Times (interview), El Watan (promising, but times out), ChinaBuses.com (in a previous post). Lamona (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- One more: The Guardian. A news bulletin about his work in reporting on embassies. Lamona (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  The Guardian article is not indepth coverage about him, it is Lowen merely making a few comments. LibStar (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:10, 14 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Tesorière[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Algeria, Albania, and Latvia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to satisfy WP:BIO criteria.

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) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Reclus (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per WP:ONEOTHER. Onlk (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Onlk (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move Paul Reclus to Paul Reclus (surgeon). There is no WP:PTOPIC; pageviews for both pages are nearly the same. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03 I boldly moved as you proposed and fixed the links. Onlk (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:28, 8 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) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Hopper (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per WP:ONEOTHER. Onlk (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Onlk (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move Paul Hopper to Paul J. Hopper. There is likely no WP:PTOPIC; pageviews for both pages are similar. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03 I boldly moved as you proposed and fixed the links. Onlk (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:27, 8 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Kataller Toyama season[edit]

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

I can't find anything to suggest that this was a notable season worthy of a stand-alone article and Japanese Wikipedia is of little use here. If something notable did happen this season, I'm a strong believer that this would be better placed at Kataller Toyama and 2010 J.League Division 2, both of which could do with more prose content anyway. I can't see enough for WP:GNG and the article is currently an article for the sake of having an article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Article does not cite any sources and is essentially a list of player names and birthdates. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:01, 9 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Riofrio[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NPROF or WP:NACTOR (only minor/uncredited roles). A little bit of independant coverage (e.g. the Express story) and some unreliable sources, but don't think it's enough for WP:GNG. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, and Women. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why the "Louise Riofrio" article belongs in Wikipedia[edit]

Arguably, Riofrio satisfies the criterion "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" — if by "field of entertainment" means a combination of minor acting roles combined with scientific activity — as if a singer had given conference talks on archaeology — or a nightclub comedian had given conference talks on chemistry. In this regard, Riofrio seems quite remarkable. Also, note that Wikipedia has the "Category:Pseudoscientific physicists". If Riofrio's cosmological model is empirically valid, she is an extraordinary genius — if her cosmological model is empirically invalid, she is an outstanding "pseudoscientific physicist". Suslindisambiguator (talk) Feb. 7. 2023

Delete. Comes nowhere near meeting WP:PROF with only a few citations to her work, and also nowhere near WP:NACTOR with only a few uncredited and minor roles. I also can't see any case for the general notability guideline. The subject appears to be subject to WP:FRINGE with her main claims to fame being her statements that the speed of light is changing and that there is a black hole in the centre of the Earth. Only very credulous sources report on such things. More reliable sources just ignore them. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:AUTHOR would give he a pass if "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique". Is her model significant? It seems that maybe. I'm leaning keep, based on this unconventional application of notability guidelines, seeking feedback on that. CT55555(talk) 20:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- If the model was significant I'd expect to see a lot more independant discussion of it. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Fair comment. I'm now undecided, considering she is mildly notable for multiple things, doesn't seem to have significant coverage, might pass WP:BASIC...not sure how to !vote... CT55555(talk) 21:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's her impact factor? I see 4 or 5 publications with her name in GScholar, that seems non-trivial to me. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw her GScholar entries and thought it was very minimal, including minimal citations by others. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Delete as I don't find any critical discussion of her work, nor any indication it's received much notice at all. Oaktree b (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I think most scientists are notable. This person is the author of some academic papers and I think that's enough. --Bedivere (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to take that approach then nearly everyone with a PhD would be notable. That would require a major overhaul of WP:PROF, which is one of the most successful of our notability guidelines in its current form. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Phil Bridger here: it really, really isn't enough. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn for grad students. XOR'easter (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass yet of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No indication of being noteworthy as an actor, a physicist, or a fringe physicist. XOR'easter (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Riofrio isn't a first-author or even a co-author on a single peer-reviewed paper, save a fly-by-night journal (Planetary Science) that published four issues of a mere 9 papers and has no recorded list of editors or even of peer review. The "Selected publications" are otherwise submissions to conferences, which receive no or little vetting. Nor does she apparently have a Ph.D. Her "credentials" as a conservationist are a link to an apparently self-written profile on "The Cruise Ship Enrichment Network" that does not mention the word "conservationist," but in which she claims to be "invited to speak at scientific conferences worldwide." This doesn't pass the smell test.Donaldjbarry (talk) 16:50, 13 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of duo and trio cocktails[edit]

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

Notability questioned since 2019. Sources consist mostly of personal sites & blogs. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Half-list, half-article, poorly referenced, fails WP:GNG as an article and WP:LISTN as a topic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.

As the editor who de-PROD'd this article, I'll let someone else close this discussion when it is time to do so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not discussed as a group outside of Regan's book in any WP:RS I could find, which makes it fail WP:NLIST. TartarTorte 21:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find duo and trio as organizing methods in a number of different books aimed at bartenders. Each will probably have a different selection (since no bartending book can really be complete) but that just means that this article can be added to. Joy of Mixology, Little Bartenders, Bevvy, Serious Seats.com. Lamona (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this isn't a real grouping, as TartarTorte pointed out above. JimKaatFan (talk) 00:08, 12 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 Tito Puente. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Torres[edit]

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

There's no real claim of notability, nor does the subject appear to meet the general notability guidelines. (Note, some content was removed recently, but even if that were to be re-added there's no claim of importance there.) JeffUK 17:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. JeffUK 17:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New York. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO as it stands. Cursory Google search provides nothing more than social media. Edit history alleges collaborative act with Tito Puente. After some digging, this website confirms a collaborative dance routine with Puente, along with some links to YouTube. Merge to Puente's article at best. It's me... Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 18:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. Fails WP:BIO. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 09:28, 14 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. Star Mississippi 17:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sushama[edit]

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

This musical "style" doesn't appear notable. No sourcing found, nothing in Jstor or Google, only people have this word as part of their name. What's given here is only a brief description Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Sri Lanka, and India. Skynxnex (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 7 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 long-period comets. This target seems to have more approval that other options. But if it is not to your liking, please make an argument on the redirect's talk page or take it to WP:RFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C/2007 K5 (Lovejoy)[edit]

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

The coverage is from databases, the discovery annoucement, along with few further observations and the orbit determination. The comet is also mentioned here, but it is mostly the discoverer's account about it. It is also mentioned trivially among the comets discovered by Terry Lovejoy[14]. I believe it fails WP:NASTCRIT, according to which multiple non-trivial published works, which contain significant commentary on the object are needed. C messier (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge into List of Halley-type comets. Most of the sources are about the more notable C/2011 W3 (Lovejoy). Praemonitus (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- If I may, I would suggest merging to the List of long-period comets, where it is already listed, instead of the Halley-type list. The comet's period is >200 years. 25or6to4 (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from the creating editor. I created it in response to a line-item addition at Comet Lovejoy. I suggest a redirect to go to a section in Terry Lovejoy (currently Terry Lovejoy#Astrophotography has the most appropriate content for such a redirection; but that article probably ought to have a "Comets discovered" section, which would better capture this); that would be a better target than List of Halley-type comets. TJRC (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are several different Merge/Redirect targets mentioned in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_long-period_comets where the comet in question is already neatly in the table, with its important information there, as well as Lovejoy's name linked to his article if a reader wants to find out more about him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyous! (talk • contribs) 16:32, 8 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. Although there was no strong consensus to keep the article, the arguments presented by those !voting 'keep' strongly suggest that the subject meets WP:GNG. One opinion arguing for 'draftify' all but endorsed their line of argument. Those arguing for deletion failed to respond to the sources brought forward. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miles v European Schools[edit]

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

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

No indication of significance or WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, only routine coverage in legal databases ITBF (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ITBF (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. The precedent established by this judgment has received significant coverage in many books and periodical articles. It is impossible to understand the meaning of "court or tribunal" in Article 267 of the TFEU treaty, and the consequent effect of that article on which bodies can make preliminary references to the ECJ, without this judgment. Accordingly, it will be necessary for Wikipedia to explain what this judgment decided. The judgment is correctly cited as "C-196/09", but is also called "Miles", "Paul Miles", "Miles and Others", "Miles and ors", "Écoles européennes", "Europäische Schulen" and various similar names. For the avoidance of doubt, the judgment is a document. James500 (talk) 23:41, 17 January 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, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find any mention of this decision in Jstor or GScholar. A court decision alone isn't GNG, we need sources discussing it. I don't see any law journal articles about this subject. Delete Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can find mention of this case in GScholar (and a very significant amount of mention in a very significant number of sources). There are law journal articles entirely about this subject: [15] [16] [17]. They appear in literally the first page of results in GScholar and are very difficult not to notice because they stick out like a sore thumb. There are many other journal articles that include coverage of the case in GScholar and elsewhere. The actual number of sources with some mention in GScholar is roughly on the order of 170+ [18]. JSTOR contains very few law journals and is not an appropriate place to stop looking for coverage in them. There is also coverage in the journals and publications held on university and university press websites, and in the journals held on the sites that actually hold most of the law journals. You should have looked at Google Books which has plenty of coverage in more than fifty books and periodicals: [19] [20]. (I will add some if I have time, though I really think that three full periodical articles is more than enough). James500 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC) I wrote the preceding comment before the !vote below was posted. James500 (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the search done here is on the case number (C-196/09) and not the title of article. Since searching on the legal case number provides better sources than the article title should there be a redirect from the case number to the article? As others have noted, not much turns up in a search on "Miles v European Schools." Lamona (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think for me it is probably merge to a target to be discussed. My thoughts are (and I accept that I'm not at all knowledgeable in this area) that the case appears to have had a very marginal impact on the overall running of the ECJ. If it has had a more important role than it appears, presumably it should have a section on European Court of Justice. If it did and the section needed to be fleshed out then maybe it could be a stub later. There are very few references I can find when searching for the case number. JMWt (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate & Draftify There are numerous reliable secondary sources, including scholarly sources, discussing this decision, as can be seen from even a cursory use of Google Books and Google Scholar. So the case is clearly notable, and there are clearly sources, but there is virtually no content to the article. So, neither Keep nor Deletion seems to be in order here; rather this is a classic case for Incubation per WP:ATD-I Banks Irk (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If you are arguing for a Merge or Redirect in an AFD, please specify a target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per James500. Looking at Google Books, the case seems to be cited quite frequently in European Union law textbooks. Of the books with previews, this book from the Oxford University Press devotes the bulk of a page to the judgement here. I'm assuming good faith that James500's sources do cover the case. I also agree that JSTOR is not an appropriate search to judge the notability of legal topics, since that is largely outside its jurisdiction. By comparison, a HeinOnline search for "Miles" plus the ECJ citation number gives 61 results This is definitely on the drier and more technical end of the spectrum, but the topic meets WP:GNG and should be kept per WP:NEXIST despite the brevity of the article. If there is consensus to delete though, the best merge target as an alternative to deletion would be the subject matter of the case, Preliminary_ruling#Courts_that_may_ask_questions -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Vocabulary Championship[edit]

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

Seems like a minor TV competition with little notability. No refs on the page, few mentions that I can find. JMWt (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. JMWt (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Tallent-Runnels, Mary K.; Candler-Lotven, Ann C. (2008). Academic Competitions for Gifted Students: A Resource Book for Teachers and Parents. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press. p. 119. ISBN 978-1-4129-5910-0. Retrieved 2023-02-01 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "This championship uses competition and word play to engage and reward students while teaching them the value of a strong vocabulary. ... Students must first quality in their citywide championship. This step is an online test. Top scorers will then be invited to take a regionwide test. Fifty finalists win the opportunity to participate in the national competition."
2. Bean, Josh (2008-03-09). "The Format". Press-Register. Archived from the original on 2023-02-01. Retrieved 2023-02-01.
  The article notes: "Take a Jeopardy!-style game show stage, add brain-teasing vocabulary questions and fly in 50 of America's top high school wordsmiths. The result? The second annual National Vocabulary Championship, touted on the contest's Web site as a test of "the spectacular vernacular of students everywhere.""
3. Moss, Linda (2006-10-02). "GSN's Latest Cause Has a Way With Words". Multichannel News. Vol. 27, no. 39. p. 17. EBSCOhost 24973014.
  The article notes: "The National Vocabulary Championship is trying to break the mold of traditional memorize-and-recite competitions. With study materials and tests provided by educational partner The Princeton Review, it will provide students with the real-world tools necessary to comprehend word meanings and help build an enhanced vocabulary."
4. Phua, Chelsea (2006-12-06). "Competition speaks highly of students - Sacramento is one of eight cities hosting vocabulary championship to get kids excited about language". The Sacramento Bee. Archived from the original on 2023-02-01. Retrieved 2023-02-01.
  The article notes: "Walker had just won $5,000 and an all-expenses paid trip to New York City, where she will compete in March with 49 other participants -- seven city champions and 42 others who qualified through an online exam. The national vocabulary champion will win $40,000, which will be invested in a "529" higher education savings plan. The National Vocabulary Championship is an initiative of GSN, the game show network."
5. Honeyford, Brooke (2006-11-10). "Wordplay, times two". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2023-02-01. Retrieved 2023-02-01 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: ""Win With Words" is the motto for the National Vocabulary Championship, with nearly 100 students from area high schools competing in a test, not of will, but of words. ... With Words is an initiative launched by the Game Show Network to promote strong vocabulary skills as an integral element of a child's education."
6. Sciullo, Maria (2008-01-17). "The word's the thing: in local final for national vocabulary contest". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2023-02-01. Retrieved 2023-02-01.
  The article notes: "This year's national final, sponsored in partnership with Comcast and the Princeton Review, will be March 10 in Los Angeles. The Pittsburgh winner was determined in true game-show tradition, amid nervous gasps from the crowd and a booming heartbeat audio track counting down the seconds until time ran out."
7. Trujillo, Hector (2007-03-08). "Experience is word of the day for Nipomo student". Santa Maria Times. Archived from the original on 2023-02-01. Retrieved 2023-02-01.
  The article notes: " After a tough competition in New York City against some of the nation's brightest students, Nipomo High School junior Andrew Pirolo was eliminated in the first round of the National Vocabulary Championship. ... The event, which pitted 50 students from across the country against each other, took place Monday in front of a packed house at the New York Public Library. ... The students were divided into groups of 10 for the first round, with the fastest four in each group going on to the second round. Then the remaining 20 students were given more vocabulary questions, with the top five making it to the final round."
8. Barron, James (2007-03-06). "A Contest Where the Competitors Flex Their Lexicons". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2023-02-01. Retrieved 2023-02-01.
  The article notes: "The host, Dylan Lane, questioned the contestants the way game-show hosts do, making friendly chatter with jittery people who have buzzers in their hands. When Billy’s turn came, he told Mr. Lane that he knew a synonym for synonym: poecilonym."
9. Louie, Eric; Burgarino, Paul (2008-03-06). "Student heads to vocabulary contest". East Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2023-02-01. Retrieved 2023-02-01.
  The article notes: "The final rounds of the second annual National Vocabulary Championship will be held Monday at the Music Box Theatre. Unlike last year, it will not be televised, though video will appear after the event at http://www.gsn.com/NVC."
10. "NYC word whiz joins 49 others in national vocabulary championship, NY". Associated Press. 2007-03-05. Archived from the original on 2023-02-01. Retrieved 2023-02-01.
  The article notes: "Now the city's champ is going up against 49 contenders from around the country on Monday in the inaugural National Vocabulary Championship. The winner gets $40,000 and a certain type of fame - the competition will broadcast April 15 on the Game Show Network, a sponsor. Contestants are asked questions similar to those found on the SAT, and study tools for the competition were created by The Princeton Review."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the National Vocabulary Championship to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - featured non-trivially in a wide variety of WP:RS during its very short life Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 4 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!} 18:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:46, 12 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 05:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Malayalam songs recorded by S. P. Balasubrahmanyam[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Note that WP:NOTDATABASE applies. Few, if any, tracks pass WP:NMUSIC. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Lists, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NLIST. Songs have been copied from sites similar to discogs and no songs have standalone notabilty. Complete non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:V. scope_creep^Talk 01:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the listing is nowhere an "indiscriminate collection of information". Could only be relevant if WP decided that no list of recorded songs could have a place here. Similar articles do exist with even poorer sourcing. Otherwise it just needs expansion and proper sourcing, not deletion. Most of the films already have enough references and the songs may be traced upon searching on the web. Abbasulu (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppeteer, see investigation) ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since this is an extension of List of songs recorded by S. P. Balasubrahmanyam, they should have been grouped into one single AfD. The rationale for keeping them though remains the same. WP:NOTDATABASE does not apply here. It is not a database, it is a list, a legitimate one, which needs sourcing, just like every list of recorded songs by other singers. I suggest that we start a project of sourcing them all instead of deleting a page which so much time and effort have been put into. Other than that, the notability of the songs as suggested by the nominator isn't as important (in lists of works, no requirement exists for all the works to be notable - the subject is more notable, as per WP:NLIST: "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable") - fact is, by the way the majority of films are notable, so actually NFILM might be more suitable than NMUSIC. If by then no sources are found then I believe the right course of action would be redirecting it to the main list. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draft. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:VERIFY.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to S. P. Balasubrahmanyam. Fails WP:NLIST per nom. Part of the list can be covered there. SBKSPP (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's the only sensible suggestion. If I were interested in Malayalam songs recorded by S. P. Balasubrahmanyam the obvious place to look would be the article on S. P. Balasubrahmanyam. What on earth in the value of having a separate article? The same applies to all of the articles with similar names. Athel cb (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom. Unless someone performs a HEY there is far too much-unsourced content to redirect. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This singer is a legend. He has sung more than 120 songs in Malayalam which is more than the entire career of Maluma or Bad Bunny. I see no reason to delete this legend's discography. Valiaveetil (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC) (Sock strike — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]
NLIST: There are at least 2 very good reasons, #1)- Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables, #2)- a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. A third reason is verifiability|. Not wanting to take anything away from anyone, great or not, all someone has to do is supply a source that fulfills the criteria. That way there is proof there is "the legend", and won't feel as though the great country artist Loretta Lynn sang Legend In My Mind. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC) _[reply]
Delete Grouping lacks supporting references to meet WP:NLIST. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The introductory paragraph duplicates material already in S. P. Balasubrahmanyam. The only source for the remainder is an IMDb-like group blog, malayalachalachithram.com, which is not a reliable source and doesn't demonstrate that Malayalam songs by SPB have been discussed as a group. Fails WP:V and WP:NLIST. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:55, 9 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 Fossil fuel phase-out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mitigation of peak oil[edit]

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

Firstly hopelessly out of date as it seems to assume that oil will peak due to lack of supply rather than demand.

Secondly the topic is covered much better in Fossil fuel phase-out Chidgk1 (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, Engineering, and Environment. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I think that this article actually has some very valuable information contained within it. After it has been merged, I see no issue redirecting the page to Fossil fuel phase-out, as that certainly encompasses more than just oil. Akdulj (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to merge if that is the concensus Chidgk1 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I can help out, having worked on many energy law articles. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, just to be clear, the suggested Merge target is Fossil fuel phase-out, right?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks, @Chidgk1: and @Bearian: for the offer of merge assistance. Definitely would be needed and greatly appreciated. Joyous! | Talk 19:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK if the merge is approved I will do the initial donkey work and then leave the thinking bits to you guys Chidgk1 (talk) 07:09, 10 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. Star Mississippi 17:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twisted Fortune[edit]

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

Article about a film, not properly sourced as passing WP:NFILM. The only notability claim immediately apparent here is that there were actors in the cast who went on to become more notable for later work than they were at the time, which isn't a notability criterion per se -- and the only "source" cited is a directory entry in an IMDb-like database that isn't an automatic notability clincher. But even on a Google search for older sourcing, all I found was more directories, with no discernible evidence of WP:GNG-building coverage about it turning up on regular, news or books searches.
As always, we do not want to just indiscriminately keep an article about every single film that's ever been made -- a film's notability has to be established by showing that it's been a subject of coverage and analysis by film journalists and reviewers, not just by using directory entries to verify that it exists. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No sourcing of any kind found, even the ImDB and Rotten Tomoates pages are pretty bare. Delete for lack of any sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 18:07, 7 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rae Lim[edit]

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

I'm not an expert on WP:ACTOR but as far as I can tell, the subject has only had minor roles and most of those listed in the article (including those for which she is apparently "best known") are not supported by citations. SmartSE (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Office lady" in Bridget Jones' Baby isn't notable. One article on Medium is about the best I could find, but that's not a RS. I was hoping her voice work in video games would bring something up, nada. Even her Rotten Tomatoes page is bare, there just hasn't been critical attention focused on her. Oaktree b (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was turned down at AfC and the author was told several times the sources weren't acceptable, but they moved it to the main wiki anyway. It's been "declined" twice already, this feels like a waste of time to go over it again. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. I would salt it, due to the behavior of the article creator as well.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:00, 13 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our Retro[edit]

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

Can't find any sources, the article is entirely unsourced as well. Appears to fail GNG. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellow Pages (Armenian TV program). Silikonz💬 16:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Armenia. Silikonz💬 16:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Television. Skynxnex (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources found, but there likely aren't any in the English interwebs. Oaktree b (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My BEFORE search returns no mentions of the programme. Seems to be non-notable. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 08:38, 10 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Álex Gárgolas[edit]

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

Does not seem to pass WP:N and WP:BLP1E Bedivere (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is coverage about a person with the same name in Chile; I've found one article from the Swiss international radio broadcaster about him, but it looks like a recycled press-release. Oaktree b (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be the same person. They seem to be only known in Chile for a controversy surrounding the failed production of a compilation album of Chilean trap musicians and the continued personal attacks between the people involved. Bedivere (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is referring to a Puerto Rican music producer, not anyone in Chile or does it relate to anything in Chile. He has over 3 million monthly listeners on Spotify. Rolling Stone also listed one of his songs on their list of the 100 Best Reggaeton Songs of All Time. Diva Knockouts 23:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The song may be notable, "Soy una gárgola", but the producer does not seem to be. Bedivere (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the Rolling Stone article they claim he has left a mark on the genre of reggaeton, with this article referring to him as a “legendary producer”. Here and here use similar language as well. His albums have been credited to “Various Artist” in Billboard magazine, but have charted. Diva Knockouts 04:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still unconvinced about Gárgolas' own notability. Some of these albums may be notable on their own though. Bedivere (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Puerto Rico. Skynxnex (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could be redirected to the albums (if they are on Wikipedia). Not 100% not notable nor 100% notable. Mozzcircuit (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

could be, yes Bedivere (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the albums do not have wikipedia articles but are redirects so redirecting to a redirect is a no-no Atlantic306 (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the sources identified by DivaKnockouts and the Rolling Stone article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's some coverage (just enough, probably) in third-party sources. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 04:40, 13 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Klasila[edit]

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

Article about former soccer player who had an uneventful career which fails WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Most of the online coverage consists of club/league press releases, routine coverage in match reports, and transfer announcements. This snippet mentions his exploits in high school and college sports, but it's clearly not in depth nor enough to even meet SPORTBASIC. Jogurney (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this Daily News article is okay but it's mostly a long quote from him. I also found some match report coverage in State Hornet. SPORTBASIC and GNG need multiple sources showing significant coverage and I'm not seeing enough for that. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 12 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aykin Tolepbergen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced, not notable, the external link is dead. He probably played in one or more films, but I have no idea if the films were notable, they are not described in this Wikipedia. Xx236 (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Kazakhstan. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 7 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Tupac Shakur[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Cites zero sources, no appearance of independent notability. QuietHere (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Due to Shakur being a notable artist, I would say that the article meets the standards of notability, however it definitely should be updated with proper sources. ULPS (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many "List of songs recorded by X artist" are or have been Featured Lists (List of songs recorded by Ariana Grande, List of songs recorded by Rihanna, List of songs recorded by Coldplay, List of songs recorded by Adele, List of songs recorded by Madonna, List of songs recorded by Paul McCartney, plenty of others...). Tupac is one of the best-selling hip-hop artists in history.

Per WP:NLIST: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."

There's no question it needs sourcing work though, it is unacceptable that a list of the size has remained unreferenced for so long. Mooonswimmer 16:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If someone were to locate and add said sources then I'd be willing to withdraw this but so long as the page remains unsourced my argument still stands. QuietHere (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Moonswimmer and ULPS. Here is at least one source but AfD is not for cleanup. Rlendog (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a source, that's just a list of songs without any context. We have WP:NOTDIRECTORY for a reason. QuietHere (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reliable source. NOTDIRECTORY addresses Wikipedia articles, not sources. Rlendog (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the only thing that source would be good for is confirming the list of songs we already have here, which would still leave us with a list of songs recreated from there. We'd be recreating their directory and that's the violation. The sourcing needs to support notability, not just the existence of the songs. QuietHere (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that source confirms the list of songs recorded by this artist. And it is pretty well established that lists of songs recorded by an artist are acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines and do not violate NOTDIRECTORY.Rlendog (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that was just one easy to find example. There's obviously more, for example this and this covering lists of his songs on just the first page of a Google search of "tupac shakur songs". Rlendog (talk) 17:15, 9 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Marilyn Manson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Cites zero sources, no appearance of independent notability. QuietHere (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep. Many "List of songs recorded by X artist" are or have been Featured Lists (List of songs recorded by Ariana Grande, List of songs recorded by Rihanna, List of songs recorded by Coldplay, List of songs recorded by Adele, List of songs recorded by Madonna, List of songs recorded by Paul McCartney, plenty of others...). Marilyn Manson is "widely regarded as being one of the most iconic and controversial figures in rock music".

Per WP:NLIST: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."

There's no question it needs sourcing work though, it is unacceptable that a list of the size has remained unreferenced for so long. Mooonswimmer 16:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If someone were to locate and add said sources then I'd be willing to withdraw this but so long as the page remains unsourced my argument still stands. QuietHere (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Moonswimmer and here is at least one source. Rlendog (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a source, that's just a list of songs without any context. We have WP:NOTDIRECTORY for a reason. QuietHere (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reliable source. NOTDIRECTORY addresses Wikipedia articles, not sources. Rlendog (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the only thing that source would be good for is confirming the list of songs we already have here, which would still leave us with a list of songs recreated from there. We'd be recreating their directory and that's the violation. The sourcing needs to support notability, not just the existence of the songs. QuietHere (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that source confirms the list of songs recorded by this artist. And it is pretty well established that lists of songs recorded by an artist are acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines and do not violate NOTDIRECTORY.Rlendog (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that is just one easy to find source. A Google search of "marilyn manson songs" quickly brings up song lists such as this and this and this and this. Rlendog (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Far Out page isn't about Manson's music and the uDiscover Music article runs into the same CoI issue as most if not all of their reporting given the publication is owned by Universal Music Group. The other two may be worth something somewhere but I'm not certain it's the right type of coverage for this type of page. QuietHere (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no good argument for deletion here, clearly there are tons of sources that cover Manson's whole song recording history.★Trekker (talk) 18:28, 11 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by the Notorious B.I.G.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Cites zero sources, no appearance of independent notability. QuietHere (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Notorious B.I.G. discography where this kind of stuff belongs. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many "List of songs recorded by X artist" are or have been Featured Lists (List of songs recorded by Ariana Grande, List of songs recorded by Rihanna, List of songs recorded by Coldplay, List of songs recorded by Adele, List of songs recorded by Madonna, List of songs recorded by Paul McCartney, plenty of others...). Biggie is one of the best-selling rappers in history, and is described as the greatest rapper in history by the likes of Billboard and Rolling Stone.

Per WP:NLIST: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."

There's no question it needs sourcing work though, it is unacceptable that a list of the size has remained unreferenced for so long. Mooonswimmer 16:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If someone were to locate and add said sources then I'd be willing to withdraw this but so long as the page remains unsourced my argument still stands. QuietHere (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Moonswimmer. This does not belong in the discography because not all of these were released as singles. Here is at least one source but AfD is not for cleanup. Rlendog (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a source, that's just a list of songs without any context. We have WP:NOTDIRECTORY for a reason. QuietHere (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reliable source. NOTDIRECTORY addresses Wikipedia articles, not sources. Rlendog (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the only thing that source would be good for is confirming the list of songs we already have here, which would still leave us with a list of songs recreated from there. We'd be recreating their directory and that's the violation. The sourcing needs to support notability, not just the existence of the songs. QuietHere (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that source confirms the list of songs recorded by this artist. And it is pretty well established that lists of songs recorded by an artist are acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines and do not violate NOTDIRECTORY.Rlendog (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the example I gave was only one example that was easy to find. There is also this and this and this, which discuss a chunk of his songs that comes up on the first page of a Google search of "notorious big songs". And with all the books about him here is just the first page of a Google search are you seriously suggesting that there are no sources covering his songs? Rlendog (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Made in USSR (Armenian TV program)[edit]

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

Can't find any sources, the article itself is entirely unsourced as well. Appears to fail even GNG. Silikonz💬 13:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Armenia. Silikonz💬 13:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was able to find a few references that mention or list program: [21], [22]. But that's about it. No in-depth coverage. The program seems to air nationally, but any ostensible presumption of notability is pierced by this lack of coverage. —Alalch E. 15:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Unnotable, barely-referenced show. Qytz (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black House Media[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:NCORP. Out of the ten references, four are interviews, one uses the company website as a source, two are press releases, and the other three are mere mentions or routine coverage. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and Nigeria. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/NCORP guidelines apply. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WJ94 (talk) 11:58, 7 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 article has already been moved to Bicycling in Islam. As an aside, please don't move articles until after an AfD discussion has been closed, because it upsets the script that admins use to close these discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic bicycle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not exist.

Last year I proposed deletion but was told that the sources show that the subject of the article exists - as I cannot read Farsi I asked for a quote from one of the sources to show that the subject of the article exists but no quote has been provided. Earlier I had suggested merging to Bicycling and feminism but that was rejected. I do not propose to rename the article. Since 2018 several people have discussed renaming but have not actually done so. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, Engineering, Cycling, and Transportation. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Yes, it is not something that exists. It is an article that attempts to draw together, in a WP:SYNTH-like manner, anecdotal news and opinion pieces about issues about women cycling from around the world. IF there is anything useful to be said on this subjects, Women in Islam would be the place. Inventing names for things that do no exist, such as "Islamic bicycle", is WP:OR. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that @Bookku is updating the article. If and when they or anyone else renames the article I will probably withdraw this deletion proposal Chidgk1 (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and let rename discussion @ t/p proceed at its own pace:

Though nom uses word 'Last year' previous AFD discussion is closed as Keep and continue rename discussion just on 2 January 2023. I.e. This AFD is repeating back with just few weeks gap is strange.
Talk:Islamic bicycle#Rename discussion 2 started by me on 12 Jan 23 clearly states ".. This is just tentative discussion, as part of WP:RFCBEFORE and not an RfC in itself. Before going for RfC I will prefer to expand the article so users will have better idea to take call. So pl don't be in hurry to start RfC but welcome to express primary opinions 'on suitable names' if you have not expressed in earlier discussion. .."
- Today I added short description to the article "Women biking or bicycling in Muslim world" and added a section to expand the article." Within few hours repeat AFD nomination is being raised. See article history Is this really not bordering 2nd point in WP:Speedy keep → WP:CSK 2. The nomination .. made for .. disruption ?
- Nom raising 'content dispute' question pertains to minority view as of now the rest of users in previous AFD suggested change of track for the article with rename. In any case usually a content dispute is supposed to go through WP:DR processes. WP:AFD is last stage and in previous AFD I pointed out nom that they had not completed WP:BEFORE.

Nom themselves seem well aware 'Significant coverage' for the topic "Women biking or bicycling in Muslim world" is available. Rather I am using a citation they used in another article themselves (But they did not use women cycling related content in detail enough). This raises a question whether they are trying to avoid reflection of criticism in the citation – (the citation used previously by themselves)– under some other pretext. I wish they assure us, that is not the case. If that is the case then they are expected to contest content with WP:DR and not by repeating WP:AFD.

I can develop article in draft namespace too but that is not fair chance to the article which has been just recently discussed through AFD process. Hence I encourage nom to withdraw repetitive AFD nomination and give a fair chance to the process of article repurposing and rename at the talk page.

Bookku (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming the article has been discussed since 2018 - just be bold and rename it if you want to Chidgk1 (talk) 14:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This could have been said @ article t/p, (Also WP:DR is available for sorting out content disputes if any). Is it essential to use WP:AFD route in repetitive manner to make WP:POINT ? Bookku (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Pinging previous AFD participants who are still to join discussion @Michaelmalak, TheAafi, Pranesh Ravikumar, Jason from nyc, Mccapra, PamD, and Liz: Bookku (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging previous t/p participants @Morten7an @PetarM Bookku (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Last year", ie 2 months ago. This nomination is clearly disruptive at this point and no deletion reason has been given by OP as of writing this statement. Sources were provided in the previous discussion showcasing notability. I guess I'll have to give them again.

"Peddling religion: Why secular academics fret about an "Islamic bicycle"". The Economist. September 15, 2012. Retrieved December 20, 2022.
"'Islamic bike' proposed by Turkish scholars". Hürriyet Daily News. September 14, 2012. Retrieved December 20, 2022.
"طراحی دوچرخه ویژه زنان در ایران" [Bicycle design for women in Iran]. BBC Persian (in Persian). May 17, 2007. Retrieved December 20, 2022.
Tremblay, Pinar (September 29, 2015). "Pedal power gets Turkish makeover". Al-Monitor. Retrieved December 20, 2022.
Lloyd, Sophie (October 25, 2016). "A Woman's Right to Bike". Ms. Retrieved December 20, 2022.
Mehrabi, Ehsan (October 22, 2020). "مخالفت با دوچرخه سواری زنان در ایران؛" دختر تهرانی مثل دختر چینی نیست"" [Opposition to women cycling in Iran; "A Tehran girl is not like a Chinese girl"]. BBC Persian (in Persian). Retrieved December 20, 2022.
"تصویب ساخت دوچرخه اسلامی ویژه بانوان" [Approval of the production of Islamic bicycles for women]. Asriran (in Persian). February 26, 2018. Retrieved December 20, 2022.
"تصویر طرح پیشنهادی دوچرخه اسلامی بانوان" [The image of the proposed design of the women's Islamic bicycle]. Tabnak.ir (in Persian). November 5, 2011. Retrieved December 20, 2022.

Desiring a rename is not a reason to nominate an article for deletion. Silver seren^C 13:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for deletion is that there is no such thing as an Islamic bicycle Chidgk1 (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly merge elsewhere on Cycling and religion or whatever is appropriate. This term is honestly vague and there is not anything as "Islamic bicycle" that exists in real. If folks want it to be renamed, this is not the best venue but an RM is. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Bicycling and Islam. The topic is notable yet the current name is SCANDALOUS. I can totally understand why some folks are upset. If a news site writes "Islamic bike" in the title of an article that is clickbaiting and, especially in current markets, fair game. From an encyclopedia, we should expect some precision! gidonb (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the current name. If you want to rename the article please be bold and do it now Chidgk1 (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been pinged to come to this discussion: I will just copy what I said at the previous AfD:

Keep but rename from an imaginary concept to a real issue: "Women cycling and Islam" or similar. PamD 07:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note also Bicycling and feminism#Bicycle rallies 21 Century Pakistan which needs some serious copy-editing. PamD 07:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PamD 17:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There have been rename discussions since 2018. If you want to rename the article please be bold and do it now Chidgk1 (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done and Done LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby withdraw my delete proposal: Thanks for discussion and renaming and article improvements Chidgk1 (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Liz and @King of Hearts since you have participated in listing or closing previous AFD, I wish you do guide after OP's above declaration about withdrawal of nomination. Bookku (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Bicycling in Islam" is OK name. --Petar Milošević (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chidgk1, AFD is not a forum to discuss article renames. It's a waste of editors' time to consider deletion and other alternatives and bring together sources if you are just seeking to rename an article. And while it is technically not against the rules, it is disruptive to rename an article that is in the middle of an AFD discussion because it messes up a discussion closure or relisting with XFDcloser which is the tool we use to handle these processes. I typically move an article back to its original name to close a discussion and then, if necessary (because an article is being Kept), move it again to the desired page title. So, your "be bold and do it" attitude causes problems for those of us who close discussions and saying that you withdraw a misguided nomination on the condition that an article rename is out-of-place. As the nominator, you can recommend an action you prefer but you can't keep a discussion hostage until you get the result you want. Since I have expressed some strong opinions here, I will not be closing this discussion but I assume the admin who does won't be happy with how this one was evolved. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 9 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ujala College[edit]

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

Did a thorough WP:BEFORE, but couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NCORP. BookishReader (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NCORP. Insight 3 (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - private institution that fails WP:NORG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 11 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Mullee[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Ecuador, and Uruguay. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only routine coverage, nothing indepth to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some coverage: [23], [24]. These could be used if a list of ambassadors is created. Lamona (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither articles are not indepth coverage of Patrick Mullee. LibStar (talk) 01:37, 13 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Lyster-Binns[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Uruguay. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. only routine rather than indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete I saw some other lauguage sources but couldn't read them properly like this [[25]] and some other routine publications that fails WP basic or WP bio but still see him as a prospects in no distance time.Epcc12345 (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no evidence of notability Almeida Fernando (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Clinton Smith[edit]

I first saw this page when I was googling the 2007 film, The Mist only to find the name and the occupation of the actor and the filmography. I prefer seeing his information in other websites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. AllyD (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been deleted, but It came back when I was checking if it's still present in the page about the articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4lepheus B4ron (talk • contribs) 16:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @4lepheus B4ron: It had been deleted after you had tagged it for speedy deletion per WP:G7, but then undeleted when it was called to the deleting admin's attention that G7 did not apply in this case, as has already been explained on your user talk page. As for the article itself, I'm having trouble finding references outside of IMDb and the usual array of other performer databases, so the subject may not meet WP:GNG (haven't gone deeply enough to formally !vote either way), but "It's been a stub for years" is not in itself a sufficient reason to delete an article by whatever method. --Finngall ^talk 19:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @4lepheus B4ron: Please add new comments at the bottom of the page rather than continually editing your nomination statement above. Your changing of "It's been a stub for years." to "I prefer seeing his information in other websites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes." removed the context for my reply above--this is not conducive to a proper discussion. And where you prefer to find information has no bearing here--we're talking about Wikipedia policy now. --Finngall ^talk 16:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 30 January 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, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 10:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searches found nothing notable. CT55555(talk) 01:59, 11 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Wilde[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, and Turkmenistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Could only find routine coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 7 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. Low participation even after 3 relists, hence no prejudice against re-nominating in 1 or 2 months time. Randykitty (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Summit League softball tournament[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTSEVENT // Timothy :: talk 07:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sports. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Softball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources in article appear to cover it enough to get us over GNG. Smartyllama (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources provide WP:SIGCOV or the event? // Timothy :: talk 14:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of WP:SIGCOV, as needed to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:23, 30 January 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, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 10:14, 7 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 List of stars in Cygnus. Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KIC 11026764[edit]

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. There is a dedicated study from 2010, but nothing since except group papers. Lithopsian (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there were a couple of other sources that had information specific to this star. For now, I added them to a "Further reading" section. Praemonitus (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 10:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prob delete/merge - according to Cygnus (constellation) there are nearly 100 (possibly nearer 200, I'm not sure how to read the infobox) stars in the constellation. It doesn't appear that there is much information about this star, wouldn't it be better to be in a section of the Cygnus page? JMWt (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The appropriate merge target would be List of stars in Cygnus. SevenSpheres (talk) 22:42, 9 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Butcher[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Turkmenistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Could only find coverage for namesakes. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 7 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Wilson[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Turkmenistan, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Could only find coverage for namesakes. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 7 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Landsman[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Wikipedia:Notability (politics) proposes that diplomatic notability should be a person who has "received significant coverage in crafting an international agreement or related to a notable diplomatic event. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Uhooep (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Albania, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. could only find coverage for namesakes. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no evidence of notability. Almeida Fernando (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoyTheKingCanDance (talk • contribs)

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. Randykitty (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 (Armenian TV program)[edit]

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

I don't seem to find sources for this subject. Available source in page does not meet the general notability guidelines. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Armenia. Reading Beans (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. By all means, notability not met. Silikonz💬 13:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG. If someone finds sources in Armenian, please ping me.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:55, 13 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 Merry Men#Known members. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will Stutely[edit]

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

This unreferenced short article doesn't indicate the subject's notability (minor character related to Robin Hood's folklore). The article, in its current form, violates WP:OR/WP:V and in form, WP:IPC, since it's pretty much just a list of a few works he appears in (there is even no plot summary to speak off...). My WP:BEFORE is not finding anything that meets WP:SIGCOV (and what I see is a plot summary with no analysis of the character's literary significance); I suggest redirecting this to Merry_Men#Known_members. PS. To add insult to the proverbial injury, there is a comment on the talk page, from 2006, signed by one " Allen W. Wright", of this that suggests the content here is both wrong and a copyvio (" Whoever originally wrote this article got some facts seriously wrong. Unless Stutely is considered a permutation of Will Scarlet, then he does not appear in any of the early ballads as originally stated. Also, the one pre-existing accurate bit was copied directly from my website. I've now changed the text a bit and corrected the mistakes.") - no website has been linked, unfortunately. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and England. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Will Scarlet. Characters in such well-known folk tales as these are certainly notable, but as he is usually conflated with Will Scarlet then it would probably be reasonable to merge with that article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No referenced content to merge, but if we can find RS for the claim present in both articles that he is a mispelled version of the other name, it would be good to add it there after a redirect. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, appearances in literary works don't actually need referencing, since the works are references in their own right. You don't need one work to tell you that a character appeared in another. That would be senseless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point - such information is WP:INDISCRIMINATE trivia. See also: MOS:POPCULTURE, WP:IPC and WP:NOTTVTROPES. So not only is this content unreferenced, it is also unencyclopedic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think you can apply this to appearances in medieval ballads! It's not really some trivial pop culture mention. The fact a character appears who is often conflated with another much better known one is clearly significant and not in any way unencyclopaedic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was primarily referring to the latter half of the article ("Later adaptions"). Anyway, if we can find a RS for the fact that he appaered in some older ballads and/or was conflated with another character, I'd certainly support mentioning this in the better known character article (where, as I noted, this is, I think, already mentioned, but without a reference). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Merry Men#Known members, where he is already listed and described with pretty much all of the information regarding his role in the couple of ballads he appeared in. Even if the article had reliable secondary sources (which it currently does not), I would still argue that per WP:NOPAGE, it would be far better to have the information contained on the main Merry Men article, than also have a rather pointless spinout article that just reiterates the exact same information. If any reliable sources are found that actually discuss the possible conflation with Will Scarlet, it could perhaps be merged there instead, but this should not be done without some sources discussing it. Rorshacma (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss merge/redirect targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Merry Men#Known members per Rorshacma 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Merry Men#Known members. The information is already there. Joyous! | Talk 16:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Merry Men#Known members. This isn't a notable character but there is a logical place to preserve this information. Archrogue (talk) 17:43, 8 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. A possible redirect/merge elsewhere can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Boardwalk (upcoming film)[edit]

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

It looks like this animated film's release may be in limbo. There are barely any sources about the production of the film (production was done between 2020-2021 according to Twitter) to begin with. A release of July 2022 was to happen, but did not. There's not even a cast list officially announced, much less a a new release date. The best outcome would be to draftify this for now. Most of the page sources are primary or WP:UGC, because really that's all that can be found. Mike Allen 23:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mike Allen 23:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep they talk about it in the Hollywood Reporter and the other RS listed, it might not be a "thing" yet, but it's had enough coverage for now; could even be an article about a film that never happened at some point in the future. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's been nothing in the trades for two years. IMDb Pro and Variety Insights don't list any updates since July 2022 (and that was to update to say it had been take off of the release schedule). Look, I know it says articles for deletion, but I am not trying to get the article deleted, only moved to a draft (if possible) that it can still be worked on if news of a release ever arrive. Mike Allen 01:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is nothing on ParamountAnimation.com. This link is dead, but you can read the archive where it only gives a release date of July 22, 2022 and a one-sentence synopsis. This customized search engine from Project Film that includes the top reliable sources for films/TV doesn't show any significant coverage. Mike Allen 01:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of reliable sources. NYC Guru (talk) 06:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Mike Allen 06:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think the film has been officially cancelled. 69.165.146.227 (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been made at the very least; nothing wrong with keeping an article about a film in development hell; in fact a redirect/merge to List of media notable for being in development hell#Film should be considered and once it gets scheduled, this subject can be in its own article anew to preserve the sources we do have. Nate • (chatter) 16:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid merge target. The criteria for List of media notable for being in development hell specifies "This article lists notable examples of media projects that were or have been in development "for at least ten years after their first public announcement before release without being officially cancelled...' Joyous! | Talk 03:11, 14 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!} 05:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of video streaming aggregators[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Unsure what this article actually is - seems to be a table for channels or providers that can be found with specific video streaming aggregators? Does not seem appropriate for Wikipedia per WP:NOTDIRECTORY or WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Natg 19 (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. Natg 19 (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Websites. Natg 19 (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE as its not useful for navigating and not really encyclopedic. Perhaps it could be transwikied to a different wiki such as wikiHow or similar, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTACATALOG Mike Allen 14:28, 8 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. Split consensus with deletion, and this achieves that goal since there is thought that there might be merit here. The original editor might or might not come back to it, but if they don't, G13 solves this in six months. Star Mississippi 17:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Sheikh child marriage racket of Hyderabad[edit]

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

Whatever I have written was sourced. Maybe the article is not written properly, I am not editing for long time, and using proper headings, sub headings, infobox, categories, sections, I don't have experience in that.

All lines are sourced and proper coverage is given for years. Please check the sources and decide. More user's views are required. Rambo XTerminator (talk) 07:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As there were many sources, I managed to give the source of most lines just after that line, but in one sentence, I did not give the source just after that. That source is in the article, but I don't remember which source. The title could be changed. I believe in Wikipedia, other editors should work together to develop an article, not just harass other editors by drafting well-sourced articles. I cannot develop the article more, as I don't have time and lack of experience. Rambo XTerminator (talk) 07:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are the refernces used. Which one is bad reference? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_Sheikh_child_marriage_racket_of_Hyderabad&oldid=1136619075 Rambo XTerminator (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - There is an article to be written about the topic, but this essay is not it. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per TrangaBellam. And I'd advise the article creator (who seems to have nominated their own article for deletion, possibly in error) to either spend more time finding out how the English-language Wikipedia works, how it differs from sub-tabloid media, and why it doesn't cite such sources, or to find a Wikipedia version in a language they are more competent in. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AndyTheGrump You might be interested in this thread. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that. Part of the reason for my comment. See also Stray dog attacks in India, which suffers from the same tabloid-style sensationalism, poor sourcing etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to edit this article anymore, which means this will be deleted. I saw in other user's talk page, that stale draft is deleted. If this has notability, why can't other editors improve it from the sources? Rambo XTerminator (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Telangana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, draft please. This needs work. Oaktree b (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the style is all wrong, the references apparently refer to an incident in 2017 rather than a wider issue as suggested in the text. JMWt (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original author's request if they're not going to improve the article further. Only other non-template edit by another user was to merely link Hyderabad, so deletion should be non-controversial. Nate • (chatter) 20:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As TrangaBellam says RS in the article may pass GNG for a stub. RS seems okay under Transnational marriage titles. If TrangaBellam takes over the draft development then that would be great, other wise just note down references links @ Talk:Transnational marriage and delete. Bookku (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Halfly cooked article. Valiaveetil (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC) (Sock strike — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC))[reply]
Note to closing administrator -JMWt did not check all sources properly. The article should be added with infobox and divided into sections and subsections, see also section. There are multiple sources from The Hindu, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Deccan Chronicle, Calcutta Telegraph with deep coverage. Andy The Grump should comment on keep or delete, not tell someone to move into different Wikipedia in AFD votes. Thousands of stub articles exist in Wikipedia. Many articles have zero sources. Millions of articles use media sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.105.3.219 (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have little doubt that the closer will be familiar with Wikipedia policy. Since you appear not to be, I suggest you rectify that before offering advice. And read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the same article, also read WP:MAJORITY ("As per Trangabellam" type comments), WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC (Your comment), and WP:LOUSYTITLE. 42.105.2.53 (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see what the support is for Drafting the article and if anyone wants to take that project on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Transnational marriages in Muslim world I wish to change my opinion to rename sorry what is the procedure. I changed my opinion after coming across this Research paper ".. Duman, T. (2020). The Situation of Syrian Women in Turkey. In: Carlson, E.D., Williams, N.E. (eds) Comparative Demography of the Syrian Diaspora: European and Middle Eastern Destinations. European Studies of Population, vol 20. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24451-4_5 .."

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!} 08:04, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geethi Sangeetha[edit]

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

Has appeared in minor parts and does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for actors. WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. Akevsharma (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. Akevsharma (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – all sources currently in the article are unreliable and none of them should be used in a biography. I can't find any sources that would help towards WP:GNG, and it does not seem that she has had any major roles per WP:ENT. --bonadea contributions talk 20:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Although she does not meet the WP:NBASIC criteria, she has acted in multiple films, thus meeting the [WP:ENT]] criteria and may become notable in the future. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 03:00, 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!} 06:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -no evidence of any notability. Very poor quality sources. Clearly a small bit part actor. She may become more notable in future, but that is the time to create an article, not now. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 06:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Maleshoff[edit]

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

Bringing to AfD to get the wider community to look at this page. My concern is that the story may be false.

I absolutely urge people to look at the discussion on the talkpage about the sourcing for this page. Basically the only sourcing for what is an astonishingly prolific serial killer in the Soviet Union are a couple of wire-based foreign news reports over a week or so in June 1935. The spelling of the name varies more than transliteration differences would allow, and despite appearances doesn't quite look like a typical Russian or Ukrainian name. Nothing appears in Soviet Ukrainian court documents. Nothing appears in any Russian or Ukrainian sourcing post USSR. Russian language Wikipedians who looked into this dismissed it as false (discussion linked to on talkpage)

So, there is some RS sourcing for this article, but it's internally inconsistent, and other sourcing hasn't been found where it really should exist. OsFish (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Russia, and Ukraine. OsFish (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : The discussion, both on the talk page and the Russian language discussion (ala google translate) seems pretty convincing that this is a hoax. The potential sources listed with null-results seem to cover the situation pretty well; if it were a true story, then it seems to me that it would most likely appear in several of them. Overall, I think it would be better to delete it than to have it present without marking it as a hoax. In addition, even if it weren't a hoax, it seems to fail WP:NBIO. (It would be nice to list it as a hoax explicitly, but the discussions seem to indicate that it would be difficult to demonstrate that from reliable sources, since absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.) Radzy0 (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have not found any reliable sources in Russian. Mentioning a Russian or Ukrainian spelling of his name in the article would help to run a search more effectively, maybe someone else will be luckier that me.ThegaBolt (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried that, and I think the ru wikipedians tried as well. Малышев/Malyshev is the closest common surname, but I also tried Малешев/Maleshev, Малишев/Malishev, Машелов/Mashelov etc. but got nothing. The name and patronymic (which aren't ambiguous in spelling at all) and various forms of murder/mass murder and Kyiv. Just nothing except iirc one Russian blog that all the same ultimately referred to the 1935 wire stories and no other sourcing.OsFish (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Silent-Rains (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. $Salvio giuliano$ 06:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Ashe[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 05:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Poetry, and England. Hitro talk 05:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is TOOSOON. I found the Irish Examiner link used in the article, and another brief one in the Daily Mail. Seems to be a fairly well-loved writer, but I don't think she's gotten enough critical attention yet. I'd say draftify but it's probably too early for that yet. If we delete, that's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only other thing of note is an interview with the Royal Ballet school. Lots of stuff we could use for an article, but it's a primary source. Oaktree b (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Way too soon. Her first novel is out this year. There is fleeting, close-to-zero news coverage. (Of course, good luck to her in the future.)OsFish (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the above and nominator. CT55555(talk) 06:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree this might be too soon, but currently does not meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:54, 13 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!} 08:07, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trees 4 Children[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG for lack of coverage. 2 of the 4 sources are youtube links. LibStar (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. Unfortunately I couldn't find any substantial coverage myself, unless there's an issue with the number in the title? PK650 (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, Kenya, and Wisconsin. AllyD (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – my search did not find any independent RS coverage that's sufficiently in-depth to satisfy WP:NORG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:02, 14 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. Closing as keep by strength of arguments, particularly as created by blocked sock. There are strong notability concerns. I see one strong argument for keep from a clearly uninvolved editor, but there are more numerous and stronger arguments for delete, so I so judge consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fela Akinse[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman with questionable sourcing and awards, likely UPE/potential socking. I'd have draftified, but the draft was just redirected to this article. Star Mississippi 03:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Biology. Star Mississippi 03:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment courtesy @JJMC89: who performed the redirect. Star Mississippi 03:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to the lots of passing mentions, profiles, several interviews and PR pieces that don't pass WP:SIGCOV for this ecoprenaur, whatever that is. Could be early days right, but at the moment it doesn't pass WP:BASIC. scope_creep^Talk 14:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite the fact that this piece is contentious, the inventor seems notable. Isn't. JackFrost987 (talk) 09:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have updated the article with cites. The inventor is notableRobin499 (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
can you please let us know how you found this article? Thank you! Star Mississippi 14:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redraft-ify, for glaring errors such as spelling: Nigeria as "nigeria", the United States as "united States". This needs clean up and isn't ready for prime-time yet. The person seems notable, but this reads like a resume/CV and has errors. The source links have no capitalization and there are grammatical mistakes throughout. Please do not take it from the draft state before it's ready to be published. Oaktree b (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did some clean-up and adjustment on the article as highlighted by Oaktree. He is notable.Epcc12345 (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the first block of references, there is no secondary sources. There is a load of PR, a small X of Y article, which is also ref 8, two interviews, a press-release. There is nothing here, at all, that indicates notability. scope_creep^Talk 12:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see consensus here and I have doubts about low edit accounts that show up at random AFDs to comment. I don't discount their opinions but, like I said, I have my doubts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be something seriously wrong with this Afd. Oaktree b is probably the closest in what is needed. I think this is the 3rd article in this series. I passed one out of Afc about a month ago, and it took about 8 goes looking at the references over a month to do it, and still wasn't sure, 100% sure its notable. I'll will examine the first blocks in a ref review when I come back shortly. scope_creep^Talk 18:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's definitely some UPE happening and overlap with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damola Ayegbayo (2nd nomination) where you and I both participated. Draft space would be fine. Star Mississippi 18:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has only 70 edits with two articles. It well structured, formatted and laid out, and supposedely referenced. It is quite odd. scope_creep^Talk 09:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the references:

Ref 1 [26] Meet these folk. This a paid for PR it looks like with a profile attached to each.

Ref 2 [27] This is an interview. It does states he has won several awards but they are mostly growth awards for business, essentially industry awards.

Ref 3 [28] Another interview.

Ref 4 [29] This is a passing mention.

Ref 5 [30] This is straight up PR.

Ref 6 [31] PR again.

Ref 7 [32] Interview style PR.

Ref 8 [33] Same content as ref 1. Paid PR.

Ref 9 [34] 404

Ref 10 [35] Profile. Growth platform for companies. You can signup if you meet the requirements.

Ref 11 [36] Invited panelist.

These references are typical of entrepreneur coverage for a UPE article. There is a several interviews which are WP:PRIMARY, the PR coverage is non-rs as its not reliable and the profiles are non-rs as well as they not significant. It fails WP:SIGCOV. There is not a single WP:SECONDARY source amongst this first block, where is should be. scope_creep^Talk 09:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the articles you list as "PR" are laudatory, there is no evidence that they are paid promotion. We should be careful and distinguish between those sources where we have proof that are actual press releases and those that use promotional language. In this case, I read the promotional language as praise and an expression of pride. If you have proof of actual press releases or paid content, then those sources could be eliminated. Lamona (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is the co-founder of https://www.salubataofficial.com/ which won an award from Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. The President (Muhammadu Buhari) of the continents most wealthy and populous country called on people to take note of him https://thenationonlineng.net/innovation-buhari-urges-youth-to-intensify-efforts, which seems like a big deal. CT55555(talk) 01:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Per above by CT55555, the subject meets WP:BASIC. TheGrandSon (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC) sock blocked. Star Mississippi 15:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Changing vote due to COI and socking concerns. Shawn Teller (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G5, content created by a sockblocked editor. Very clear evidence of other sock activity around this process, as mentioned by other contributors. If somebody wants to draftify these sources, they should do so soon, because despite various keep assertions, this page is clearly the COI workproduct of a blocked sock of a blocked sockmaster. BusterD (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons stated in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I see a consensus to Keep this article. But I am a bit concerned that 8 out of 9 references come from the same source. It would help to get other sources to diversify the references. Changing of the page title can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Poon Yuen Chung[edit]

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

Fails WP:PERP, also WP:ONEVENT. As per similar recent AfDs on drug smugglers LibStar (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Being executed for drug offences does not make someone notable. Mccapra (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To first reply on the comment above, yes "being executed for drug offences does not make someone notable" but in this case the execution drew sustained international media attention from 1993-1995 and has received coverage in secondary sources such as this law paper from 2004 and Amnesty International, also 2004. AP News commented that "Along with the flogging of American teen-ager Michael Fay for vandalism, the drug case has put international attention on Singapore’s tough approach to crime." WP:PERP and also WP:ONEVENT are both decent rationales for deletion but I think the former does not apply because we have (at least weak) "sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources" and the latter doesn't apply because it's better to have an article about the person than the arrest in this case. Mujinga (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Arrest and execution of Poon Yuen Chung. Chung herself fails WP:BIO1E, but the sources show that the event itself is notable as it received coverage over a period of several years. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasoning by Devonian Wombat but the better title could be Execution of Poon Yuen Chung and could add more sources like newspapers in other languages like Chinese as well. The alternative is we can redirect her to The President's Pleasure (Singapore) where her 17-year-old accomplice Lam Hoi Ka was among the cases of those minors imprisoned under this measure for crimes that warrant the death penalty (which is the punishment off limits those below 18 at the time of the said offence). NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as case generated notable media coverage over several years, maybe rename to Arrest and execution of Poon Yuen Chung — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk • contribs) 15:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment - WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker, I wanna remind you that the title you suggested is quite long. You may want to make the title short for wiki articles (unless the name of the subject is too long and we cannot help it, like Execution of Nagaenthran K. Dharmalingam). And also, at the end of your comments you need to remember to put a signature here by putting this sign ~ four times without comma or blankspace. --NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry thought i had a new vote 13:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC) WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 13:36, 8 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 02:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA teams by single season win percentage[edit]

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

Though an interesting topic, this article is currently OR and mainly sourced to basketball-reference seasons pages. Also unsure why the cutoff is currently 75.6%. Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Lists. Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Odd collection of statistics, unsure about the cut-off used as well. Could deal with a rewrite and more of a critical discussion. Oaktree b (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extremely interesting and informative topic on the NBA's best historical teams. NBA.com does not have a page like this, they seem to focus on individual player records. Removal of this page would be a big resource loss for the web. TheLostBoy (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment THe main question should be whether WP:LISTN can be met. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.—Bagumba (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rankings for best win/loss record are certainly significant. The Warriors got attention for their 73 win season in 2016, as did the Bulls for winning 72 games in 1996. (Those links are only the tip of the iceberg.) It does make sense for this article to focus on winning percentages, because not all NBA seasons have had the same number of games. Yes, the cut off point is rather arbitrary, but that's an editorial decision. We have to draw the line somewhere. Zagalejo (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, similar lists are fairly common in books: [37], [38], [39], etc. Some of those are kids' books, but those still help show that this is a subject of broad interest. Zagalejo (talk) 01:57, 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!} 03:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In terms of source issues, the whole article can actually be sourced to a single BBRef page, see [40]. As for the cutoff, I believe it is actually .750, it's just that nobody can finish exactly there because of the current amount of games in a season. I think a significant amount of LISTN problems can be overcome by renaming the article to something like List of best NBA season win–loss records, as there's a ton of notability for the concept of "who has had the best season". Pinguinn 🐧 12:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the sources and rationales provided by Pinguinn and Zagalejo. I agree that .756 is an odd cutoff and it should be .750, but there may not be any teams between .750 and .755. Rlendog (talk) 18:18, 8 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 03:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outnumbered Sikh battles[edit]

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

Obvious POV issues aside, this is not a notable topic; "battles in which Sikhs were outnumbered" is not a topic that is discussed by independent, reliable sources. We already have List of battles involving the Sikh Empire and List of battles between Mughals and Sikhs, in addition to articles about the individual battles. This seems to be a WP:POVFORK part of a wider trend of Sikh history-related POV-pushing on Wikipedia. Lennart97 (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Lennart97 (talk) 02:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NLIST. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Obviously, it is almost impossible for any actual battle between any opposing forces to have exactly the same number on both sides, so any group that has a history of involvement in battles will have a proportion in which they are outnumbered. It might be of interest to the encyclopedia to have an article on battles in which a particularly heavily outnumbered force prevailed, but not one with a specific group focus. BD2412 T 03:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sikhism and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clearly fails WP:NLIST. Bondegezou (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is nationalistic pride rather than encyclopaedic information. We already have precedent not to have such categories (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 25#Category:Wars France lost and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 27#Category:Battles won by indigenous peoples of the Americas). We do not have any other articles on lists of battles won/lost except for List of battles won by indigenous peoples of the Americas which I think should be nominated next if this one goes through. SpinningSpark 12:31, 11 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 SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BF.7 variant[edit]

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

Unclear why this article exists when none of the more well known variants have an article. Article has nothing of value to add back into the main article. EoRdE6^(Talk) 01:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm saying its an unnecessary splice of a larger article. The splice has little real content that isn't in the main article, and little potential to grow. No other subvariants from the main article have their own articles, regardless of how "highly infectious" they are. EoRdE6^(Talk) 23:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 05:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 05:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: More than 60,495 peoples read this article which means 500 peoples read this daily 1 and the variant is regarded as "highly infectious". 2 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 05:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page views themselves don't make a topic notable or worthy of a fork. Nor does how "highly infectious" it may be. Have a read of WP:PAGEDECIDE. EoRdE6^(Talk) 23:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant, clearly a useful redirect per above but all relevant information is already in the Omicron article. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. Aztec Warrior | talk | contribs 13:22, 12 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 Oxford University Cricket Club players. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bryan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Page is sourced entirely from a hobby cricket website. Subject is not notable and has not been covered in reliable sources. No new reliable sources have been added Muchasz (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Noting for the record that this Tom Bryan appears to be an entirely different person from the Tom Bryan whose article was deleted in 2006 per the earlier AfD. --Finngall ^talk 00:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Oxford University Cricket Club players as a valid WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Joseph2302. OliveYouBean (talk) 09:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Oxford University Cricket Club players A suitable WP:ATD, which I originally redirected to when the page was PRODed, but was removed. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a redirect - a shame that the mess of reverts threw RF's redirect out with the bath water Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we use common sense and redirect where a list exists? Saves everyone time all-round. StickyWicket (talk) 20:11, 10 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 Henry M. Dunlap. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Dunlap[edit]

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

There is precisely one subject in the encyclopedia with the first name Henry and the last name Dunlap; the other subject on the page is "Dunlop". BD2412 T 00:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 00:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Henry M. Dunlap, per nom. A Henry Lee Dunlap was deleted by PROD in August 2022. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Henry M. Dunlap as proposed above. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:23, 7 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. Like Valereee, I really hate this. I love coffeehouses, especially good ones. But those editors advocating Deleted have gone through dozens and dozens of references and found that they don't provide SIGCOV to meet NCORP. They have really gone beyond a simple review of this article to go deeply into every citation presented in the article or in the discussion and found most of them to be trivial. Their effort is not a reason to close this discussion as Delete but they have presented a case that isn't refuted by those wanting to Keep this article. Just as advice to content creators, it doesn't help save an article to include every mention of the article subject. Quality, not quantity helps both those wanting to preserve an article and those who are advocating Delete.

I wanted to consider an ATD but only one editor mentioned a redirect. One can still be created from this deleted page title. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Coffee Works[edit]

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

I really hate this. I don't want to AfD. But there is literally no evidence from the sources that this is a notable subject, and the article creator is literally forcing me here. There are 20 sources. I looked at the single one that is used more than once, thinking that must of course be something that would show notability. It does not. I started through the next. Nope. AB, why are you doing this? Why are you forcing other editors to do a source assessment for 20 sources in order to show that you didn't do what you were supposed to do, which is to find the THREE sources which support notability? Please, please just show me the three. Not twenty. THREE. Why won't you just do that? Why?

Ugh, templates. There's a source assessment at Talk:Seattle Coffee Works#Source assessment. As far as I can tell nothing supports notability. If someone else knows how to transfer that here for easy nav, please do. Valereee (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are mentions of them [41] but I don't see any substantial coverage about them. One location was sold, so there's some coverage about that. The source assessment table mentioned has only about three entries then error messages. Based on that as well, it's a Delete. I feel your pain about deletions as well. Congrats on sticking around wiki for 16 years though Valereee ! Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The error messages are because I created a 20-row table then didn't fill in the bottom 17 rows after the first three showed no notability. Anyone else who wants to go spend hours checking these sources to see if there's some off chance one of them would support notability -- even though AB is not willing to tell us which ones to look at -- feel free to fill it in, go for it. Valereee (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and now we've got ~~THIRTY~~ FORTY-FOUR sources. @Another Believer, more is not better. Which three, AB? Instead of adding 10 more sources, just tell us: which three sources support notability? Why are you adding sources when what is needed is for you to tell us which sources support notability? Why not just tell us which sources instead of spending your time adding more sources that will muddy the waters even further and make it even more difficult for other editors to assess? Valereee (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, we've asked for the three best sources, we'll debate what we have here. If it gets harder to pick which ones are good, well, that's their issue. We'll do our assessment with what we see and what's presented to us. I'm not rewriting the article for them either. Oaktree b (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b, the problem is that many people will drive by, see 44 sources, see that 25 of them have been added recently, not bother to check any of the sources, and assume there's been improvements made. It's all refbombing, but as you can see from @Drmies' !vote below, it confuses people as to what they're actually looking at. No one wants to look at thirty sources, and the people who think AB is being persecuted simply will not agree to discuss which sources are the ones that support notability. AB is experienced and well-liked enough that people assume he's also well-intentioned, so the refbombing strategy often works for him. AB thinks of himself as well-intentioned, too, so cognitive dissonance prevents him from being able to accept that what he's doing isn't actually of benefit to the project, even when other well-intentioned people object. It's all very circular. Valereee (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nominator is making up their own qualifications for articles and pretending they're part of our written rules. $ɱ$ (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ɱ, can you point me at the three sources that best support notability? Valereee (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'not playing your games. As seen before, no matter how many or how good of sources we include, you're always going to make up something to negate it, like "too local a source" or "too few sentences" or some other b.s. that isn't codified whatsoever in our policies and guidelines.

ɱ

(talk) 01:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ, it's not numbers. You're correct, no matter how many sources, it's not good enough. We need good sources, and yes, they need to be not all local/industry niche. Three will do. Valereee (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I wrote again.

ɱ

(talk) 01:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And this "industry" bullshit is crazy. Where are stock movements reported? WSJ. Where is NY metro news reported? NYT. Where is restaurant news reported? Eater, etc. This is almost as bullshit as the people who said a volunteer who works in foodservice can't edit restaurant articles. And again, It's Your Own Made-Up Standard. Fuck that.

ɱ

(talk) 01:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MJ, it's not that Eater can't be used. It's that Eater Seattle is still local and can't be used to support a claim of notability if all the other sources are also local. And of course a volunteer who works in foodservice can edit restaurant articles. They just need to keep in mind that what may look very important from inside the industry to someone in a certain area may not look notable from outside that industry and area. As someone inside the industry, you must know how much local coverage is given to basically every new opening in an area. Not all of them become notable. Valereee (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you just said industry/niche sources aren't applicable in proving notability? You can't move your goalposts back and forth on a whim. And like I said, this idea of all local sources being tossed out in deletion discussions is appalling and completely contrary to our policies and guidelines. There's a reason nobody here has linked to any in their rationales. It passes them.

ɱ

(talk) 13:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not being clear.

They can be used to fill in the article. But if there are no sigcov sources outside the local area/outside industry niche publications, we haven't proved notability. We shouldn't have an article in the first place. I could literally create 150 articles for Cincinnati restaurants tomorrow if I could use nothing more than the Cincinnati Enquirer, City Beat, Cincinnati Magazine, the Cincinnati Business Courier, plus their own little industry niche publications like Pizza Today or whatever. That coverage does not support a claim of notability. If a restaurant in Cincinnati is notable, media from outside the local area and/or outside the industry will cover it. Valereee (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using foul language here, we're debating the merits of the article, it's frustrating, but we treat one another as equals here. If you're here to denigrate others, wikipedia isn't the place for you. If it continues, you can and likely will get banned. Oaktree b (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can use all the foul language I want. The civility policy is about not being uncivil to others. I can still say fuck that idea, I'm not saying fuck you.

ɱ

(talk) 04:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All I want to see is that a coffee shop in Seattle is discussed in LA or Chicago or wherever. If it is, it's probably notable. If it's literally not discussed anywhere else, it probably isn't. Valereee (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ɱ, it sounds like you're rejecting the entire notability standard? I mean, I get it, but that's our standard. Valereee (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Again, nominator is making up their own qualifications for articles and pretending they're part of our written rules. $ɱ$ (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, you can present which three sources you feel qualify as reliable sources [42] as explained there. They need to be neutral point of view, extensive coverage of the subject. This isn't a negotiation, we look at what we have and offer our opinions. If that's an issue, maybe wikipedia isn't for you; we're here to collaborate and we have to respect the process, or this thing falls apart. Every article that shows up for debate doesn't get deleted, but there is work to be done. I'm not the nominator and have no interest in keeping or deleting the article, I'm here to review what information is presented to us. Oaktree b (talk) 04:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is only partially referencing policies and guidelines, you're also adding your own made-up ideas. Do any of the cited sources fail WP:RS? And thanks for being so patronizing/condescending, definitely warranted here.

ɱ

(talk) 04:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done many articles at AfD, that's how it runs here. Reliable sources must also be lengthy, xyz thing in Seattle isn't enough for sourcing. Most of what's given is trivial mentions. I wish I was making this stuff up, it's policy here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to see the forest for the trees here, as is typical with these articles. There is so much fluff, so much material from local newspapers and sources (and that kind of coverage is always positive--so calling it promotional is valid) that it's hard to see which sources aren't just local things and actually discuss the subject in some depth and with some objectivity. [time passes] No, I don't see them. Worse than the lack of notability is the promotional, non-neutral tone of these articles, but that's another problem. Weak delete. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Washington. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per GNG. There's plenty of coverage in reputable publications documenting the company's operational history, retail locations, reception, etc. The entry should be expanded, not deleted. This is yet another restaurant article I've started (I think we're up to 25 or so?) flagged for deletion recently. Ever since the Daily Dozen fiasco, a handful of editors have been hounding me. All of the articles have been kept; none have been deleted. I've "literally forced" Valereee to jump to AfD mere minutes after not answering their questions across multiple article talk pages? Give me a freakin' break. I'm tired of certain editors not assuming good faith and treating me like I have no clue what I'm doing. Also, I don't understand why certain editors feel a need to follow me around and flag things I've worked on, like some crusade to rescue Wikipedia from the evil restaurant entries. I don't expect to change Valereee's mind about anything, and I do not appreciate having to jump through all of their hoops over and over and over. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think people think you are acting in bad faith, I think it is more just two different ideas of what wikipedia is for. I think it is kinda silly to want to delete this but not also be for deleting all the wikipedia pages for like pubs of london or whatever. Keep. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Valereee or anyone else who thinks this should be deleted. Is it more likely that "the best coffee shop" in the state with the city synonymous with coffee, i.e. Seattle, is notable or non-notable? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so long as we have sources about it, I can be the dinkiest hole in the wall place with terrible coffee. Oaktree b (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not addressing my question. I will restate. We have two examples – Thrillist and Eat This, Not That – that call this thing the best example of X in a city known globally for its connoisseurship of X. Is that likely to be notable, or non notable? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notable? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri, I'm inclined for restaurants to at least consider such coverage, especially if it's significant (although in this case it's a bit synthy unless the sources themselves are pointing out that this is in a city known for its coffee). Being on multiple best-of lists usually makes me start a userspace draft, which I add to as I wait for three instances of significant coverage. I personally wouldn't move to article space on the strength of those two sources, but I guess I'd accept the Thrillist 8 best, as it does seem to have been written by someone who actually visited the shops in question and it represents coverage that isn't simply local. I wish it were several paragraphs instead of one, but if there were really good sigcov elsewhere, that might get it over the hump for me.

But are these mentions an indicator the restaurant is or is likely to soon become notable? Yes, I think so. Is it enough right now? I'd like to see actual significant coverage, not just a short paragraph or an appearance on a list of 50. What I'd really like to see is someone writing about their tour of Seattle coffee shops calling out Seattle Coffee Works with a several-para mention in the Chicago Tribune. Valereee (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "best coffee shop" in the state, or in a city, or anything like that. That superlative is, shall we say, widely claimed. Levivich (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sources are almost all reviews of only a paragraph or less. I don't see anything that meets the GNG or NCORP. JMWt (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Way to focus on the short reviews and disregard others focused on operational history. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AB, if you'd literally just point out to us the lengthy ones that are focussed on operational history? Why are you objecting to people disregarding sources you believe provide support for notability when you've given us 44 sources and won't tell us which ones to look at? Valereee (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a local brand with 4 shops. How much 'operational history' can there be? JMWt (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Over a decade's worth. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lots of local newspapers and brief mentions, but I don't see two sources that meet WP:NCORP (specifically WP:AUD and WP:CORPDEPTH). I disagree with Mj that these requirements are bullshit or made up; they're the applicable notability guideline. And @AB: if you're going to make an article like this every day, prepare for an AFD every day. If you don't have two NCORP sources, don't put an NCORP article in mainspace. Levivich (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I'm prepared. Unfortunately, I'm used to the hounding and deletion nominations at this point, even though I've been working to promote previously (AfD)-nominated entries to GA status (Bailey's Taproom, Bluehour, Bit House Saloon, etc). Some editors just keep targeting me and my work even though the articles are almost always being kept. Sure would be refreshing if editors offered to collaborate and improve content, instead of trying to tear down entries which have a place at Wikipedia. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't have two NCORP sources, it doesn't have a place at Wikipedia, and it's a proper target for deletion. Levivich (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying. Articles keep getting nominated for deletion and then kept, which to me suggests maybe some editors are nominating indiscriminately and/or misusing acronyms. (shrug) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked to see how many were nom'd and how many of those were kept, but of the three you linked, two ended in no consensus, and none were by the same nom as this one. You don't have to prove it to me, but I foresee eventually there will be either a string of keeps by a single nominator (who will be tbanned) or a string of deletes, in which case you'll be tbanned. Either outcome would suck. I'll say this: in those three you linked, I can glance at the ref list and see AUD without even checking for depth. I don't see AUD in anything in the ref list of this article though. Levivich (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know why I'd be topic-banned when I'm promoting entries to Good article status, but ok! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same thing this guy said. Levivich (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what else to say. A handful of editors keep nominating articles for deletion, even sometimes in retaliatory ways (I make progress in one place, so my 'reward' is immediate tagging elsewhere). The articles are generally being kept. Since then, I've worked to promote several of them to Good status even when editors were actively trying to interfere with the nomination. I don't understand why I would be topic-banned for improving/promoting content which editors have elected to keep via consensus. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to merging to Coffee in Seattle; while I still don't see any NCORP sources that would justify a stand-alone article, some of the national and international brief mentions suggest that it might be WP:DUE for inclusion in an article about coffee shops in Seattle. Levivich (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is now bombarded with 82 references, and the deluge of trivial coverage as well as the inability of this discussion to identify significant coverage of the company itself seems to weigh against a merge. Also, the Coffee in Seattle article mostly focuses on blue-linked companies, and only namechecks companies without articles, so there does not appear to be much to merge within the current structure of that article. Beccaynr (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Finally, I found the thing I asked for fifteen billion times, and no one seemed to want to provide; the actual regional-source-for-notability guideline, from WP:AUD:
The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
That's a pretty clear indication that solely local coverage is not enough, and it's pretty clear to me that the coverage from the Seattle Times is the publication acting in its role as a local paper of record. Furthermore, this is what NCORP has to say about trade publications:
Trade publications must be used with great care. While feature stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability. This is because businesses often use these publications to increase their visibility.
And "best-of" lists are mentioned in NCORP as "Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement". I don't know why it was so difficult to get that from all the !delete voters on this page who swore up and down that they're a part of the notability guidelines. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, The Oregonian is generally treated as regional. That doesn't actually mean coverage only in TO is sufficient. For me, if I see one sigcov of a Seattle restaurant in the LA Times, one in the Seattle Times, and one in the Oregonian, I'd probably lean toward accepting at AfC. If it's only The Oregonian and local Seattle media, I wouldn't. Valereee (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand – if it's a regional source, and the guideline says that sigcov in regional sources is sufficient, why isn't the regional source sufficient? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me this editor is changing their standards as more sources are revealed - Seattle Times is a relatively major paper - from Wikipedia: "The Seattle Times is a daily newspaper serving Seattle, Washington, United States. It was founded in 1891 and has been owned by the Blethen family since 1896. The Seattle Times has the largest circulation of any newspaper in Washington state and the Pacific Northwest region." - I believe there are multiple cites from this regional source. How is an oregonian paper going to comment on a Seattle coffee shop?! LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty reasonable to say that, in this case, The Seattle Times is acting in its capacity as a local source, not a regional one. But right now, I'm asking Valereee about how she sees regional sourcing in terms of notability. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
tlc, ugh, Portland. Typing faster than my brain works.

In general regional coverage of a restaurant that is outside that regional media's primary audience is fairly convincing to me. So for the NYT, while Buffalo is in its region, actual significant coverage of a Buffalo restaurant is something I'd find reasonably supporting notability, more so than say the Buffalo News. Of a restaurant in Cleveland, though, not even a question. Sigcov supports notability. Valereee (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so we're saying basically the same thing – The Seattle Times is a publication with regional reach, but these sources are best treated as local due to the scope and focus. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would coverage of the restaurant by Bizarre Foods America count as national coverage? I guess that gets into reliability issues. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a few more sources on the talk page re: Zimmern. User:Oaktree b might be interested in TV coverage, based on some previous AfD discussions lately. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LegalSmeagolian: Yes, but it would be disqualified as a niche, non-leading trade publication. I think what NCORP is trying to get across is that someone has to care who wouldn't normally have a reason to. Yeah, an existing coffee shop is gonna get coverage being a coffee shop in Seattle (from people who relentlessly cover coffee shops or Seattle), so NCORP sets the bar a bit higher than that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone has to care who wouldn't normally is exactly right: in this case, we need at least two independent RSes who don't routinely cover Seattle coffee shops. Levivich (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Does not meet CORP; most mentions are trivial. Does not appear to have won any Michelin stars or Zagat reviews, is simply a business going about their daily routine, not unlike any other coffee chain. Oaktree b (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oaktree b: I think that'd be a dupvote? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, the wall of text above was getting too long to notice. I've stricken my !vote, but the point still stands. Oaktree b (talk) 21:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[43] is about all I find, having your window smashed in isn't Wikipedai-worthy. It's mentioned in newspapers in a list of 10 places to get coffee in Seattle, in Dallas papers, in Seattle papers, but these are trivial mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 21:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Seattle Coffee Works
– theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP - there are now 65 references in the article, but notability does not appear supported by the WP:REFCLUTTER. Sources in the article include examples of trivial coverage that lack sufficient depth to support notability per WP:CORPDEPTH, such as inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists, e.g. [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]; another example is the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business, e.g. [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66] [67]; another example is brief mentions with quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, e.g. [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74]. These sources do not provide significant coverage of the company itself and per WP:SIRS, Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other. Other sources do not appear to have WP:ORGIND, e.g. New South Lake Union Coffee Shop Wants to Connect Tech Workers, Homeless and Everyone in Between (Seattle Magazine, 2017) is a brief article based on what owner Sebastian Simsch says about opening a new location, and Local roasters brew for you at Seattle Coffee Works (Seattle P-I, 2011) is brief article based on what Simsch says about opening the business. If there are sources to support notability per WP:NCORP, these would be helpful to add to this discussion, because I have not been able to find them. Beccaynr (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the source analysis from my comment that was moved to the Talk page of this discussion: The 2012 episode of Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern does not seem to be referred to as significant coverage of the company itself, per WP:CORPDEPTH, by sources in the article e.g. SeattleMet "His other Seattle stops included Seattle Coffee Works, Vashon Island’s Sea Breeze Farm, FareStart, and Maneki. It will be interesting to see which local favorites get screen time, and in what proportions."; Seattle Eater "Here is a video of Bizarre Foods host Andrew Zimmern recapping his top five experiences in Seattle. In short order, the list: 5) Coffee(Seattle Coffee Works); 4) Taylor Shellfish Company in Shelton, WA(pulling geoducks out of the sand); 3) Modernist Cuisine Labs("I'm a convert"); 2) Sea Breeze Farm/La Boucherie; and 1) Farestart("what a brilliant full circle system")."; Seattle Eater "The Bizarre Foods host's jam-packed schedule included a shoot at Seattle Coffee Works (where a tipster snapped this photo)". Beccaynr (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: AFD shouldn't be the place to build a new article, but based on my hunch that anyplace listed as X in a city known globally for its connoisseurship of X is probably notable, I did a ProQuest search from scratch on this company's name. There were 29 hits ranging from local media, regional newspapers like The Oregonian, to Canadian newspapers, El Norte in Monterrey, Mexico, and Vogue. Here are a representative three sources I found outside of the Pacific Northwest.

"Coffee Culture" Wickens, Stephen. Toronto Star; Toronto, Ont. [Toronto, Ont]. 04 Feb 2010: T.1. – a coffee tourism specialist (yes, that's a thing) points out this entity specifically to represent Seattle's coffee culture
"A tempest in a coffee pot; Starbucks now 'inspired by' playbook of independents" Braganza, Chantal. Toronto Star; Toronto, Ont. [Toronto, Ont]. 29 Dec 2009: B.3. – describes the company as the target of business intel gathering from Starbucks, due to its excellence
"Seattle is the spot for connoisseurs of experience. The contrast of the lush parks, sparkling water and gleaming skyscrapers offers even the most seasoned traveler the chance to enjoy big-city living with an outdoorsy edge." Sarah Dettmer Great Falls Tribune via Arizona Republic; Phoenix, Ariz. [Phoenix, Ariz]. 12 Mar 2017: P.2. – listed as a destination coffee shops for tourists

And just to go above and beyond, CNN actually described this as one of the "best coffee in the world" places; one of just three listed for Seattle (they didn't bother with any other US cities):

"It's International Coffee Day: Here's where to find the best coffee in the world" Wallace, Elizabeth; Reid, Sarah. CNN Wire Service; Atlanta [Atlanta]. 01 Oct 2019.

For me this is sufficient for a "keep" especially when the additional weight of all the other sources already in the article is considered, on top of other local sources not listed here. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:NCORP#Examples of trivial coverage lists as examples brief or passing mentions, such as: ... in quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, as an example of a type of company or product being discussed and inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists. These four examples you give are literally brief mentions, as an example of a type of company being discussed, as a story source, and in a "best of" list:

Toronto Star 2009: A week before the opening of 15th Avenue Coffee and Tea, the Seattle Times reported that owners of at least two independent shops, Seattle Coffee Works and Victrola Coffee Roasters, spotted Starbucks' employees on research trips lingering in their stores.
Toronto Star 2010: One morning at Seattle Coffee Works, near the market, upon learning that a Canadian was present, a group of sports fans wanted to know about the chances NHL hockey might replace the departed NBA team.
AZ Republic 2017: Best coffee: Resist the urge to walk into a Starbucks. Seattle has several other incredible coffee shops including Seattle Coffee Works, Craftworks Coffee and Seattle Meowtropolitan — the city’s only cat café.
CNN 2019: Top shops: Victrola Coffee Roasters in Capitol Hill, Empire Espresso in Columbia City and Seattle Coffee Works downtown are all solid picks.
Also CNN 2017: Top shops: Victrola Coffee Roasters in Capitol Hill, Empire Espresso in Columbia City and Seattle Coffee Works downtown are all solid picks. (yes, CNN recycles its own copy)
There's also a CNN 2010, but it's just a quote: But small coffee shop owner Sebastian Simsch says it's getting the small details right that's tricky, especially for a company like Starbucks that thinks on a global scale. At the one location of his store Seattle Coffee Works, Simsch roasts his own coffee, chats with customers and picks out furniture that he admits resembles a mismatched living room set.

These are exactly what WP:NCORP#Examples of trivial coverage lists as not meeting NCORP. If these are representative three sources I found, then I don't think you've found any NCORP sources. Levivich (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Coffee Culture" ProQuest 439633759 is not significant coverage of the company itself - it begins with quotes from Jackie McCallum at Caffe L'Arte, then comments on Pike Public Market as a tourist attraction, the Sky City restaurant, Oliver's at the Mayflower Hotel, the Cheese Cellar, Beecher's, and The Chocolate Box, before "One morning at Seattle Coffee Works, near the market, upon learning that a Canadian was present, a group of sports fans wanted to know about the chances NHL hockey might replace the departed NBA team." Then it moves on to Tully's, "a tale about Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz", "Starbucks has since bought the fledgling Clover operation", quotes from a tour guide for Savor Seattle, including "she says she's certain there are lots of new ideas and ventures in the works, pointing to Seattle Coffee Works, a collaboration of local roasters, and to small independent shops, which are everywhere throughout Seattle's up-and-coming neighbourhoods." This is not WP:CORPDEPTH.
"A tempest in a coffee pot; Starbucks now 'inspired by' playbook of independents" ProQuest 439635708 is also not significant coverage of the company itself - this source is about Starbucks, and only briefly mentions the company: "A week before the opening of 15th Avenue Coffee and Tea, the Seattle Times reported that owners of at least two independent shops, Seattle Coffee Works and Victrola Coffee Roasters, spotted Starbucks' employees on research trips lingering in their stores." Also not WP:CORPDEPTH.
"Seattle is the spot for connoisseurs of experience." ProQuest 1992496047 - this is also not significant coverage of the company itself - it is a 'best of' list, and the company is only mentioned: "Best Coffee: Resist the urge to walk into a Starbucks. Seattle has many other incredible coffee shops, including Seattle Coffee Works, Craftworks Coffee and Seattle Meowtropolitan — the city's only cat café." This is not WP:CORPDEPTH.
"It's International Coffee Day: Here's where to find the best coffee in the world" ProQuest 2299410862 is similarly trivial coverage that does not support notability - this is a collection of brief 'best of' listings, i.e. "Top shops: Victrola Coffee Roasters in Capitol Hill, Empire Espresso in Columbia City and Seattle Coffee Works downtown are all solid picks." Also not WP:CORPDEPTH.

One of the issues with building an article with trivial mentions such as the examples above is that it then appears to be an advertisement and warrants exclusion per WP:N and WP:NOTADVERT. Beccaynr (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under WP:NCORP for me too. 82 sources in this article now; the refbombing in this article makes it truly exhausting to review, but what the hell, let's do this. WP:ORGIND failures (refs 1–2, 5, 9, 12, 15–16, 24, 26–27, 30, 33–35, 36, 42, 45–46, 49, 51, 54, 56, 58, 60, 63, 78, 80–82) do not count. "Best of" lists and other listicles (refs 3, 12, 15–16, 46, 61, 67–82) do not count. Non-SIGCOV mentions (refs 4, 6–8, 10, 22, 25–26, 39, 43, 62, 64–66) do not count. Local publications (refs 9, 12–16, 19, 22–23, 26–27, 30–36, 41–42, 45–46, 48–53, 55–56, 58–59, 63) do not count. Being mentioned as a supplementary example in stories about other things (refs 13, 18, 21–23, 28–29, 37–38, 40) does not count. Sources not reliable for things other than their opinion (refs 17, 19, 31) do not count. Inaccessible references (refs 20, 44, 57) could not be evaluated. Unless someone shows SIGCOV in 'em, I say nay. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, fully agree with Beccaynr's points on SIGCOV and NCORP. Well-put. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see numerous book references for Seattle Coffee Works, and also news articles. The article is well written with images, and NTEMP applies to this now closed business. Our policy is to find ATD or a way to Preserve. Deletion of a well written article about a notable business does not serve the project's goals. Lightburst (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What am I missing? The article you've linked to is, for all intents and purposes, a mere mention-in-passing with absolutely zero information about the company, just a small quote from the owner of Seattle Coffee Works near Pike Place Market. It is neither significant nor in-depth. If you're putting forward sources like this in order to establish notability, you're hurting your case, not helping. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you've linked to an article from The Seattle Times, acting as local paper, that doesn't provide any significant coverage of SCW under WP:NCORP. The business is not closed, the prose quality of the article doesn't mean much, and the book sources are all passing mentions. Could you please provide the three sources that don't fail WP:ORGIND, aren't strictly local, aren't listicles, aren't just using it as an example in a broader story, and are reliable source that give significant coverage? Just three. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fall for that deletion booby trap: WP:THREE. That is the way folks get articles deleted - demanding three - and WP:THREE is just an essay. Three is not even a requirement for WP:N which is our actual guideline, There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage. theleekycauldron. We have a preponderance of evidence here in my opinion. Lightburst (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about WP:ONE? Levivich (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NCORP guideline discusses WP:MULTSOURCES, e.g. "A single significant independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. [...] for example, a Bangladeshi women's rights organization from the 1960s might establish notability with just one or two quality sources, while the same is not true for a tech start-up in a major U.S. metropolitan area." And so far, we do not appear to have even one source that can meet the WP:SIRS criteria, which does not permit a preponderance of evidence for supporting notability. This is a local company, and WP:NOTADVERT says these are typically not notable. WP:NCORP is a stricter standard by design, because the guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion, so trivial coverage and company personnel talking about the company is not enough to support encyclopedic content. Beccaynr (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is way overcited, yes. The company is however locally active, active online with both sales and education/entertainment content, and covered by reliable sources. The article can be improved and judgement cannot be limited to content within it. There are more online and print sources that can be used to improve this article. —¿philoserf? (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Philoserf: "Active" doesn't make a company notable. Neither is "covered in RS". Indeed, WP:NCORP is specifically written to impose additional requirements than "it exists" and "it's covered by RS". Can you point to two NCORP sources? Levivich (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a commerical enterprise therefore GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines apply which requires references that discuss the topic (ie the *commerical enterprise*) in detail. So things like reviews of the their coffee or articles that simply label the enterprise as "the best coffee shop in the world" don't go anywhere towards establishing notability. WP:SIRS tells us that *each* reference must meet *all* the criteria for establishing notability - we require at least two deep or significant sources containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Also, in contradiction to some assertions above, the quantity of "coverage" isn't relevant - a million "mentions" or single-sentence descriptions does not meet the criteria. In a nutshell, if this commercial enterprise was truly notable, somebody out there would have written a decent article about it.

In this case, what is really notable is a lack of good faith engagement by the Keep !voters when asked to simply point to two or three sources that in their opinion meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Not many answered, instead calling it a "trap" which is nonsense. One Keep !voter, Bri, responded and provided what they believed were good sources. But Beccanyr correctly pointed out that none meets the criteria. Also, part of Bri's closing argument to justify their !vote Keep was when the additional weight of all the other sources already in the article is considered - but this fails WP:SIRS. For me, having looked at every single source mentioned, none of the sources meet the criteria, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while it gets some local mentions, not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:54, 13 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.